Dominion Strategy Forum
Archive => Archive => Dominion: Adventures Previews => Topic started by: WanderingWinder on March 30, 2015, 12:30:07 pm
-
I’ve got a preview card to discuss today, and I’m not one who likes drawn-out introductions, so let’s get right to it:
(https://dominionstrategy.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/adventurespreviewhomer.png)
Storyteller: Action, $5
+1 Action
+$1
Play up to 3 Treasures from your hand. Pay all of your $; +1 Card per $ paid.
First, a couple of notes for clarity: You don't have to play treasures if you don't want to, but you DO have to spend all the $ you've collected over the course of the turn, including the money from the treasures you're playing, the $ from this card, as well as any you've made from previous actions.
Full disclosure: I haven't tested or played with this card at all, so this is an article of conjecture and of theory-crafting not one built from experience.
The first thing I noticed when I saw this card was that it was another way, besides Black Market, of getting treasures in play during the action phase. Now, some of the Black Market Combos - mostly draw-to-X variants, and Tactician, - aren't "on" here. But some of them – Quarry+gainer, using Horn Of Plenty mid-turn - still do work.
Anyway, these are only fringe benefits - the pet tricks I love and relish, but not, I am guessing, the bulk of what the card's work is. That, namely, is to turn cash into cards. Coppers turn into cantrips, Silvers turn into labs, and Golds turn into double labs. This is, in general, an improvement in every case. And all of this is on a card which is a cantrip by itself. The drawback, of course, is that if you are using this to draw your deck, you are sapping some of the money out of that deck. Still, this really gets your draw going quickly, which is especially potent in the early stages of the game.
Most cards are fairly simple to play once they're in your deck - you just play all your villages and non-terminals first, draw cards before non-draw, and go. But I expect this card will be very tricky to play during the mid- and late-game. You need to know exactly how much money to funnel into it to get the draw you need (need to know how much draw you need for that as well) while still making sure you have enough money left to buy what you need come end of turn. I also want to point out potential anti-synergies with Peddler variants (and Conspirator variants): it may look like this is non-terminal draw/sifting (and it is), and that cantrip-money-based decks seem to love that kind of card. Normally they do, but if you draw this card late in your turn, you might be forced into not playing it at all, because it would sap you of too much money. You can mitigate that some by simply feeding fewer/worse treasures into this, but it's not as much of a pure success as it might at first glance seem.
Ultimately this IS a sifter, with a little bit of non-terminal draw thrown in. Discarding coppers with this is like cellar plus a card; more expensive treasures get you a little more.
What kinds of decks want this? Well, engines would prefer other sifters once they are running, since this one costs economy, but Storyteller does help a lot in getting them running, and this is generally a higher-priority issue. It's worth noting that strong trashing will probably more or less obsolete the need for Storytelling.
Terminal draw Big Money will obviously not like this. The same is true of slogs, since unlike other sifters, this can't get rid of non-treasures. Decks which are somewhere between money decks and engines - decks where treasure is good but you'd really like to play a key action or a couple of key actions very often - seem like ideal homes for this card. Those decks exist now, but they rarely get a chance to shine, being squeezed by often-more-powerful engines and often-faster Big Money strategies. Perhaps Storyteller will allow them to shine more often. In general, you want your payload to be something which is happening at the end of your turn, and not interspersed in the middle. Treasure has this quality, but it’s not the only thing. Many mega-turn strategies like Bridge and Horn Of Plenty don’t care about traditional money. They’ll work particularly nicely with Storyteller.
As for strength, I am going to guess that this card will end up being powerful, but $5 is a price-point with a high bar. Ultimately, we're dealing with a situational card here, so on the right board, in the right spot, it will be something you want to jump on hard, but other times it will not have the impact required for its cost. In other words, the exact thing which is my favorite kind of card.
-
Why does she look away from the audience?
-
Why does she look away from the audience?
I initially hated this picture, but I have come to appreciate how funny it is.
As for the card, I would consider it one of the most complicated cards in the game to play correctly. (it would have made my list in that other thread about this) It's a fascinating one for sure.
-
Why does she look away from the audience?
If she is in like a village market/town square type place putting on this puppet show there are likely people all around her. You are looking at her from the POV of the other half of the audience.
-
Storyteller might be my favorite card in the set. And I'm almost sure I played it terribly every time.
-
Why does she look away from the audience?
I initially hated this picture, but I have come to appreciate how funny it is.
Well, I like the art. I must say, been rather impressed with it so far.
-
Something to note is that, unlike with Stables and Cellar, the treasures used to fuel draw are put into play rather than the discard, never to be drawn again later in the turn (unless Mandarin is gained). So, it really cuts into your buying power potential on the turn treasures are played for draw and you draw your deck. This means you probably want to have something better to do than just generate money after you draw your deck. You're looking for megaturns, vicious attacks, multi-gains, and/or specific combos.
-
My first thought is: "I don't like it!" Which is to say, "I don't know how to use it correctly!"
Markusin's points seem good.
Oh: I wonder if bots will go in fun circles with Secret Chamber/Storeroom and Storyteller.
-
Storyteller isn't obsoleted by strong trashing, though strong trashing might enable a less finicky draw engine. But Storyteller improves with any sort of trashing, so that you have high value treasures in hand with it.
Depending on the board of course, strong trashing can allow you to build insane engines with Storyteller. Big, big stuff.
-
When you Pay, are the cards technically still in play? So coppers played and paid to the Storyteller will still hinder buying a Grand Market later in your turn?
-
When you Pay, are the cards technically still in play? So coppers played and paid to the Storyteller will still hinder buying a Grand Market later in your turn?
Yes, those Coppers are still in play.
-
Storyteller isn't obsoleted by strong trashing, though strong trashing might enable a less finicky draw engine. But Storyteller improves with any sort of trashing, so that you have high value treasures in hand with it.
Depending on the board of course, strong trashing can allow you to build insane engines with Storyteller. Big, big stuff.
True. I thought about this this morning (after I wrote the article, before I posted it). This can still get the draw done. I guess the point is more, this is worse in comparison to other draw engines if strong trashing if they and strong trashing are all available. That is a lot of ifs, I grant.
Village + Smithy = Storyteller + Gold. I think I'd rather have the former most of the time.
-
So if I tell a story about some copper, and then Coppersmith, do those coppers I was telling you about retroactively produce an extra +$1 to buy something with?
-
Storyteller isn't obsoleted by strong trashing, though strong trashing might enable a less finicky draw engine. But Storyteller improves with any sort of trashing, so that you have high value treasures in hand with it.
Depending on the board of course, strong trashing can allow you to build insane engines with Storyteller. Big, big stuff.
Trashing has still got to be good for the usual reasons. You don't want to feed Gold and Silver to this to draw Coppers and Estates. You also want to maximize your chances of drawing Storyteller in the first place if it's your key draw card.
I like how the treasures are put into play, meaning you won't redraw those treasures if you reshuffle while drawing with this like you would with Cellar.
-
So if I tell a story about some copper, and then Coppersmith, do those coppers I was telling you about retroactively produce an extra +$1 to buy something with?
No. Same with Black Market + Coppersmith.
-
"Let me tell you a story about Silvers that are like Labs..."
Man, I'm all ears!
-
I think the takeaway is that Storyteller likes engines where your payload isn't Treasures (well, it also likes Treasures that do other stuff, like Quarry). You don't mind sacrificing your Golds to the babbling puppeteer, so long as you can get your Count/Altar/Goons/etc into your hand.
EDIT: Also, unlike Cellar, there's no chance of undesirable cards getting shuffled back into your deck mid-turn.
EDIT2: If I play a Venture with Storyteller, and that puts a 4th (or more) Treasure in play, does that also count towards Storyteller's draw?
-
Eh, probably will be answered in "Secret Histories", but why is it limited to 3 Treasures?
-
"Let me tell you a story about Silvers that are like Labs..."
Man, I'm all ears!
Story Teller: Silver is no longer a junk card. You are welcome.
-
Storyteller isn't obsoleted by strong trashing, though strong trashing might enable a less finicky draw engine. But Storyteller improves with any sort of trashing, so that you have high value treasures in hand with it.
Depending on the board of course, strong trashing can allow you to build insane engines with Storyteller. Big, big stuff.
True. I thought about this this morning (after I wrote the article, before I posted it). This can still get the draw done. I guess the point is more, this is worse in comparison to other draw engines if strong trashing if they and strong trashing are all available. That is a lot of ifs, I grant.
Village + Smithy = Storyteller + Gold. I think I'd rather have the former most of the time.
True. Although that ratio looks better if you play three Treasures. Also, the Storyteller and Gold are way better when they don't collide than Village and Smithy (assuming Storyteller collides with any cash).
-
Eh, probably will be answered in "Secret Histories", but why is it limited to 3 Treasures?
Power level.
-
Eh, probably will be answered in "Secret Histories", but why is it limited to 3 Treasures?
Power level.
I are need more explain :(
-
Oh man, I just realized how good Storyteller can be for helping incorporate Bank into your engine.
Edit: Bank as payload that is, not as draw.
-
Eh, probably will be answered in "Secret Histories", but why is it limited to 3 Treasures?
Power level.
I are need more explain :(
That's already more strategy advice than I like to give.
-
Finally a card with a dragon!
-
What happens when you can't pay all costs of the cards your already have played?
-
Combo with Scout: Scout to draw Harems, Storyteller+Harems to draw cards!
-
I think the takeaway is that Storyteller likes engines where your payload isn't Treasures (well, it also likes Treasures that do other stuff, like Quarry). You don't mind sacrificing your Golds to the babbling puppeteer, so long as you can get your Count/Altar/Goons/etc into your hand.
EDIT: Also, unlike Cellar, there's no chance of undesirable cards getting shuffled back into your deck mid-turn.
EDIT2: If I play a Venture with Storyteller, and that puts a 4th (or more) Treasure in play, does that also count towards Storyteller's draw?
But that requires having Golds in the first place.
-
I think the takeaway is that Storyteller likes engines where your payload isn't Treasures (well, it also likes Treasures that do other stuff, like Quarry). You don't mind sacrificing your Golds to the babbling puppeteer, so long as you can get your Count/Altar/Goons/etc into your hand.
EDIT: Also, unlike Cellar, there's no chance of undesirable cards getting shuffled back into your deck mid-turn.
EDIT2: If I play a Venture with Storyteller, and that puts a 4th (or more) Treasure in play, does that also count towards Storyteller's draw?
But that requires having Golds in the first place.
As long as your payload isn't something that is generating you money too, because your storyteller will spend it too...
-
What happens when you can't pay all costs of the cards your already have played?
The coin your are paying is the coin that is in your pool, i.e., all the +$ you've collected so far this turn from playing Actions or Treasures (or from Durations). It isn't the cost of any card.
-
Oh.. hm.. it does not affect Coin Tokens, since those can only be spent during the Buy Phase. So would Coin-Token-based payoffs work?
-
Oh, I looove all these previews!!!
You can compare this to Stables.
$X ---(x1)--> +3 Cards
$X ---(x3)--> +X+1 Cards
Plus the money from Action cards (which can be both good or bad...)
With this, Magpie, and Hero, maybe there is a Treasure theme?
-
I still don't get it... :'(
What does "Pay all your $" mean?
-
I still don't get it... :'(
What does "Pay all your $" mean?
Like.. you play a Market, get +$1. Then you Storyteller, get +$1. Then you play Silver, Copper, Copper and get +$4.
So now you have $6. You must pay all of it, and then you draw 6 cards.
-
I don't see a problem with storyteller in engine or treasure decks. All it needs is the draw deck to give you more value than 1 coin per card, and that isn't a very high threshold really.
You should be able to do some clever shuffle management with this card as well.
-
Oh, I looove all these previews!!!
You can compare this to Stables.
$X ---(x1)--> +3 Cards
$X ---(x3)--> +X+1 Cards
Plus the money from Action cards (which can be both good or bad...)
With this, Magpie, and Hero, maybe there is a Treasure theme?
I think you have to be careful with the Stables comparison, because as was pointed out above, Stables discards (and can therefore redraw), while this plays the Treasure, so it cannot draw it.
-
What happens when you can't pay all costs of the cards your already have played?
The coin your are paying is the coin that is in your pool, i.e., all the +$ you've collected so far this turn from playing Actions or Treasures (or from Durations). It isn't the cost of any card.
Thanks for the clarification. I am coming closer on how this card works.
-
The other was a $5 Action with +1 card and +$1, and it did something else too, but I don't remember what it was. It had two words in its name, but I also forgot what those words were.
This is the card!
-
That, namely, is to turn cash into cards. Coppers turn into cantrips, Silvers turn into labs, and Golds turn into double labs, and all on a card which. This is, in general, an improvement in every case. And all of this is on a card which is a cantrip by itself.
Some extraneous words there.
I know that it isn't the main point of the card, but I like that this is another way to get treasures in play during the action phase. Completely agree with WW about that.
-
So... no clarification on Storyteller/Venture?
-
So if I play Storyteller and play Gold, HoP a Mandarin and HoP another Storyteller, with Watchtower in hand, I could do it again, and again, and again... This sounds like it could be fun.
-
What happens if you have negative coin from poor house? Obviously it would (virtually) never come up in a game, but I'm curious whether you can "pay" negative coins.
-
I still don't get it... :'(
What does "Pay all your $" mean?
Let's say I play a Treasury, then a Storyteller, and play a Venture (which drew a Gold) and a Bank as part of the storyteller. How many cards do I draw from the Storyteller?
The Treasury gave me +$1, the Storyteller gave me +$1, and the Venture gave me +$1, the Gold gave me +$3, and the Bank gave me +$3. That's a total of $9.
So I draw 9 cards, and have 11 in hand with 1 action left to play.
Does that example help?
(Edited to fix brain-fart over how much a Gold gave)
-
I think apprentice is a more apt comparison than stables for this. Though neither is really right. This card just plays very differently from any other. I do think it's quite strong if situational but it's also very tricky to play well.
-
So... no clarification on Storyteller/Venture?
You get $ from playing the treasure Venture found so you draw cards for that $.
What happens if you have negative coin from poor house? Obviously it would (virtually) never come up in a game, but I'm curious whether you can "pay" negative coins.
Poor House never lowers your $ below 0. It can only decrease it back to $0.
-
I still don't get it... :'(
What does "Pay all your $" mean?
Let's say I play a Treasury, then a Storyteller, and play a Venture (which drew a Gold) and a Bank as part of the storyteller. How many cards do I draw from the Storyteller?
The Treasury gave me +$1, the Storyteller gave me +$1, and the Venture gave me +$1, the Gold gave me +$1, and the Bank gave me +$3. That's a total of $7.
So I draw 7 cards, and have 9 in hand with 1 action left to play.
Does that example help?
I think someone sold you some fools gold there.
-
So... no clarification on Storyteller/Venture?
You play up to 3 Treasure cards from your hand, but there is no artificial limit on the number of treasures you can play as a result of this card. Venture is a Treasure card and thus you can play it from your hand with this card. Once you play it, you have to resolve all of Venture before you continue resolving Storyteller. Venture digs up another Treasure and then plays it, thus adding to your money count, thus adding to the draw on your Storyteller.
-
...the Gold gave me +$1...
I think someone sold you some fools gold there.
Yeah, I noticed that after I hit "post". It's been fixed.
-
I think apprentice is a more apt comparison than stables for this. Though neither is really right. This card just plays very differently from any other. I do think it's quite strong if situational but it's also very tricky to play well.
In terms of the current turn, I agree. You have a similar "+$2 or +3 Cards" with Silver decision.
-
I still don't get it... :'(
What does "Pay all your $" mean?
Let's say I play a Treasury, then a Storyteller, and play a Venture (which drew a Gold) and a Bank as part of the storyteller. How many cards do I draw from the Storyteller?
The Treasury gave me +$1, the Storyteller gave me +$1, and the Venture gave me +$1, the Gold gave me +$3, and the Bank gave me +$3. That's a total of $9.
So I draw 9 cards, and have 11 in hand with 1 action left to play.
Does that example help?
(Edited to fix brain-fart over how much a Gold gave)
In that case, you get the 9 cards (to continue your action phase) but not the $9 for the buy phase, don't you?
That's the meaning of "Pay all you $"?
Thank you very much!
-
What happens if you have negative coin from poor house? Obviously it would (virtually) never come up in a game, but I'm curious whether you can "pay" negative coins.
Poor House never lowers your $ below 0. It can only decrease it back to $0.
Ah gotcha. Yeah, I realized just after writing this that I may have been remembering this wrong. That actually makes this pretty wonderful with poor house, if you can play all your treasures and then draw up your poor house payload.
-
Jsh
As for the card, I would consider it one of the most complicated cards in the game to play correctly. (it would have made my list in that other thread about this) It's a fascinating one for sure.
So this is what you were referring to in the "Most skilled card in Dominion Thread?"
-
Jsh
As for the card, I would consider it one of the most complicated cards in the game to play correctly. (it would have made my list in that other thread about this) It's a fascinating one for sure.
So this is what you were referring to in the "Most skilled card in Dominion Thread?"
No. There are more candidates than this, but Storyteller is definitely up there.
-
I still don't get it... :'(
What does "Pay all your $" mean?
Let's say I play a Treasury, then a Storyteller, and play a Venture (which drew a Gold) and a Bank as part of the storyteller. How many cards do I draw from the Storyteller?
The Treasury gave me +$1, the Storyteller gave me +$1, and the Venture gave me +$1, the Gold gave me +$3, and the Bank gave me +$3. That's a total of $9.
So I draw 9 cards, and have 11 in hand with 1 action left to play.
Does that example help?
(Edited to fix brain-fart over how much a Gold gave)
In that case, you get the 9 cards (to continue your action phase) but not the $9 for the buy phase, don't you?
That's the meaning of "Pay all you $"?
Correct. 'Pay' in this sense means spend/use/lose the $X you've accumulated thus far in the turn, and in exchange draw X cards. You now have an extra X cards, and $0.
I agree 'Pay' is a bit cryptic as it stands; I'm sure it's elaborated in the FAQ.
-
Oh, I looove all these previews!!!
You can compare this to Stables.
$X ---(x1)--> +3 Cards
$X ---(x3)--> +X+1 Cards
Plus the money from Action cards (which can be both good or bad...)
With this, Magpie, and Hero, maybe there is a Treasure theme?
I think you have to be careful with the Stables comparison, because as was pointed out above, Stables discards (and can therefore redraw), while this plays the Treasure, so it cannot draw it.
I think the bigger problem with the comparison is that with this, if you only discard copper, you aren't ever increasing your hand-size; the same is not true of Stables. Also, this is never dead (though you may not want to play it), whereas Stables can be.
That, namely, is to turn cash into cards. Coppers turn into cantrips, Silvers turn into labs, and Golds turn into double labs, and all on a card which. This is, in general, an improvement in every case. And all of this is on a card which is a cantrip by itself.
Some extraneous words there.
I know that it isn't the main point of the card, but I like that this is another way to get treasures in play during the action phase. Completely agree with WW about that.
:/ I apparently missed an issue whilst editing... which I am sure I introduced in editing. Thanks for pointing this out, should be fixed now.
As for the "do I want treasures" kind of questions - I think pretty clearly this card isn't very good without treasures in your deck. It's just a cantrip mostly. Sure, you can construct scenarios where you are playing coin-producing cantrips and want this to play after to draw with, but I am guessing that's really rare. It feels like it would be rare, anyway.
-
Oh, I looove all these previews!!!
You can compare this to Stables.
$X ---(x1)--> +3 Cards
$X ---(x3)--> +X+1 Cards
Plus the money from Action cards (which can be both good or bad...)
With this, Magpie, and Hero, maybe there is a Treasure theme?
I think you have to be careful with the Stables comparison, because as was pointed out above, Stables discards (and can therefore redraw), while this plays the Treasure, so it cannot draw it.
I think the bigger problem with the comparison is that with this, if you only discard copper, you aren't ever increasing your hand-size; the same is not true of Stables. Also, this is never dead (though you may not want to play it), whereas Stables can be.
Right, in that case it's just (modified) sifting, which you originally pointed out.
Edit: Oh, original post says "Discarding Coppers", though you're really Playing instead of Discarding.
-
This card looks like it might be the output of a chain of design ideas that began with the version of Jester that allows you to swap the vanilla bonuses another card gives you—it's an implementation of "swap +$ for +Cards".
-
I guess the next question is - who are the lucky buggers who get to preview a card Tuesday through Friday?
-
I guess the next question is - who are the lucky buggers who get to preview a card Tuesday through Friday?
They're all Wandering Winder.
-
This card looks like it might be the output of a chain of design ideas that began with the version of Jester that allows you to swap the vanilla bonuses another card gives you—it's an implementation of "swap +$ for +Cards".
No, it goes back to trying "pay $ to draw cards" in Prosperity.
-
So a question I thought of today is whether paying your (coin symbol thing) includes potions; obviously if it does, that doesn't translate to cards. I am guessing it doesn't, only because that symbol is the same one from Salvager, and Salvager doesn't add potion to my pool if I trash e.g. Possession.
-
So a question I thought of today is whether paying your (coin symbol thing) includes potions; obviously if it does, that doesn't translate to cards. I am guessing it doesn't, only because that symbol is the same one from Salvager, and Salvager doesn't add potion to my pool if I trash e.g. Possession.
You can obv. play a Potion with Storyteller; [Potion] isn't lost and doesn't get you any cards.
-
I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!
-
I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!
They are not the same at all.
-
This sounds like a supercharged +buy in action form to me.
Imagine a board with no +buy that has Storyteller. You could play Storyteller, spend 8, buy your province, draw 8 cards and keep going.
On the topic of Poor House, could it interact with it in another way. Could it be used to have one lot of buys using your treasure and then another with Poor Houses being worth 4.
-
This sounds like a supercharged +buy in action form to me.
Imagine a board with no +buy that has Storyteller. You could play Storyteller, spend 8, buy your province, draw 8 cards and keep going.
On the topic of Poor House, could it interact with it in another way. Could it be used to have one lot of buys using your treasure and then another with Poor Houses being worth 4.
Storyteller does not let you Buy or Gain anything.
-
I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!
They are not the same at all.
Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.
-
I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!
They are not the same at all.
@Captain Stupendous, key thing is that +1 card would have you draw the 1 before playing treasures, which means you could play any treasure you draw with the first part of that resolution during the second part of that resolution.
This sounds like a supercharged +buy in action form to me.
Imagine a board with no +buy that has Storyteller. You could play Storyteller, spend 8, buy your province, draw 8 cards and keep going.
On the topic of Poor House, could it interact with it in another way. Could it be used to have one lot of buys using your treasure and then another with Poor Houses being worth 4.
I don't think you understand the card. You can't buy anything while this card is resolving - the $$ you are paying goes to this card in order to draw, and doesn't do anything else. If it acted like you are suggesting, it would be completely busted good.
PPE: Double ninja'd
-
I still don't get it... :'(
What does "Pay all your $" mean?
Let's say I play a Treasury, then a Storyteller, and play a Venture (which drew a Gold) and a Bank as part of the storyteller. How many cards do I draw from the Storyteller?
The Treasury gave me +$1, the Storyteller gave me +$1, and the Venture gave me +$1, the Gold gave me +$3, and the Bank gave me +$3. That's a total of $9.
So I draw 9 cards, and have 11 in hand with 1 action left to play.
Does that example help?
(Edited to fix brain-fart over how much a Gold gave)
In that case, you get the 9 cards (to continue your action phase) but not the $9 for the buy phase, don't you?
That's the meaning of "Pay all you $"?
Correct. 'Pay' in this sense means spend/use/lose the $X you've accumulated thus far in the turn, and in exchange draw X cards. You now have an extra X cards, and $0.
I agree 'Pay' is a bit cryptic as it stands; I'm sure it's elaborated in the FAQ.
I hope it's elaborated upon. Intuitively "spend" would have been clearer than "pay" in my mind, but I'm guessing there's a reason it's "pay" we just don't know it yet.
-
Ok, read it again. So it is buying extra card draws. I misunderstood pay all the coin as spend all the coin you have played (i.e. as in buying cards).
-
Thanks guys, that makes sense!
-
I hope it's elaborated upon. Intuitively "spend" would have been clearer than "pay" in my mind, but I'm guessing there's a reason it's "pay" we just don't know it yet.
I do not think saying "spend" there would have improved things. There will be a rulebook with a FAQ as always.
-
I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!
They are not the same at all.
Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.
Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.
-
I'm guessing that it's just simpler wording than "-All your coins. Do something for each minus."
-
I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!
They are not the same at all.
Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.
Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.
I would argue (and did at the time) that "Play then draw" is more elegant than "Draw then play then draw".
-
I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!
They are not the same at all.
Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.
Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.
When N is bigger than 1, N squared is bigger than N. Consider the case where a typical card in your deck is a treasure worth $100.
-
I hope it's elaborated upon. Intuitively "spend" would have been clearer than "pay" in my mind, but I'm guessing there's a reason it's "pay" we just don't know it yet.
"Pay" lines up with "overpay" from Guilds.
-
Wow, this is one expensive Warehouse...
-
Does Storyteller + Philosopher's Stone work or is it too hard to line them up early enough in your turn? Normally, Philosopher's Stone gets you a decent amount of money but you can't do much with it because you can't draw your deck without making the Stones useless when you enter the buy phase. With Storyteller, you can play those Stones early when they are still worth something, and use that extra money to draw your deck.
If you have a sifter like Cellar or Warehouse, you can line up your Stones with Storyteller hopefully before you play or draw too many cards. If you have a Vault, Secret Chamber or Storeroom, and enough villages, then you can use them with Storyteller to line up Storytellers and Stones while still leaving plenty of cards in your deck and discard pile to power up the Stones. Then, once you've drawn most of your deck with Storyteller/Stone, you can use Vault/Secret Chamber/Storeroom to discard all the junk you drew for some economy as you enter the buy phase.
If you can line up a hand with Storyteller + 3 Philosopher's Stones, then you can draw 3/5 of your remaining cards without really wasting any money (the Stones will be useless once you've drawn your deck anyway). Even if you only get one Stone with the Storyteller the first time around, you can still draw more than 1/5 of your deck, which may be enough to line up a second Storyteller with some remaining Stones or else get you some other drawing cards. In a game with lots of junking and/or large decks (perhaps Vineyards, since you've already got a Potion lying around), maybe that could make some nice engine-like turns from what might otherwise be a slog?
-
I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!
They are not the same at all.
Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.
Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.
When N is bigger than 1, N squared is bigger than N. Consider the case where a typical card in your deck is a treasure worth $100.
I don't know what your math is about, but it's still a 1-card sifting difference, treating the next card as if it were already available to use with Storyteller's effect (should the player wish to use the treasure that way). A plus, but most of the time it won't make any difference.
-
I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!
They are not the same at all.
Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.
Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.
When N is bigger than 1, N squared is bigger than N. Consider the case where a typical card in your deck is a treasure worth $100.
I don't know what your math is about, but it's still a 1-card sifting difference, treating the next card as if it were already available to use with Storyteller's effect (should the player wish to use the treasure that way). A plus, but most of the time it won't make any difference.
You don't find it neat to have a card that gives a coin you can never use?
-
Wow, this is one expensive Warehouse...
Is warehouse worse because storyteller exists?
-
I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!
They are not the same at all.
Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.
Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.
When N is bigger than 1, N squared is bigger than N. Consider the case where a typical card in your deck is a treasure worth $100.
I don't know what your math is about, but it's still a 1-card sifting difference, treating the next card as if it were already available to use with Storyteller's effect (should the player wish to use the treasure that way). A plus, but most of the time it won't make any difference.
It could be a much bigger difference than 1 card because you would be able to draw a treasure that you feed to Storyteller. It would also give you more information before the decision of what treasures to give Storyteller (if any), thus making the card more powerful. The difference is not trivial.
-
It is precisely a 1-card sifting difference. Whether this is "trivial" or not is something I'll let you and other people discuss.
It's a plus, and it's a plus that most of the time won't make a difference.
-
Wow, this is one expensive Warehouse...
But it's better than Cellar.
-
I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!
They are not the same at all.
Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.
Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.
When N is bigger than 1, N squared is bigger than N. Consider the case where a typical card in your deck is a treasure worth $100.
I don't know what your math is about, but it's still a 1-card sifting difference, treating the next card as if it were already available to use with Storyteller's effect (should the player wish to use the treasure that way). A plus, but most of the time it won't make any difference.
You don't find it neat to have a card that gives a coin you can never use?
You do use it. Immediately and without discretion.
-
It is precisely a 1-card sifting difference. Whether this is "trivial" or not is something I'll let you and other people discuss.
It's a plus, and it's a plus that most of the time won't make a difference.
Where do you even get "1 card difference" from? Whether it's +1 Card or +$1, Storyteller draws you one more card. The difference is that the earlier +1 Card would let you draw a treasure and feed it to Storyteller whereas the +$1 would not. Thus, the sifting difference depends on that treasure you may draw and play to Storyteller. If you draw a Copper, sure, it gives you an extra card. But if you draw a better treasure, the difference is much bigger.
Edit: Maybe you mean, it's 1 card sifting difference because you potentially play out 1 extra treasure and no more. I guess you aren't considering the extra draw that comes out of that treasure play? I suppose you may ignore that for discussion of "sifting", but the extra draw is an important consideration and it makes the +1 card vs. +$1 very, very different.
-
This card too, has interesting interactions with watchtower. Unfortunatly it does not decrease handsize, but it does replace those coppers in you hand with something that hopefully can decreasure handsize for your watchtower. However the best combo involves three cards; storyteller, watchtower, and horn of plenty. When you play the horn of plenty with soothsayer, you actually do decrease handsize, and you get to topdeck the gained card with watchtower. Then you can play the watchtower and draw the gained card and more, and continue your turn.
I'll see you tomorrow for another explanations of how each and every card in Adventures combos with watchtower.
-
It is precisely a 1-card sifting difference. Whether this is "trivial" or not is something I'll let you and other people discuss.
It's a plus, and it's a plus that most of the time won't make a difference.
Where do you even get "1 card difference" from? Whether it's +1 Card or +$1, Storyteller draws you one more card. The difference is that the earlier +1 Card would let you draw a treasure and feed it to Storyteller whereas the +$1 would not. Thus, the sifting difference depends on that treasure you may draw and play to Storyteller. If you draw a Copper, sure, it gives you an extra card. But if you draw a better treasure, the difference is much bigger.
Edit: Maybe you mean, it's 1 card sifting difference because you potentially play out 1 extra treasure and no more. I guess you aren't considering the extra draw that comes out of that treasure play? I suppose you may ignore that for discussion of "sifting", but the extra draw is an important consideration and it makes the +1 card vs. +$1 very, very different.
Changing the +1$ of Storyteller to +1 Card gives you the opportunity to consider that 1 card as part of your hand before resolving the rest of Storyteller, rather than after. That is effectively a 1-card sift, and all we need to say on the matter as far as describing the immediate functional difference.
Most of the time, you've already got some treasures in your hand and don't need the additional options of that +1 card sift. So most of the time it doesn't make a difference.
Since most of the time it won't make a difference, I disagree that it is "very, very different."
It would be a small plus, that is all.
-
It is precisely a 1-card sifting difference. Whether this is "trivial" or not is something I'll let you and other people discuss.
It's a plus, and it's a plus that most of the time won't make a difference.
Where do you even get "1 card difference" from? Whether it's +1 Card or +$1, Storyteller draws you one more card. The difference is that the earlier +1 Card would let you draw a treasure and feed it to Storyteller whereas the +$1 would not. Thus, the sifting difference depends on that treasure you may draw and play to Storyteller. If you draw a Copper, sure, it gives you an extra card. But if you draw a better treasure, the difference is much bigger.
Edit: Maybe you mean, it's 1 card sifting difference because you potentially play out 1 extra treasure and no more. I guess you aren't considering the extra draw that comes out of that treasure play? I suppose you may ignore that for discussion of "sifting", but the extra draw is an important consideration and it makes the +1 card vs. +$1 very, very different.
Changing the +1$ of Storyteller to +1 Card gives you the opportunity to consider that 1 card as part of your hand before resolving the rest of Storyteller, rather than after. That is effectively a 1-card sift, and all we need to say on the matter as far as describing the immediate functional difference.
Most of the time, you've already got some treasures in your hand and don't need the additional options of that +1 card sift. So most of the time it doesn't make a difference.
Since most of the time it won't make a difference, I disagree that it is "very, very different."
It would be a small plus, that is all.
Speaking as someone who has played with both cards, I disagree.
-
I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!
They are not the same at all.
Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.
Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.
When N is bigger than 1, N squared is bigger than N. Consider the case where a typical card in your deck is a treasure worth $100.
I don't know what your math is about, but it's still a 1-card sifting difference, treating the next card as if it were already available to use with Storyteller's effect (should the player wish to use the treasure that way). A plus, but most of the time it won't make any difference.
You don't find it neat to have a card that gives a coin you can never use?
"Wow, +1 $? Cool, just what i need! What, why am i broke now?"
I guess that's why she's a storyteller. I really don't like it.
And hey, now we "pay" coins. We didn't need that before, but i guess if you allready play Treasures in your action phase (instead of, dunno, setting them aside, or making it a $4 dependant on virtual money) and have a cantrip disguise itself as a Copper, why stop?
I know you all love crazy. Dark Ages was the craziest expansion until now, and you guys love it. I'm just actually worried whether the (admittedly) few of us that actually prefer simple will have much to look forward to :-\
And yes, i realize i'm pretty much alone on this.
Edit: I see why you would decide to not add the additional sifting. But i really feel it's counterintuitive.
-
Speaking as someone who has played with both cards, I disagree.
Well it might be more of a plus than I imagine, but I cannot see it being "very, very different".
For a direct analog, imagine if Stables also gave you the option to look at the top card of your deck and if it is a treasure, discard it for +2 cards. Stables would be a little bit better with that additional 1-card sift, but the difference would be small.
(Stables benefits a little more because it could be a dead card without that sift, whereas Storyteller is never dead)
-
I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!
They are not the same at all.
Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.
Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.
When N is bigger than 1, N squared is bigger than N. Consider the case where a typical card in your deck is a treasure worth $100.
I don't know what your math is about, but it's still a 1-card sifting difference, treating the next card as if it were already available to use with Storyteller's effect (should the player wish to use the treasure that way). A plus, but most of the time it won't make any difference.
You don't find it neat to have a card that gives a coin you can never use?
"Wow, +1 $? Cool, just what i need! What, why am i broke now?"
I guess that's why she's a storyteller. I really don't like it.
And hey, now we "pay" coins. We didn't need that before, but i guess if you allready play Treasures in your action phase (instead of, dunno, setting them aside, or making it a $4 dependant on virtual money) and have a cantrip disguise itself as a Copper, why stop?
I know you all love crazy. Dark Ages was the craziest expansion until now, and you guys love it. I'm just actually worried whether the (admittedly) few of us that actually prefer simple will have much to look forward to :-\
And yes, i realize i'm pretty much alone on this.
Don't worry, there are some cards in the set I think will be to your liking. :) Can't really specify, though, sorry.
-
Most of the time, you've already got some treasures in your hand and don't need the additional options of that +1 card sift. So most of the time it doesn't make a difference.
Since most of the time it won't make a difference, I disagree that it is "very, very different."
Consider Russian roulette with a single bullet inserted into a 6-chamber revolver, and the same game but now with no bullet at all. Most of the rounds of both games play out exactly the same regardless of whether there is a bullet in the revolver or not.
Since most of the time it won't make a difference, the version with the bullet is not "very, very different" at all.
-
And there are some which he reaaaaly won't like. But I get where hes coming from. At some point dominon cards will cross some sort of complexity line. And the more sets we get the more people will feel like that due to the inevitable complexity creep.
For me personally, I really like the new set but I have a pretty high tolerance for wackiness
-
Edit: I see why you would decide to not add the additional sifting. But i really feel it's counterintuitive.
I like that it's a small reminder that all your Coins get converted into +Cards, not just the ones from the Treasures you played.
-
Most of the time, you've already got some treasures in your hand and don't need the additional options of that +1 card sift. So most of the time it doesn't make a difference.
Since most of the time it won't make a difference, I disagree that it is "very, very different."
Consider Russian roulette with a single bullet inserted into a 6-chamber revolver, and the same game but now with no bullet at all. Most of the rounds of both games play out exactly the same regardless of whether there is a bullet in the revolver or not.
Since most of the time it won't make a difference, the version with the bullet is not "very, very different" at all.
Funny, but no. The analog would be playing Russian roulette with either a 6-chamber revolver or a 7-chamber revolver. The same number of loaded bullets exists in either case.
-
Edit: I see why you would decide to not add the additional sifting. But i really feel it's counterintuitive.
I like that it's a small reminder that all your Coins get converted into +Cards, not just the ones from the Treasures you played.
It might be a reminder, but it's also misleading. Which weights more?
Also, for those arguing the $1 was needed to avoid sifting, you could have the card draw after playing Treasures, similar to how Oracle does it.
-
Most of the time, you've already got some treasures in your hand and don't need the additional options of that +1 card sift. So most of the time it doesn't make a difference.
Since most of the time it won't make a difference, I disagree that it is "very, very different."
Consider Russian roulette with a single bullet inserted into a 6-chamber revolver, and the same game but now with no bullet at all. Most of the rounds of both games play out exactly the same regardless of whether there is a bullet in the revolver or not.
Since most of the time it won't make a difference, the version with the bullet is not "very, very different" at all.
Funny, but no. The analog would be playing Russian roulette with either a 6-chamber revolver or a 7-chamber revolver. The same number of loaded bullets exists in either case.
Actually, the correct analog would be a revolver with chambers equal to the size of your deck, bullets equal to the number of Treasures in it; you put the bullets in randomly, and only spin it once. With the official Storyteller, you fire the gun four times; with your suggestion, you fire five times. This assumes firing just moves to the next chamber, and doesn't spin everything around again.
Also, for those arguing the $1 was needed to avoid sifting, you could have the card draw after playing Treasures, similar to how Oracle does it.
That would look weird. I mean, weirder than Storyteller already does.
+ Bonus
TEXT TEXT TEXT
TEXT TEXT TEXT
TEXT TEXT TEXT
+Bonus
-
Speaking as someone who has played with both cards, I disagree.
Well it might be more of a plus than I imagine, but I cannot see it being "very, very different".
For a direct analog, imagine if Stables also gave you the option to look at the top card of your deck and if it is a treasure, discard it for +2 cards. Stables would be a little bit better with that additional 1-card sift, but the difference would be small.
(Stables benefits a little more because it could be a dead card without that sift, whereas Storyteller is never dead)
That is not a good analogy. For Stables vs. your variant, you ultimately draw 3 cards in total either way. With Storyteller, the +1 Card version can draw more than the +$1 version.
-
I imagine how frustrating may be Heralding into Storyteller after Kinged Grand Market chain :)
-
Edit: I see why you would decide to not add the additional sifting. But i really feel it's counterintuitive.
I like that it's a small reminder that all your Coins get converted into +Cards, not just the ones from the Treasures you played.
It might be a reminder, but it's also misleading. Which weights more?
Also, for those arguing the $1 was needed to avoid sifting, you could have the card draw after playing Treasures, similar to how Oracle does it.
Well, think about it this way. If Storyteller had ended up with +1 Card instead of +$1, it likely would have only let you play two Treasure cards. That's the other version that was being considered. Since the thrust of the card was converting Treasures into drawing power, I vastly prefer the version which lets you do as much of that conversion as possible.
Now since you personally don't like Storyteller's concept, I don't expect that line of reasoning to sway you. But for me it's pretty compelling.
-
I imagine how frustrating may be Heralding into Storyteller after Kinged Grand Market chain :)
That deck sounds like it's totally overkill in multiple ways.
-
I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!
They are not the same at all.
Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.
Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.
When N is bigger than 1, N squared is bigger than N. Consider the case where a typical card in your deck is a treasure worth $100.
I don't know what your math is about, but it's still a 1-card sifting difference, treating the next card as if it were already available to use with Storyteller's effect (should the player wish to use the treasure that way). A plus, but most of the time it won't make any difference.
You don't find it neat to have a card that gives a coin you can never use?
"Wow, +1 $? Cool, just what i need! What, why am i broke now?"
I guess that's why she's a storyteller. I really don't like it.
And hey, now we "pay" coins. We didn't need that before, but i guess if you allready play Treasures in your action phase (instead of, dunno, setting them aside, or making it a $4 dependant on virtual money) and have a cantrip disguise itself as a Copper, why stop?
I know you all love crazy. Dark Ages was the craziest expansion until now, and you guys love it. I'm just actually worried whether the (admittedly) few of us that actually prefer simple will have much to look forward to :-\
And yes, i realize i'm pretty much alone on this.
Edit: I see why you would decide to not add the additional sifting. But i really feel it's counterintuitive.
I think you're setting it up as more convoluted than it is. Really, it's a simple idea: Spend money, draw cards. It's just the mechanics of the game that make explaining how it works a bit more complicated.
Edit: And another reason for the +$1; the card gives you the thing you need to use it's other part. It's effect is turning $->Cards, so it gives you some $ for the fuel.
-
I don't understand why this is such a great engine card. Sure, you discard your big treasures or use your virtual cash to draw your deck, I get that this can work. But now all your cards that give you money for a giant payload are in play. Suppose you want to hit 16. Then your deck not only needs to have $16 in it, but also enough extra money for your storyteller(s) to draw your deck. And generally cards that give you money don't contribute to drawing your deck, so I think the giant engine must take quite a long time to build. Maybe it is for decks that can do lots of gaining and playing mid-turn with a drawn deck?
Also, none of the cards previewed today let us empty the supply in 3-turns in single player :(. It really doesn't take much help to make it possible, just one new card that makes it possible to do just one more thing would probably be enough. I'm really hoping that this card exists.
-
Speaking as someone who has played with both cards, I disagree.
Well it might be more of a plus than I imagine, but I cannot see it being "very, very different".
For a direct analog, imagine if Stables also gave you the option to look at the top card of your deck and if it is a treasure, discard it for +2 cards. Stables would be a little bit better with that additional 1-card sift, but the difference would be small.
(Stables benefits a little more because it could be a dead card without that sift, whereas Storyteller is never dead)
That is not a good analogy. For Stables vs. your variant, you ultimately draw 3 cards in total either way. With Storyteller, the +1 Card version can draw more than the +$1 version.
If you already had 3 copies of the highest treasures available in hand, the Storyteller with +1 sifting also cannot draw more. The analogy holds as far as the sifting aspect, which is all it was intended to hold for. In the case of Stables it's a simple binary outcome, discard a treasure and get a net of +2 cards or don't. And that simplicity is what makes it a useful analogy, the cards aren't directly comparable beyond whether sifting helps them hit something and I was not saying that they were.
Look everyone, sifting is a good thing and that's why cards like warehouse and cellar exist. But doing so for 1 card to check whether it is a treasure -- and if it is a treasure, may or may not be one you want to play as part of the 3 that you get to play with Storyteller -- is a small effect. Offhand, I'm not even sure if the effect is greater than adding a Pearl Diver to your deck. Probably smaller.
-
Compared side by side to Stables, Storyteller draws you one less free, guaranteed draw, but gives you two more slots for converting treasures to draws.
-
Compared side by side to Stables, Storyteller draws you one less free, guaranteed card, but gives you two more slots for converting treasures to draws.
Stables can do more with less, but Storyteller can do something with nothing, and more with more.
-
While this card seems strong, I'm going to come out now and say this card isn't that great, and if there is already trashing and card draw, i'd consider ignoring this card altogether.
-
While this card seems strong, I'm going to come out now and say this card isn't that great, and if there is already trashing and card draw, i'd consider ignoring this card altogether.
So what you're saying is... depends on the kingdom?
-
What I find most interesting is that three Lab variants were previewed today.
-
I don't understand why this is such a great engine card.
Who said it was?
Also, none of the cards previewed today let us empty the supply in 3-turns in single player :(. It really doesn't take much help to make it possible, just one new card that makes it possible to do just one more thing would probably be enough. I'm really hoping that this card exists.
Does Magpie not help?
-
If you already had 3 copies of the highest treasures available in hand, the Storyteller with +1 sifting also cannot draw more.
And apparently you always do!
-
I don't understand why this is such a great engine card.
Who said it was?
Also, none of the cards previewed today let us empty the supply in 3-turns in single player :(. It really doesn't take much help to make it possible, just one new card that makes it possible to do just one more thing would probably be enough. I'm really hoping that this card exists.
Does Magpie not help?
Don't give up hope, there's always tomorrow.
-
Does Lost City let Celestial Chameleon empty the supply on Turn 2?
-
If you already had 3 copies of the highest treasures available in hand, the Storyteller with +1 sifting also cannot draw more.
And apparently you always do!
No.. but I do sometimes go on to write sentences that explain my point.
-
Compared side by side to Stables, Storyteller draws you one less free, guaranteed card, but gives you two more slots for converting treasures to draws.
Stables can do more with less, but Storyteller can do something with nothing, and more with more.
And your chicks for free.
-
If you already had 3 copies of the highest treasures available in hand, the Storyteller with +1 sifting also cannot draw more. The analogy holds as far as the sifting aspect, which is all it was intended to hold for. In the case of Stables it's a simple binary outcome, discard a treasure and get a net of +2 cards or don't. And that simplicity is what makes it a useful analogy, the cards aren't directly comparable beyond whether sifting helps them hit something and I was not saying that they were.
Look everyone, sifting is a good thing and that's why cards like warehouse and cellar exist. But doing so for 1 card to check whether it is a treasure -- and if it is a treasure, may or may not be one you want to play as part of the 3 that you get to play with Storyteller -- is a small effect. Offhand, I'm not even sure if the effect is greater than adding a Pearl Diver to your deck. Probably smaller.
Hey, I asked if you were only focusing on that 1 card sifting, and pointed out that there is more to consider:
Maybe you mean, it's 1 card sifting difference because you potentially play out 1 extra treasure and no more. I guess you aren't considering the extra draw that comes out of that treasure play? I suppose you may ignore that for discussion of "sifting", but the extra draw is an important consideration and it makes the +1 card vs. +$1 very, very different.
And all this is pertinent because it speaks to why having +1 card would change a lot more than just 1 extra card of sifting, as you originally asserted:
I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!
They are not the same at all.
Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.
Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.
Sure, the card isn't going to draw you more if you already had 3 copies of the highest treasure in hand. It also isn't going to draw you more if that +1 card doesn't draw you another treasure. The point is that it could draw you more, potentially a lot more. And it's never going to draw you less.
-
I don't understand why this is such a great engine card.
Who said it was?
Mic did: Storyteller isn't obsoleted by strong trashing, though strong trashing might enable a less finicky draw engine. But Storyteller improves with any sort of trashing, so that you have high value treasures in hand with it.
Depending on the board of course, strong trashing can allow you to build insane engines with Storyteller. Big, big stuff.
Also, none of the cards previewed today let us empty the supply in 3-turns in single player :(. It really doesn't take much help to make it possible, just one new card that makes it possible to do just one more thing would probably be enough. I'm really hoping that this card exists.
Does Magpie not help?
For the first three turns? No way. For perfect shuffle luck it's pretty much strictly worse than menagerie, and menagerie isn't useful either. If you mean for emptying the pile, that isn't the trouble, because you need to really explode in mid turn gains to empty all the treasure piles anyway. It doesn't help you keep going one you have all the magpies at all.
-
Compared side by side to Stables, Storyteller draws you one less free, guaranteed card, but gives you two more slots for converting treasures to draws.
Stables can do more with less, but Storyteller can do something with nothing, and more with more.
Storyteller just replaces itself with nothing else to work with. That's not really doing anything. Stables will do less than nothing on the rarest of occasions... Storyteller is definitely the more high maintenance card of the two.
-
If you already had 3 copies of the highest treasures available in hand, the Storyteller with +1 sifting also cannot draw more.
And apparently you always do!
No.. but I do sometimes go on to write sentences that explain my point.
In fact I endlessly spend time explaining obvious things to people on the internet. Hey it's part of the job and it's easy.
And I gave you some sentences; they just didn't do much for you. I don't see why additional sentences would be treated differently. At the same time this hypothetical card is too close to a real card for it to be great for me to endlessly analyze it. I don't need to convince you of anything; believe whatever you want about that hypothetical card.
-
If you already had 3 copies of the highest treasures available in hand, the Storyteller with +1 sifting also cannot draw more.
And apparently you always do!
No.. but I do sometimes go on to write sentences that explain my point.
In fact I endlessly spend time explaining obvious things to people on the internet. Hey it's part of the job and it's easy.
And I gave you some sentences; they just didn't do much for you. I don't see why additional sentences would be treated differently. At the same time this hypothetical card is too close to a real card for it to be great for me to endlessly analyze it. I don't need to convince you of anything; believe whatever you want about that hypothetical card.
Not all sentences are created equal!
-
Solitaire speed emptying Supply currently depends on connecting Procession-Procession-Fortress-Watchtower. Improving on existing methods is really just about getting there faster, either with cards that do more on the first two turns or that will help you assemble what you're missing on Turn 3.
-
If you already had 3 copies of the highest treasures available in hand, the Storyteller with +1 sifting also cannot draw more.
And apparently you always do!
No.. but I do sometimes go on to write sentences that explain my point.
In fact I endlessly spend time explaining obvious things to people on the internet. Hey it's part of the job and it's easy.
And I gave you some sentences; they just didn't do much for you. I don't see why additional sentences would be treated differently. At the same time this hypothetical card is too close to a real card for it to be great for me to endlessly analyze it. I don't need to convince you of anything; believe whatever you want about that hypothetical card.
Not all sentences are created equal!
But my post already had the three best sentences.
-
If you already had 3 copies of the highest treasures available in hand, the Storyteller with +1 sifting also cannot draw more.
And apparently you always do!
No.. but I do sometimes go on to write sentences that explain my point.
In fact I endlessly spend time explaining obvious things to people on the internet. Hey it's part of the job and it's easy.
And I gave you some sentences; they just didn't do much for you. I don't see why additional sentences would be treated differently. At the same time this hypothetical card is too close to a real card for it to be great for me to endlessly analyze it. I don't need to convince you of anything; believe whatever you want about that hypothetical card.
Sorry for being unclear, I did not write that to imply you're not explaining yourself.
I was objecting to having my first sentence quoted by itself there, when the rest of my post is where I actually got into the point I had to make
-
Solitaire speed emptying Supply currently depends on connecting Procession-Procession-Fortress-Watchtower. Improving on existing methods is really just about getting there faster, either with cards that do more on the first two turns or that will help you assemble what you're missing on Turn 3.
Nonsense. Colliding those four cards is the ideal case, but there are many ways to get there, most of which don't include starting with those 4 cards in your deck. It's certainly possible that there is a card in adventures that could replace one of those cards too (as long as it isn't watchtower). Things with other TfB instead of procession are possible too. But yes, it is about speed to get cards that let you gain cards that let you gain cards that gain cards with increasing power. Magpie actually could help with that, except that it doesn't increase in power ever; you just gain more magpies until there are no more magpies and then you are done.
-
I don't understand why this is such a great engine card.
Who said it was?
Mic did: Storyteller isn't obsoleted by strong trashing, though strong trashing might enable a less finicky draw engine. But Storyteller improves with any sort of trashing, so that you have high value treasures in hand with it.
Depending on the board of course, strong trashing can allow you to build insane engines with Storyteller. Big, big stuff.
I don't read that as Mic saying it's "a great engine card". He's saying that, under the right circumstances, with a bunch of qualifiers, you can, potentially, build big, insane engines using this. Which will sometimes come up. You could say the same about lots of cards, though maybe not quite in the same way. In short, this has good upside, a high ceiling.
-
This is pertinent because it speaks to why having +1 card would change a lot more than just 1 extra card of sifting, as you originally asserted:
I stand by my assertion.
+1 card sifting is the functional change, whether or not that +1 sifting leads to (let's say) an extra Platinum to get +5 cards with is beside my point of explaining the functional difference between two cards.
I'm getting tired of repeating myself the same way, so let's try a simple analogy. Let's say we're discussing smithy for +3 cards, and a smithy variant that gives +4 cards.
I say okay the difference is that the alternate version gives +1 cards.
You say, no the difference is more than just +1 cards, because that additional card could be a Lab which gives you even more cards!
And I'm like well okay, yes that additional card could itself have some benefit that gives you more cards. But that is not the point I'm making. The difference between smithy and variant-smithy is still +1 cards.
So back to the point, the difference between Storyteller and alternate version is +1 card sifting. What that boon of +1 sifting potentially leads to (finding an extra Platinum, let's say) is a separate consideration. It may or may not happen, and you've already accounted for the possibility of it happening when you note the benefit of sifting.
-
This is pertinent because it speaks to why having +1 card would change a lot more than just 1 extra card of sifting, as you originally asserted:
I stand by my assertion.
+1 card sifting is the functional change, whether or not that +1 sifting leads to (let's say) an extra Platinum to get +5 cards with is beside my point of explaining the functional difference between two cards.
I'm getting tired of repeating myself the same way, so let's try a simple analogy. Let's say we're discussing smithy for +3 cards, and a smithy variant that gives +4 cards.
I say okay the difference is that the alternate version gives +1 cards.
You say, no the difference is more than just +1 cards, because that additional card could be a Lab which gives you even more cards!
And I'm like well okay, yes that additional card could itself have some benefit that gives you more cards. But that is not the point I'm making. The difference between smithy and variant-smithy is still +1 cards.
So back to the point, the difference between Storyteller and alternate version is +1 card sifting. What that boon of +1 sifting potentially leads to (finding an extra Platinum, let's say) is a separate consideration. It may or may not happen, and you've already accounted for the possibility of it happening when you note the benefit of sifting.
Uh.. the key difference there is that Smithy does not directly utilize that extra +1 card. Storyteller does directly utilize it in a not insignificant amount of cases.
-
This is pertinent because it speaks to why having +1 card would change a lot more than just 1 extra card of sifting, as you originally asserted:
I stand by my assertion.
+1 card sifting is the functional change, whether or not that +1 sifting leads to (let's say) an extra Platinum to get +5 cards with is beside my point of explaining the functional difference between two cards.
I'm getting tired of repeating myself the same way, so let's try a simple analogy. Let's say we're discussing smithy for +3 cards, and a smithy variant that gives +4 cards.
I say okay the difference is that the alternate version gives +1 cards.
You say, no the difference is more than just +1 cards, because that additional card could be a Lab which gives you even more cards!
And I'm like well okay, yes that additional card could itself have some benefit that gives you more cards. But that is not the point I'm making. The difference between smithy and variant-smithy is still +1 cards.
So back to the point, the difference between Storyteller and alternate version is +1 card sifting. What that boon of +1 sifting potentially leads to (finding an extra Platinum, let's say) is a separate consideration. It may or may not happen, and you've already accounted for the possibility of it happening when you note the benefit of sifting.
Uh.. the key difference there is that Smithy does not directly utilize that extra +1 card. Storyteller does directly utilize it in a not insignificant amount of cases.
Yeah, it's like if that Lab you drew with the variant-smithy gives a bonus if drawn with the variant-smithy that you don't receive if it's drawn some other way.
-
I really like the art on this one.
Also, 42 guests are viewing this topic. Hi guys!
-
This is pertinent because it speaks to why having +1 card would change a lot more than just 1 extra card of sifting, as you originally asserted:
I stand by my assertion.
+1 card sifting is the functional change, whether or not that +1 sifting leads to (let's say) an extra Platinum to get +5 cards with is beside my point of explaining the functional difference between two cards.
I'm getting tired of repeating myself the same way, so let's try a simple analogy. Let's say we're discussing smithy for +3 cards, and a smithy variant that gives +4 cards.
I say okay the difference is that the alternate version gives +1 cards.
You say, no the difference is more than just +1 cards, because that additional card could be a Lab which gives you even more cards!
And I'm like well okay, yes that additional card could itself have some benefit that gives you more cards. But that is not the point I'm making. The difference between smithy and variant-smithy is still +1 cards.
So back to the point, the difference between Storyteller and alternate version is +1 card sifting. What that boon of +1 sifting potentially leads to (finding an extra Platinum, let's say) is a separate consideration. It may or may not happen, and you've already accounted for the possibility of it happening when you note the benefit of sifting.
Uh.. the key difference there is that Smithy does not directly utilize that extra +1 card. Storyteller does directly utilize it in a not insignificant amount of cases.
Exactly this.
And I would add, if you ignore the potential use of the drawn card in the Storyteller variant, then there is no sifting difference between it and the official Storyteller card. Whether it says +1 Card or +$1, you still draw exactly 1 card from it. It would be like comparing Smithy with a variant that lets you look at the top card of your deck before drawing.
-
Guys, analogies are not perfect argument tools. They're not meant to hold in every respect, and often there is no analogy available that does hold in every respect. Nevertheless, they can communicate a conceptual understanding, and that's what I did here. Geez.
-
Guys, analogies are not perfect argument tools. They're not meant to hold in every respect, and often there is no analogy available that does hold in every respect. Nevertheless, they can communicate a conceptual understanding, and that's what I did here. Geez.
I think it communicated a conceptual misunderstanding...
-
If you already had 3 copies of the highest treasures available in hand, the Storyteller with +1 sifting also cannot draw more.
And apparently you always do!
No.. but I do sometimes go on to write sentences that explain my point.
In fact I endlessly spend time explaining obvious things to people on the internet. Hey it's part of the job and it's easy.
And I gave you some sentences; they just didn't do much for you. I don't see why additional sentences would be treated differently. At the same time this hypothetical card is too close to a real card for it to be great for me to endlessly analyze it. I don't need to convince you of anything; believe whatever you want about that hypothetical card.
Not all sentences are created equal!
But my post already had the three best sentences.
And it would have had them all, but they can't ALL be the best sentences.
-
And I would add, if you ignore the potential use of the drawn card in the Storyteller variant, then there is no sifting difference between it and the official Storyteller card. Whether it says +1 Card or +$1, you still draw exactly 1 card from it. It would be like comparing Smithy with a variant that lets you look at the top card of your deck before drawing.
When you note that something gives +1 card sifting, you are not ignoring its benefit. You have already described a benefit. You're just not getting into the details of how that benefit plays out in particular cases.
If I describe cellar to you and tell you it lets you sift away all the cards in your hand into your discard pile and draw the same number of new cards, I've described cellar's function to you vis a vis another card that doesn't have that function. I don't need to get into the details of whether and how often you sifted away curses and coppers to find platinums and grand markets.
-
I really like the art on this one.
Also, 42 guests are viewing this topic. Hi guys!
Way to grab that one first!
-
I really like the art on this one.
Also, 42 guests are viewing this topic. Hi guys!
Way to grab that one first!
When someone else writes fanfiction they can have Storyteller.
-
And I would add, if you ignore the potential use of the drawn card in the Storyteller variant, then there is no sifting difference between it and the official Storyteller card. Whether it says +1 Card or +$1, you still draw exactly 1 card from it. It would be like comparing Smithy with a variant that lets you look at the top card of your deck before drawing.
When you note that something gives +1 card sifting, you are not ignoring its benefit. You have already described a benefit. You're just not getting into the details of how that benefit plays out in particular cases.
If I describe cellar to you and tell you it lets you sift away all the cards in your hand into your discard pile and draw the same number of new cards, I've described cellar's function to you vis a vis another card that doesn't have that function. I don't need to get into the details of whether and how often you sifted away curses and coppers to find platinums and grand markets.
Yeah, but those "particular cases" are not just other stuff that happens in Dominion---they're part of the card resolution itself. Putting +1 Card instead of +$1 (that translates into +1 card at the end) on Storyteller is a big difference because Storyteller immediately uses that card in some number of cases (that translates into more stuff after resolution).
-
I really like the art on this one.
Also, 42 guests are viewing this topic. Hi guys!
Way to grab that one first!
When someone else writes fanfiction they can have Storyteller.
You deserve all the +1's.
-
I can see this working in several kind of engines.
An engine that sometimes works is "Apprentice-in-Colony-games-with-a-buy". You want to start your turn apprenticing some platinum or colony, and after drawing it all you buy more then you had to trash. If you replace the Apprentice with Storyteller it just gets better (platinum still draws you 9 cards but you don't have to trash it). (EDIT: not true as stated by LFN below)
I can easily imagine this also working with gold & provinces. Maybe it's just engines that use money as a payload.
Another type of engine that should be able to make very good use of this card is the overdrawing engine with mid-turn gains. It might take a while to get there, but shortly after you're able to overdraw your deck you will be able to overdraw it by a lot. And thus explode the ironworks, butchers, hermits, ...
Using virtual coin to fuel the storyteller may turn out to be harder then expected. Usually you are most desperate for draw near the start of your turn, and then the virtual coin thing hasn't really happened yet.
-
Storyteller on Platinum draws you 5 cards, not 9.
-
Nice idea. New and conceptually simple, but with some situations that reward an understanding of the complexity. No idea if I'm actually going to like it. Possibly tragic stories told at the behest of Golems and Heralds.
I know you all love crazy. Dark Ages was the craziest expansion until now, and you guys love it. I'm just actually worried whether the (admittedly) few of us that actually prefer simple will have much to look forward to :-\
Lost City doesn't look too bad.
I like simple and crazy, or rather, some of each. One without the other would be less appealing to me.
-
I can see this working in several kind of engines.
An engine that sometimes works is "Apprentice-in-Colony-games-with-a-buy". You want to start your turn apprenticing some platinum or colony, and after drawing it all you buy more then you had to trash. If you replace the Apprentice with Storyteller it just gets better (platinum still draws you 9 cards but you don't have to trash it).
I can easily imagine this also working with gold & provinces. Maybe it's just engines that use money as a payload.
Another type of engine that should be able to make very good use of this card is the overdrawing engine with mid-turn gains. It might take a while to get there, but shortly after you're able to overdraw your deck you will be able to overdraw it by a lot. And thus explode the ironworks, butchers, hermits, ...
Using virtual coin to fuel the storyteller may turn out to be harder then expected. Usually you are most desperate for draw near the start of your turn, and then the virtual coin thing hasn't really happened yet.
Uh, doesn't Platinum only draw you 5 cards (plus the one you get from Storyteller anyway makes 6)?
My biggest concern about using it like this is that you need to line these up with treasures reliably. For that reason, I expect Scheme might well be a good thing for you here.
-
Storyteller on Platinum draws you 5 cards, not 9.
whoops, never mind about that point then.
I'm not going to correct the post because I like being wrong.
-
Yeah, but those "particular cases" are not just other stuff that happens in Dominion---they're part of the card resolution itself. Putting +1 Card instead of +$1 (that translates into +1 card at the end) on Storyteller is a big difference because Storyteller immediately uses that card in some number of cases (that translates into more stuff after resolution).
Well, it is a difference. And it's a difference that's exactly equivalent to +1 card sifting up front before resolving the rest of the card. So I'm not sure what the big controversy is here.
Some people were calling it a "very, very big difference" whereas to me it seems far more modest, like playing a Pearl Diver. Yeah, occasionally that Pearl Diver will line up something awesome on to the top of your deck that leads to even yet more awesome things happening that couldn't have happened if you hadn't gotten that awesome thing closer to being in your hand. But this level of sifting usually doesn't make that big of a difference.
Since some people don't seem to appreciate analogies like this Pearl Diver one that won't exactly hold in every respect, let's come up with something that concretely does hold in every respect (well, provided you have at least 1 non-treasure in hand, but I'll call that a quite safe assumption for a sifting effect discussion and have no interest in your other cases)
Storyteller: Action, $5
+1 Action
+$1
Play up to 3 Treasures from your hand. Pay all of your $; +1 Card per $ paid.
Storyteller-sifter: Action, $5
You may immediately swap one card from your hand with the top card of your deck.
+1 Action
+$1
Play up to 3 Treasures from your hand. Pay all of your $; +1 Card per $ paid.
----
Is there a big difference between these two cards? I'm saying no. Certainly not a "very, very big" one as someone was hilariously claiming.
-
I'm getting tired of repeating myself the same way, so let's try a simple analogy. Let's say we're discussing smithy for +3 cards, and a smithy variant that gives +4 cards.
Instead it's the difference between "draw cards based on how many cards you have and what they are" and "+1 card then that." It turns out +1 card gets you more than one card there.
Consider the extreme case of just having Storyteller in hand, with a deck of all Platinums. I play the +$1 version, draw one card, it's Platinum, I've got $5 to spend this turn. Or, I play the +1 Card version, draw one card, it's Platinum, play it, draw 5 cards, I've got $25 to spend this turn. I have $25 instead of $5.
You find it a good shorthand to describe this as one card worth of sifting.
-
Is there a big difference between these two cards? I'm saying no. Certainly not a "very, very big" one as someone was hilariously claiming.
Maybe the problem is that people have different definitions for "big." So for you, it doesn't meet your criteria for "big," but it meets others' criteria. I think the important thing is that Donald said he tested both and the +$1 version worked better. That's really all that matters. Who cares if the difference qualifies as "big" or not?
Additionally, I'm just curious what you have at stake in this argument. It seems sillier than most that I read about on these forums.
-
Storyteller: Action, $5
+1 Action
+$1
Play up to 3 Treasures from your hand. Pay all of your $; +1 Card per $ paid.
Storyteller-sifter: Action, $5
You may immediately swap one card from your hand with the top card of your deck.
+1 Action
+$1
Play up to 3 Treasures from your hand. Pay all of your $; +1 Card per $ paid.
----
Is there a big difference between these two cards? I'm saying no. Certainly not a "very, very big" one as someone was hilariously claiming.
Imagine if Throne Room had the card swapping part before the action double-play part. It would effectively increase the reach of Throne Room by one card. Some would argue that this is a "very, very big" difference. It all depends on what you consider "very, very big", but I think it's fine to disagree with that assessment.
-
I'm just curious what you have at stake in this argument. It seems sillier than most that I read about on these forums.
"very, very big" seemed hilarious to me so I've mentioned that a couple times, but that was just me being amused. I don't have a stake in people's subjective assessments.
I only have a stake in them calling my 1-card sifting description wrong when it's entirely correct, with the reasonable assumption that you have at least 1 non-treasure in your hand to do the sifting with.
-
I'm just curious what you have at stake in this argument. It seems sillier than most that I read about on these forums.
"very, very big" seemed hilarious to me so I've mentioned that a couple times, but that was just me being amused. I don't have a stake in people's subjective assessments.
I only have a stake in them calling my 1-card sifting description wrong when it's entirely correct, with the reasonable assumption that you have at least 1 non-treasure in your hand to do the sifting with.
I mean, sure, "+1 Card" isn't a big difference in the sense that "1" isn't that big a number, but it makes sense that in game terms it can have a huge difference. Like the difference that the "small" bonus of +$1 gives to change Village (3) to Bazaar (5).
-
Even ignoring the differences with numbers, breaking up the draw into 2 separate segments would be inelegant and take more time. If you draw first you now have a different hand configuration to consider when using Storyteller's effect.
With the way the card works now, everything is streamlined to a single draw and you don't automatically have a 2 step process to decide what to use with the effect (this can be introduced if you have another action card with + actions and card drawing but it is not built into the card by default).
-
Solitaire speed emptying Supply currently depends on connecting Procession-Procession-Fortress-Watchtower. Improving on existing methods is really just about getting there faster, either with cards that do more on the first two turns or that will help you assemble what you're missing on Turn 3.
Nonsense. Colliding those four cards is the ideal case, but there are many ways to get there, most of which don't include starting with those 4 cards in your deck. It's certainly possible that there is a card in adventures that could replace one of those cards too (as long as it isn't watchtower). Things with other TfB instead of procession are possible too. But yes, it is about speed to get cards that let you gain cards that let you gain cards that gain cards with increasing power. Magpie actually could help with that, except that it doesn't increase in power ever; you just gain more magpies until there are no more magpies and then you are done.
Actually, Storyteller + Royal Seal provides a possible alternative to Watchtower. It is likely to slow for the empty the supply in x turns puzzles, but might be useful for other puzzles.
-
I'm just curious what you have at stake in this argument. It seems sillier than most that I read about on these forums.
"very, very big" seemed hilarious to me so I've mentioned that a couple times, but that was just me being amused. I don't have a stake in people's subjective assessments.
I only have a stake in them calling my 1-card sifting description wrong when it's entirely correct, with the reasonable assumption that you have at least 1 non-treasure in your hand to do the sifting with.
So you don't think the situation described by Donald counts as a significant difference?
-
The difference being 1 card's worth of sifting is entirely correct, yet misconstrusive in this context; having the sift be right before the draw has much more of and impact than a 1-card sift in a vacuum.
-
It is precisely a 1-card sifting difference. Whether this is "trivial" or not is something I'll let you and other people discuss.
It's a plus, and it's a plus that most of the time won't make a difference.
Where do you even get "1 card difference" from? Whether it's +1 Card or +$1, Storyteller draws you one more card. The difference is that the earlier +1 Card would let you draw a treasure and feed it to Storyteller whereas the +$1 would not. Thus, the sifting difference depends on that treasure you may draw and play to Storyteller. If you draw a Copper, sure, it gives you an extra card. But if you draw a better treasure, the difference is much bigger.
Edit: Maybe you mean, it's 1 card sifting difference because you potentially play out 1 extra treasure and no more. I guess you aren't considering the extra draw that comes out of that treasure play? I suppose you may ignore that for discussion of "sifting", but the extra draw is an important consideration and it makes the +1 card vs. +$1 very, very different.
Changing the +1$ of Storyteller to +1 Card gives you the opportunity to consider that 1 card as part of your hand before resolving the rest of Storyteller, rather than after. That is effectively a 1-card sift, and all we need to say on the matter as far as describing the immediate functional difference.
Most of the time, you've already got some treasures in your hand and don't need the additional options of that +1 card sift. So most of the time it doesn't make a difference.
Since most of the time it won't make a difference, I disagree that it is "very, very different."
It would be a small plus, that is all.
Speaking as someone who has played with both cards, I disagree.
I think we should defer to DXV if not that he designed the card, but for the reason he stated above.
-
The difference being 1 card's worth of sifting is entirely correct, yet misconstrusive in this context; having the sift be right before the draw has much more of and impact than a 1-card sift in a vacuum.
Also, it's not just that it's not in a vacuum, it's also the fact that it's an extra one card's worth of sifting every time you play the card.
Hey maybe that doesn't add an extra gold to your hand every time you play Storyteller, but over the course of a game it does it often enough to considerably change the card's power level.
And that's the ultimate point.
Donald does a lot of work getting the power levels of different cards right and I believe him when he says that it makes a big difference.
-
The difference being 1 card's worth of sifting is entirely correct, yet misconstrusive in this context; having the sift be right before the draw has much more of and impact than a 1-card sift in a vacuum.
Right. The point was not that it's not a 1 card sift, but that +1 card and +$1 here does not "amount to the same effect (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12855.msg476352#msg476352)". That is what multiple people have been saying, including those who have actually played with this card through various iterations.
-
Donald does a lot of work getting the power levels of different cards right and I believe him when he says that it makes a big difference.
That's what you think! Roughly 90% of playtesting/development goes to card names.
-
I don't really understand why everyone is so focused on the sifting aspect; this looks very much like a draw-your-deck style card. Also, trashing can only make this better.
-
Would Storyteller + Masterpiece work as the foundation of a deck? As long as you have a Storyteller in hand, your Silvers become Labs. With a sufficient number of Storytellers in your deck, it's almost like getting a Lab for every coin you overpay when buying Masterpiece. Once you've drawn your deck, you should have roughly half your Silvers remaining for spending money.
Lining up 2 Storytellers with 6 Silvers is enough to draw a 19 card deck on its own, counting the 8 cards you have to spend before your buy phase. If your deck is already mostly Silver with a pinch of Masterpieces, +Buys, extra Storytellers, and other cards, the remaining 11 cards are likely enough to double Province. Lining up 3 Storytellers with 9 Silvers is enough to draw a 26 card deck on its own. If your deck is flooded with Silvers from Masterpiece, and has extra Storytellers, getting close to this doesn't seem too far fetched. As a bonus, your remaining 14 card hand is likely to have a lot of money in it from all those extra Silvers, money you can use to overpay for more Silvers from Masterpiece, buy more Storytellers, buy multiple Provinces, or three pile. Since your deck has so many cards, a few Provinces may not even get in the way all that much, and you can probably continue to double Province for a few turns.
You'll likely need extra Storytellers (i.e. more than you are actually going to use each turn) to maintain a reasonably high density of them and reduce the chance of drawing hands without one. If you have one Storyteller per 5 total cards, then you should have a ~67% chance of getting at least one with your first 5 cards, and with enough Silver in your deck a ~75% of hitting the second one in a row. Alternatively, it may help if there's a way to make sure you always start your hand with a Storyteller (Haven, Scheme, Cellar, Warehouse, Inn, Watchtower, etc).
Synergies:
Scheme guarantees you a storyteller to start your next turn, and with a few schemes storyteller becomes very reliable with even more Silver.
Haven saves those extra Storytellers you didn't use to kick-start your next hand.
Sifters like Cellar and Warehouse also seem great for sifting out your Storytellers from your Silvers to line up multiple Storytellers in a row.
Forager gets you the +Buy, helps trash your coppers and estates away, and even fuels the storyteller draw by quickly being worth $3 (Copper + Masterpiece + Silver).
Golem helps you skip over the silver and hit multiple Storytellers in a row.
Extra non-terminal draw cards, like Stables, can make dead turns even less likely.
-
Right. The point was not that it's not a 1 card sift, but that +1 card and +$1 here does not "amount to the same effect (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12855.msg476352#msg476352)". That is what multiple people have been saying, including those who have actually played with this card through various iterations.
Most of the time a 1-card sift does net out to the same effect, because you already have other treasures in hand to use and so sifting for 1 additional one does not make that much of a difference in what you can do. Some of y'all are acting like that additional card is always going to be that bit of additional treasure you were just dying to play with Storyteller, and that's just not the case. The sift doesn't always give you something you need or want -- in fact, I would wager that it does so less than 20% of the time. Is it nice when it does? Sure, it's also nice when Pearl Diver gives you something nicer up front. Most of the time it doesn't make a difference though and amounts to the same effect as if you didn't play that Pearl Diver.
-
I don't understand why this is such a great engine card.
Who said it was?
Mic did: Storyteller isn't obsoleted by strong trashing, though strong trashing might enable a less finicky draw engine. But Storyteller improves with any sort of trashing, so that you have high value treasures in hand with it.
Depending on the board of course, strong trashing can allow you to build insane engines with Storyteller. Big, big stuff.
I don't read that as Mic saying it's "a great engine card". He's saying that, under the right circumstances, with a bunch of qualifiers, you can, potentially, build big, insane engines using this. Which will sometimes come up. You could say the same about lots of cards, though maybe not quite in the same way. In short, this has good upside, a high ceiling.
WW is closer to what I meant (in that sentence) than liopoil, but I can maybe explain a little more what I think of the card.
Storyteller is definitely an engine card. It's cycling/draw. People seem worried about losing their money, but remember that often the thing you want to do during your turn is play some key cards: a Butcher or a Goons or something. And don't worry, your deck will still have more money in it, you'll still be able to buy something nice as well. Trading $ for cards is a sweet deal in most engines.
I have opened Storyteller/Page|Peasant to go a travellin' faster. Similarly, have gotten early Storytellers to cycle around to opening trashers. It starts as an expensive pseudo-Cellar, but improves as the quality of your deck goes up.
1-2 copies of Storyteller can be used as a supplement in an already functioning draw engine to improve both power and sometimes consistency.
Remember those Silvers you had to open with? Now we can put them to good use after we've already bought some of the expensive cards we needed.
If you only ever play Coppers with Storyteller, it probably wasn't the right choice for your deck. Which is why it works well with trashing and also Gold gainers (or say Haggler on a Colony board!).
And what Stef described for the overdrawing deck is the kind of crazy stuff I meant in my original post.
-
Right. The point was not that it's not a 1 card sift, but that +1 card and +$1 here does not "amount to the same effect (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12855.msg476352#msg476352)". That is what multiple people have been saying, including those who have actually played with this card through various iterations.
Most of the time a 1-card sift does net out to the same effect, because you already have other treasures in hand to use and so sifting for 1 additional one does not make that much of a difference in what you can do. Some of y'all are acting like that additional card is always going to be that bit of additional treasure you were just dying to play with Storyteller, and that's just not the case. The sift doesn't always give you something you need or want -- in fact, I would wager that it does so less than 20% of the time. Is it nice when it does? Sure, it's also nice when Pearl Diver gives you something nicer up front. Most of the time it doesn't make a difference though and amounts to the same effect as if you didn't play that Pearl Diver.
Not always, but not an insignificant amount of the time. The potential benefit is much higher than what you could do with Pearl Diver. And "some of y'all" includes multiple people who have been playtesting this card in multiple forms and already know the difference that it makes.
-
Donald does a lot of work getting the power levels of different cards right and I believe him when he says that it makes a big difference.
That's what you think! Roughly 90% of playtesting/development goes to card names.
Indeed! Storyteller itself went through at least 12 names before Donald settled on this one.
-
Donald does a lot of work getting the power levels of different cards right and I believe him when he says that it makes a big difference.
That's what you think! Roughly 90% of playtesting/development goes to card names.
Indeed! Storyteller itself went through at least 12 names before Donald settled on this one.
Cool story. Needs more dragons.
-
The difference being 1 card's worth of sifting is entirely correct, yet misconstrusive in this context; having the sift be right before the draw has much more of and impact than a 1-card sift in a vacuum.
This is wrong, if you already have enough to treasures to feed to Storyteller (or don't necessarily want more to feed to it), then that sifting might be more useful to you /after/ the draw, because then you would be sifting among more things. We have no way of knowing whether your particular deck's shuffle luck leads to the sifting being more useful before or later, so it's fine to abstractly look at it as a +1 sifter effect in general, albeit one with the benefit of being built into one already nice card.
+1 card's worth of in-situ deck sifting doesn't give you a net increase in anything, not even a net increase in cycling; it is the equivalent of having slightly better shuffle luck ala Pearl Diver. Which is nice, but not as amazing as some people continue to make it out to be
Not always, but not an insignificant amount of the time.
Maybe that's interesting to whichever person thinks it's "an insignificant amount of the time". Which by the way isn't me -- I've only noted that most of the time it won't make a difference, and ventured a quick guess at less than 20% of the time.
The potential benefit is much higher than what you could do with Pearl Diver
Let's say you're about to draw 1 card with a cantrip and then play Storyteller; it'll be normal to want to play the cantrip first. Let's further assume that this next card won't be a treasure. If you first play a Pearl Diver to move a treasure from the bottom of your deck to the top to draw with the cantrip, and then play Storyteller, you've achieved the same level of in-situ deck shifting as the Storyteller-shifter variant would offer you in a situation where that treasure was already on top of your deck but you didn't have a way to get it into your Storyteller hand.
So I don't see how the potential difference is much higher than what a Pearl Diver does. The difference is where that treasure you wanted happens to be relative to the rest of your deck and hand, which is all more a matter of shuffle luck than anything.
It's nice when you get a +1 sift effect falling within the chain of whatever you're doing to improve your shuffle luck. There is potential benefit to be had! But it's situational to the shuffle you got, and in most cases won't make a difference.
-
I wonder if Storyteller and Poor House can be a thing. Anyway, this is a fun card. Seems to be at the right power level.
Now, Magpie on the other hand seems OP. We seem to have a lot of powerful $4 lab cards with Ironmonger, Herlad and now this. And, to think there was once a time when Caravan was considered super good.
-
I wonder if Storyteller and Poor House can be a thing. Anyway, this is a fun card. Seems to be at the right power level.
Now, Magpie on the other hand seems OP. We seem to have a lot of powerful $4 lab cards with Ironmonger, Herlad and now this. And, to think there was once a time when Caravan was considered super good.
This is a 5-cost, though.
-
I wonder if Storyteller and Poor House can be a thing. Anyway, this is a fun card. Seems to be at the right power level.
Now, Magpie on the other hand seems OP. We seem to have a lot of powerful $4 lab cards with Ironmonger, Herlad and now this. And, to think there was once a time when Caravan was considered super good.
I think ST/PH will be quite awesome if you can get a village involved. Maybe a Treasure village? ;)
-
I wonder if Storyteller and Poor House can be a thing. Anyway, this is a fun card. Seems to be at the right power level.
Now, Magpie on the other hand seems OP. We seem to have a lot of powerful $4 lab cards with Ironmonger, Herlad and now this. And, to think there was once a time when Caravan was considered super good.
This is a 5-cost, though.
I know. I was also talking about Magpie which is a 4-cost
-
You are rich with life experiences, but have had trouble trading them for goods and services.
I suppose this line in the Flavor Text refers to Storyteller. She's sharing all her life experiences but never making any money to spend on goods and services. :'(
She does know how to draw a crowd though.
-
You are rich with life experiences, but have had trouble trading them for goods and services.
I suppose this line in the Flavor Text refers to Storyteller. She's sharing all her life experiences but never making any money to spend on goods and services. :'(
She does know how to draw a crowd though.
Nah, you're paying her to draw some cards *ahem* I mean, tell a tale for you.
-
Donald does a lot of work getting the power levels of different cards right and I believe him when he says that it makes a big difference.
That's what you think! Roughly 90% of playtesting/development goes to card names.
Indeed! Storyteller itself went through at least 12 names before Donald settled on this one.
Cool story. Needs more dragons.
Once upon a time, some playtesters were trying to decide on the name of a card. It was an awesome card, and deserved an awesome name.
"We shall call it Fafnir! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fafnir)"
"No, it should be Smaug! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smaug)"
"I think it should be Puff. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7lmAc3LKWM)"
"You're all idiots. Clearly it should be called Viserion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire)"
"No one's going to suggest Ladon? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladon_%28mythology%29)"
"The coolest name is obviously Trogdor! (http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail58.html)"
"I'm a fan of Volvagia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Ocarina_of_Time)"
"I choose you, Dragonite! (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Dragonite_%28Pok%C3%A9mon%29)"
"Why don't we go with Mushu? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulan_%281998_film%29)"
"My vote is for Seiryu! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azure_Dragon)"
"How about Albi? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-jVAHAuiS4)"
"Why not Spyro?" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyro_%28series%29)"
The playtesters began to fight and squabble among themselves, until a voice of clarity and wisdom rose above the din.
"It is clear that all dragons are awesome, and that we therefore cannot single out one dragon to be honored by this awesome card. Therefore, we will name the card 'storyteller', and it will depict the essence of all dragons, in puppet form, and thus all dragons will be honored equally."
And the playtesters cried out in joy, for the awesome card had been given an awesome name.
-
Not always, but not an insignificant amount of the time.
Maybe that's interesting to whichever person thinks it's "an insignificant amount of the time". Which by the way isn't me -- I've only noted that most of the time it won't make a difference, and ventured a quick guess at less than 20% of the time.
I was pointing out that nobody is saying that the "additional card is always going to be that bit of additional treasure you were just dying to play with Storyteller", as you stated. In fact, I specifically said that it's not always going to happen:
Sure, the card isn't going to draw you more if you already had 3 copies of the highest treasure in hand. It also isn't going to draw you more if that +1 card doesn't draw you another treasure. The point is that it could draw you more, potentially a lot more. And it's never going to draw you less.
Also, 20% is a pretty big deal in the long run.
The potential benefit is much higher than what you could do with Pearl Diver
Let's say you're about to draw 1 card with a cantrip and then play Storyteller; it'll be normal to want to play the cantrip first. Let's further assume that this next card won't be a treasure. If you first play a Pearl Diver to move a treasure from the bottom of your deck to the top to draw with the cantrip, and then play Storyteller, you've achieved the same level of in-situ deck shifting as the Storyteller-shifter variant would offer you in a situation where that treasure was already on top of your deck but you didn't have a way to get it into your Storyteller hand.
So I don't see how the potential difference is much higher than what a Pearl Diver does. The difference is where that treasure you wanted happens to be relative to the rest of your deck and hand, which is all more a matter of shuffle luck than anything.
It's nice when you get a +1 sift effect falling within the chain of whatever you're doing to improve your shuffle luck. There is potential benefit to be had! But it's situational to the shuffle you got, and in most cases won't make a difference.
The difference is that all the benefit you are describing for Pearl Diver is not coming from Pearl Diver itself, but rather two other cards aside from Pearl Diver. You are repeating that mistake that Witherweaver already (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12855.msg476504#msg476504) pointed out (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12855.msg476528#msg476528).
Maybe you're using the word "sift" differently than how the rest of us use it. When I think of sifting, I am thinking about cards that let you cycle through junk. Some examples include Cartographer, Warehouse, Cellar, Catacombs, Oracle.
With this in mind, Storyteller certainly isn't a traditional sifter. The way I see it, its sifting comes from when it plays a treasure card. A Copper is converted into a new card. In a sense, you have just sifted that Copper for a (hopefully) better card. If you play something bigger, you get more cards. Hopefully the 5 cards you draw is better for you than that Platinum would have been
So let's consider a case where it makes no difference -- when the top card of the deck is, say, an Estate.
Storyteller gives you +$1. You play 0-3 treasures, then you draw. The +$1 from Storyteller translates directly into +1 Card, which draws that Estate.
The Storyteller variant gives you +1 Card immediately. We draw that Estate, just like the regular Storyteller. You play 0-3 treasures, then you draw. The effect is essentially the same. Where is the 1 card difference of sifting?
I don't think there is a difference in sifting unless you actually find a treasure that you want to play with Storyteller. Let's consider a case where it makes a small difference -- when you have no treasures in hand and the top card of the deck is a Copper.
Storyteller gives you +$1. You then draw a Copper. That is all.
The Storyteller variant draws you a Copper. You play that Copper, you draw again. You just sifted and cycled to 1 more card that you otherwise would not have drawn. The difference is even bigger when you find cards that are better than Copper.
You've been saying that the variant gives you a 1-card sifting difference and that it usually doesn't make a difference. Well, I'm saying here that either the two cards have 0 difference in sifting OR it actually does make a difference.
I've tried to be as clear as possible here about what I consider "sifting". Maybe if you give us your definition and explain how it applies to Storyteller, it will help us understand what you mean.
-
I have already responded to Witherweaver; I am repeating no such mistake (as I didn't make the mistake to begin with)
Pearl Diver gives a benefit which is then used by other cards. This is not conceptually different from one card giving that benefit without this additional Pearl Diver being involved. (though obviously getting the benefit from another card means that card has to line up well for you, in much the same Village + Moat is not the same as a Lab. I've already accounted for this in making the comparison be to focus on just a positive, fortunate use of Pearl Diver)
Having a useful card available to you earlier rather than later is in-place deck sifting (in-place because you're not cycling it to a discard). I think that's already clear enough, so I'm not sure what you need elaborated.
Storyteller qua storyteller as a sifter is a separate discussion from everything I have been talking about. That's one way to think about the card's text turning less-useful treasures into draw; it has nothing to do with comparing it to the -sifter variant I spoke of, which assuming you have something in your hand to sift out is just an exact way to conceptualize if it were to read +1 card instead of +1$. That concept is useful because it allows you to compare it to the effect of a lined-up Pearl Diver, and have a sense of how big the effect is.
-
+1 for Spyro.
-
Did I miss where Robz explains how it combos with Scout? That's the only reason these previews exist for me.
-
Actually I think Gherald's comparison is valid, in that both the draw variant storyteller and the pearl diver + cantrip + storyteller combo allow you to search 5 cards for treasures to discard (the latter looking through the 2 cards in hand, the card drawn by PD, the new top card and the bottom card). I think there's sone degree of disagreement about the strength of this scrying effect, though, where one side feels that there's a significant chance that the extra card searched is a treasure, and the bonus in that case is significant (extra cards drawn), while Gherald feels that the scrying effect is entirely negligible in the case when the extra card either isn't a treasure, or 3 treasures are already within the initial 4 cards. I suspect that Gherald may be underestimating either the bonuses gained from success case (picking up an additional useful treasure from the "pearl diver") or the chance of actually hitting the success case.
-
Did I miss where Robz explains how it combos with Scout? That's the only reason these previews exist for me.
Yes.
-
Did I miss where Robz explains how it combos with Scout? That's the only reason these previews exist for me.
Yes.
Can you point out where? I've scrolled through the entire thread twice looking for Link and haven't found a post by Robz anywhere in this thread.
I found a Counterfeit version by Witherweaver that mentions Harem, but Robz is the only authority I trust on the subject.
-
Did I miss where Robz explains how it combos with Scout? That's the only reason these previews exist for me.
Yes.
I don't think he did it for this one. He did for the other three though.
-
Having a useful card available to you earlier rather than later is in-place deck sifting (in-place because you're not cycling it to a discard). I think that's already clear enough, so I'm not sure what you need elaborated.
Storyteller qua storyteller as a sifter is a separate discussion from everything I have been talking about. That's one way to think about the card's text turning less-useful treasures into draw; it has nothing to do with comparing it to the -sifter variant I spoke of, which assuming you have something in your hand to sift out is just an exact way to conceptualize if it were to read +1 card instead of +1$. That concept is useful because it allows you to compare it to the effect of a lined-up Pearl Diver, and have a sense of how big the effect is.
Re-reading the discussion, I think I understand what you meant by "1-card sifting difference" now. For a moment I thought you were discussing a difference in Storyteller's actual effect of "sifting" the treasures that it plays. My bad.
So the only disagreement is in how impactful that 1 card can be. I'm going to trust Donald and the playtesters when they say that it is a significant difference. Because, well, they've actually played with both versions.
-
How does it combo with Scout? Obviously Scout can get Harems in your hand to play with Storyteller. And get all those nasty Victory cards out of the way so Storyteller can draw something useful. Match made in heaven.
-
Did I miss where Robz explains how it combos with Scout? That's the only reason these previews exist for me.
Yes.
Can you point out where? I've scrolled through the entire thread twice looking for Link and haven't found a post by Robz anywhere in this thread.
I found a Counterfeit version by Witherweaver that mentions Harem, but Robz is the only authority I trust on the subject.
:(
-
Donald does a lot of work getting the power levels of different cards right and I believe him when he says that it makes a big difference.
That's what you think! Roughly 90% of playtesting/development goes to card names.
Indeed! Storyteller itself went through at least 12 names before Donald settled on this one.
Ooh, I hope there's a names portion of the Secret History. I like to know this stuff. :)
-
Donald does a lot of work getting the power levels of different cards right and I believe him when he says that it makes a big difference.
That's what you think! Roughly 90% of playtesting/development goes to card names.
Indeed! Storyteller itself went through at least 12 names before Donald settled on this one.
Ooh, I hope there's a names portion of the Secret History. I like to know this stuff. :)
Sorry, I should have clarified that I was joking.
-
Additionally, I'm just curious what you have at stake in this argument. It seems sillier than most that I read about on these forums.
It's just something the internet does to people. Someone says something wrong and you feel compelled to correct them. What if someone believed them? Then they treat what you said the same way and pretty soon you're having a futile argument in what should be a delightful preview thread.
-
Additionally, I'm just curious what you have at stake in this argument. It seems sillier than most that I read about on these forums.
It's just something the internet does to people. Someone says something wrong and you feel compelled to correct them. What if someone believed them? Then they treat what you said the same way and pretty soon you're having a futile argument in what should be a delightful preview thread.
But hey, now a thread about one card is the same length as the one about three!
-
Oh, wait, how about this:
Storyteller is an inverse Vault.
-
Additionally, I'm just curious what you have at stake in this argument. It seems sillier than most that I read about on these forums.
It's just something the internet does to people. Someone says something wrong and you feel compelled to correct them. What if someone believed them? Then they treat what you said the same way and pretty soon you're having a futile argument in what should be a delightful preview thread.
Who would argue in a preview thread? Bloody savages!
-
So, I've been playing with Chris' delightful simulator (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12849.0), and it looks like Storyteller/BM is definitely not a thing, and Magpie/BM is just shy of just normal BM (something like 50.2% to 49.8%). I'm going to keep tinkering with the program's priorities, though.
EDIT: The widest advantage of Magpie/BM (buy a single Magpie) seems to be with a Duchy threshold of Province<=4, and Estate for Province <=2. That makes it ~52% to 47% in Magpie's favor.
EDIT2: Also pretty clear you only want to buy one Magpie.
EDIT3: Adding a Woodcutter seems to help, but I'm thinking Magpie having a technical advantage over plain BM over the course of many simulations is not exactly standout evidence of it being a strong BM card.
-
What is, "normal BM"?
Also pretty clear you only want to buy one Magpie.
This may not hold true in mirrors where winning the split could(?) be important.
-
Also pretty clear you only want to buy one Magpie.
This may not hold true in mirrors where winning the split could(?) be important.
Wrong thread.
-
Donald does a lot of work getting the power levels of different cards right and I believe him when he says that it makes a big difference.
That's what you think! Roughly 90% of playtesting/development goes to card names.
Indeed! Storyteller itself went through at least 12 names before Donald settled on this one.
Ooh, I hope there's a names portion of the Secret History. I like to know this stuff. :)
Sorry, I should have clarified that I was joking.
Well, I still like knowing about the names behind the cards. If they changed, why they were chosen. But I like knowing odd things.
-
What is, "normal BM"?
Gain Province if CoinValueOf(Deck) > 18;
Gain Duchy if CountOf(Province, Supply) <= 4;
Gain Estate if CountOf(Province, Supply) <= 2;
Gain Gold;
Gain Duchy if CountOf(Province, Supply) <= 6;
Gain Silver;
-
This card impresses me. Storyteller seems to be an ok/situational card, in general nothing extraordenary strong, that has a unique mechanism in paying for draw. These are attributs i appreciate.
Although the mechanism is easy to understand, i expect it to be a high skill card and difficult to play correctly. You want to draw as many cards as you need, but want to pay as less as possible. Drawing how many cards is the most efficient choise with your current deck? 2,3,5? This will be the kind of difficult decisions to make.
I expect Storyteller to be weak in BM strategies. Drawing 3 cards for losing 2 coins seems to be an awful deal for a 5 cost card. Often there will be better draw cards for 5 available. When your money density is good and you start greening, its fine, but starts to suck quickly the greener your deck becomes.
A much better usage i expect in engines. It helps to cycle fast and even more important it will make your engine much more reliable and minors the risk of dud turns. Will Storyteller make the skip/delay of heavy trashing in engines an option for a faster setup?
I am looking forward to get answers on this questions soon.
-
Here's the Scout combo from page 2:
Combo with Scout: Scout to draw Harems, Storyteller+Harems to draw cards!
-
Why do people think they will be using their coppers with Storytellers? They will be using their silver and golds to draw all sorts of treasure plus a useful terminal.
-
I'm confused... why are you posting a preview? :o Is this because we're all WW, including Donald X?
Anyway, Storyteller was one of my absolute favorites. Huge fan.
-
Oh, wait, how about this:
Storyteller is an inverse Vault.
Ah ha! So Vault should give +$2 instead of +2 Cards!
They are, after all, essentially the same thing. ;)
-
Eh, probably will be answered in "Secret Histories", but why is it limited to 3 Treasures?
Power level.
I are need more explain :(
That's already more strategy advice than I like to give.
Ha, now we know that the best strategy with Storyteller is to cheat and play more than 3 treasures!
-
I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!
They are not the same at all.
Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.
Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.
When N is bigger than 1, N squared is bigger than N. Consider the case where a typical card in your deck is a treasure worth $100.
I don't know what your math is about, but it's still a 1-card sifting difference, treating the next card as if it were already available to use with Storyteller's effect (should the player wish to use the treasure that way). A plus, but most of the time it won't make any difference.
You don't find it neat to have a card that gives a coin you can never use?
"Wow, +1 $? Cool, just what i need! What, why am i broke now?"
I guess that's why she's a storyteller. I really don't like it.
And hey, now we "pay" coins. We didn't need that before, but i guess if you allready play Treasures in your action phase (instead of, dunno, setting them aside, or making it a $4 dependant on virtual money) and have a cantrip disguise itself as a Copper, why stop?
I know you all love crazy. Dark Ages was the craziest expansion until now, and you guys love it. I'm just actually worried whether the (admittedly) few of us that actually prefer simple will have much to look forward to :-\
And yes, i realize i'm pretty much alone on this.
Edit: I see why you would decide to not add the additional sifting. But i really feel it's counterintuitive.
In terms of crazy vs simple.... my impression of Adventures as a whole is that it's designed for those who have gotten so into Dominion that they need crazy to keep it interesting. If you prefer simple, then Adventures probably just isn't for you... I'd say the same about anyone just getting into Dominion; I'd advise them to stay away from Adventures for quite a while.
-
I am solely going to be using this to Storyteler triple Quarry kings court remodel plays.
-
Eh, Lost City is simple enough, and Magpie should certainly be understandable to newer players.
-
Having a useful card available to you earlier rather than later is in-place deck sifting (in-place because you're not cycling it to a discard). I think that's already clear enough, so I'm not sure what you need elaborated.
Storyteller qua storyteller as a sifter is a separate discussion from everything I have been talking about. That's one way to think about the card's text turning less-useful treasures into draw; it has nothing to do with comparing it to the -sifter variant I spoke of, which assuming you have something in your hand to sift out is just an exact way to conceptualize if it were to read +1 card instead of +1$. That concept is useful because it allows you to compare it to the effect of a lined-up Pearl Diver, and have a sense of how big the effect is.
Re-reading the discussion, I think I understand what you meant by "1-card sifting difference" now. For a moment I thought you were discussing a difference in Storyteller's actual effect of "sifting" the treasures that it plays. My bad.
So the only disagreement is in how impactful that 1 card can be. I'm going to trust Donald and the playtesters when they say that it is a significant difference. Because, well, they've actually played with both versions.
The difference is sort of akin to Warehouse vs. Cellar. With +1$ (as it is), you get +1 Card from that effect at the end of the resolution (like Cellar.. discard, then draw). With +1 Card, you get the card at the beginning, to do stuff with (so like Warehouse.. draw first, then make decisions). Though since that 1 card can do quite a bit (i.e., Platinum example), I can readily believe that the difference is significant.
-
I am solely going to be using this to Storyteler triple Quarry kings court remodel plays.
Good plan. Refuse to buy it on every board that doesn't have all of {Quarry, King's Court, Remodel}.
-
Additionally, I'm just curious what you have at stake in this argument. It seems sillier than most that I read about on these forums.
It's just something the internet does to people. Someone says something wrong and you feel compelled to correct them. What if someone believed them? Then they treat what you said the same way and pretty soon you're having a futile argument in what should be a delightful preview thread.
You have already accomplished the most difficult half of solving the problem - becoming aware of it.
Please allow me to provide you with some unsolicited advice: just let it go.
While some arguments can be fun, this one clearly has gone sour for everybody involved.
The trick I use is: as soon as I feel the urge to repeat a point I already made, just don't do it. It's time for reflection instead.
The reward (not being in a silly argument yourself) vastly outweighs the cost (someone you barely know might continue to think you're wrong).
And sometimes the reflection leads to the insight that I was wrong myself and excuses can solve the problem altogether.
-
Additionally, I'm just curious what you have at stake in this argument. It seems sillier than most that I read about on these forums.
It's just something the internet does to people. Someone says something wrong and you feel compelled to correct them. What if someone believed them? Then they treat what you said the same way and pretty soon you're having a futile argument in what should be a delightful preview thread.
You have already accomplished the most difficult half of solving the problem - becoming aware of it.
Please allow me to provide you with some unsolicited advice: just let it go.
While some arguments can be fun, this one clearly has gone sour for everybody involved.
The trick I use is: as soon as I feel the urge to repeat a point I already made, just don't do it. It's time for reflection instead.
The reward (not being in a silly argument yourself) vastly outweighs the cost (someone you barely know might continue to think you're wrong).
And sometimes the reflection leads to the insight that I was wrong myself and excuses can solve the problem altogether.
You have a lot of good points. But let me make one counterpoint:
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png) (https://xkcd.com/386/)
-
...
I just wanted to say, I didn't even read this before I upvoted. I just saw some dialogue and assumed it was good.
Edit: But now I see that you even included Albi, the Racist Dragon, and I know that I have chosen well.
-
Additionally, I'm just curious what you have at stake in this argument. It seems sillier than most that I read about on these forums.
It's just something the internet does to people. Someone says something wrong and you feel compelled to correct them. What if someone believed them? Then they treat what you said the same way and pretty soon you're having a futile argument in what should be a delightful preview thread.
You have already accomplished the most difficult half of solving the problem - becoming aware of it.
Please allow me to provide you with some unsolicited advice: just let it go.
While some arguments can be fun, this one clearly has gone sour for everybody involved.
The trick I use is: as soon as I feel the urge to repeat a point I already made, just don't do it. It's time for reflection instead.
The reward (not being in a silly argument yourself) vastly outweighs the cost (someone you barely know might continue to think you're wrong).
And sometimes the reflection leads to the insight that I was wrong myself and excuses can solve the problem altogether.
And on that Sage note from the Champion, I think we're ready for the next preview!
-
I'm confused... why are you posting a preview? :o Is this because we're all WW, including Donald X?
Anyway, Storyteller was one of my absolute favorites. Huge fan.
It seemed fun to have five different people preview another card each day. I got the idea 100% from reading the previews for the last Magic expansion, where as usual they sent cards to different Magic sites. I would have had each card on a different site, but there aren't really 5 Dominion sites after BGG. There's here, reddit, and the German forums.
-
There's (...) the German forums.
And we didn't get a card? ;-)
Ok, joking aside. I think it is a cool idea to have different people, which are previewing the cards.
-
There's (...) the German forums.
And we didn't get a card? ;-)
Ok, joking aside. I think it is a cool idea to have different people, which are previewing the cards.
Qvist even volunteered to preview a card there. I felt like if I didn't have 5 different places then they might as well all be on f.ds.
-
Why does she look away from the audience?
If she is in like a village market/town square type place putting on this puppet show there are likely people all around her. You are looking at her from the POV of the other half of the audience.
You get the best seat because you are the lord of the Dominion. The peasants are lucky that you're letting them watch at all.
-
Why does she look away from the audience?
If she is in like a village market/town square type place putting on this puppet show there are likely people all around her. You are looking at her from the POV of the other half of the audience.
You get the best seat because you are the lord of the Dominion. The peasants are lucky that you're letting them watch at all.
Before I read what was in the quote, I totally thought you were talking to Donald.
-
Is it useful to think about Storyteller (apart from what it does with Treasures) in terms of how turning coins into cards effects other cards?
Eg Market -> Lab with a +Buy
Bazaar -> Lost City
Festival -> Lost City with a +Buy
Grand Market -> 2 Labs with a +Buy
-
Is it useful to think about Storyteller (apart from what it does with Treasures) in terms of how turning coins into cards effects other cards?
Eg Market -> Lab with a +Buy
Bazaar -> Lost City
Festival -> Lost City with a +Buy
Grand Market -> 2 Labs with a +Buy
Death Cart -> Embassy with a selective trash instead of the discard
-
Pawn -> Pawn, but without the choice to get +$1
Secret Chamber -> terminal Cellar
Conspirator -> Moat or 2 Labs
-
Hey now, Pawn could also be a Moat!
-
Hey now, Pawn could also be a Moat!
Good call.
-
Ruined market = Ruined library
Mandarin = Courtyard
Poor house = Potentially Hunting grounds
-
Ruined market = Ruined library
Mandarin = Courtyard
Poor house = Potentially Hunting grounds
I think you mean Ruined Mine. Mandarin-Courtyard doesn't work because Storyteller would cause you to draw the card you topdecked. Mandarin is thus actually more like Moat.
-
Merchant Ship = Wharf
-
Who else is psyched about using Beggar/Storyteller for draw!?
-
Who else is psyched about using Beggar/Storyteller for draw!?
1. Use mass Beggar/Storyteller for draw.
2. Buy Mint.
3. Profit.
-
Who else is psyched about using Beggar/Storyteller for draw!?
1. Use mass Beggar/Storyteller for draw.
2. Buy Mint.
3. Profit.
Best if one of the Adventures VP cards ends up counting the number of Coppers in the Trash ;)
-
Who else is psyched about using Beggar/Storyteller for draw!?
1. Use mass Beggar/Storyteller for draw.
2. Buy Mint.
3. Profit.
Best if one of the Adventures VP cards ends up counting the number of Coppers in the Trash ;)
Moneycounter. Lending House. Coin Merchant. Taxing.. officiate person...
-
I'd be surprised to see a VP card that cares about the trash, because Donald has tried it twice previously and couldn't get it to work.
- worth 1 VP per 3 victory cards in the trash.
...
I tried the first of those in both Seaside and Dark Ages. The Seaside one was called Landfill, and also trashed cards from supply piles. Since you can profit from it being built up, regardless of who does it, what would happen is, we'd fight over them, and then the player with more of them would build it up while the other didn't. Only, if we split them 5 to 3, the difference isn't enough to make it exciting. At first it seemed like it had promise and was a shoe-in, but it was just no fun, it had no fans whatsoever. In my mind City is a fixed version - City is something we can all build up and/or profit from, but plays much better. Forager and Trade Route are in this family but play much differently from City. Anyway you might think it would work as a VP card but man it didn't. I revisted it in Dark Ages; there another key issue was how much caring about the trash varied in power level from game to game.
-
I'm sure it's been mentioned before. A VP card caring about number of empty piles?
-
Festival = Lost City with +buy
Grand Market = Double Lab with +buy
Vault = Terminal Cellar with +2 cards
Merchant Ship = Wharf without +buy
Oasis = Draw a card, discard a card, draw a card.
Storyteller does interesting things to some cards...
-
Merchant Ship = Wharf without +buy
OMG, that's broken.
-
Hi everybody,
I think that Storyteller and Coin of the Realm shall be work perfectly together.
Coin of the Realm
When you play this, put it on your Tavern mat.Directly after resolving an Action, you may call this, for +2 Actions.
Because, play Storyteller with Coin.
- Draw one card by Coin played.
- Put Coin on the tavern mat
- Play a terminal action
- Call Coin from the tavern, and gets more action
- Redo on next turn
Interesting or not ?
-
Hi everybody,
I think that Storyteller and Coin of the Realm shall be work perfectly together.
Coin of the Realm
When you play this, put it on your Tavern mat.Directly after resolving an Action, you may call this, for +2 Actions.
Because, play Storyteller with Coin.
- Draw one card by Coin played.
- Put Coin on the tavern mat
- Play a terminal action
- Call Coin from the tavern, and gets more action
- Redo on next turn
Interesting or not ?
That's essentially turning Coin of the Realm into a double Village (with the added bonus that you can keep the CotR on the tavern mat if you want). It depends on the situation if or not it's worth it — if you're already going for Storyteller anyway, then it's definitely a nice interaction and I could imagine you might want to buy more CotRs than normally in that situation, but it's not very cost-efficient to buy Storyteller just for the purpose of interacting with Coin of the Realm unless you can reliably Storyteller more than one CotR with every Storyteller and I'm not sure if you want that many CotRs in your deck. If you desperately need more +actions, then maybe sometimes you want to do it just so that you can call CotRs every turn instead of every other turn, but if there's another source of +actions, then that's probably a better solution.
-
If you want CoTR, you want it for its double Village status, and getting it on-turn rather than stretched across two turns is definitely an improvement - as Caravan Guard highlights. And turning its coin into a card is often an improvement as well, although Storyteller would spend its Treasure plays on cards that contribute more coins.
-
I get the general feeling that this is strong with cards like Treasure Trove and Cache. Namely, you cheaply gain a lot of treasure of mixed quality. So say your Storyteller plays a Gold and two Silvers, taking $7 out of your deck. So what? You have plenty to go around, and you'll probably draw that and more; if you're not so lucky, you mostly use it as Cellar+card on some Coppers. Perhaps the challenge is having enough Storytellers to keep up with the gained Treasures while also stretching to get VP. Meanwhile, you need +buy or something else to do with that big hand to make it better than just raw money. A single Miser to deal with Copper gains could be a plus in this setup, too, since you will be drawing your deck so much that you will still get to play it often.
So, is Treasure Trove/Cache definitely a synergy in your opinion? Similarly, Page --> Hero eventually fuels Storyteller fairly well, and Treasure Hunter is fine too, at the risk of over-Silvering your deck if you play the Page game too hard...
-
I get the general feeling that this is strong with cards like Treasure Trove and Cache. Namely, you cheaply gain a lot of treasure of mixed quality. So say your Storyteller plays a Gold and two Silvers, taking $7 out of your deck. So what? You have plenty to go around, and you'll probably draw that and more; if you're not so lucky, you mostly use it as Cellar+card on some Coppers. Perhaps the challenge is having enough Storytellers to keep up with the gained Treasures while also stretching to get VP. Meanwhile, you need +buy or something else to do with that big hand to make it better than just raw money. A single Miser to deal with Copper gains could be a plus in this setup, too, since you will be drawing your deck so much that you will still get to play it often.
So, is Treasure Trove/Cache definitely a synergy in your opinion? Similarly, Page --> Hero eventually fuels Storyteller fairly well, and Treasure Hunter is fine too, at the risk of over-Silvering your deck if you play the Page game too hard...
Treasure Trove/Storyteller/Forager is too OP.
-
So you know how Stables is good? Those Stables decks you build? Stables is "especially good" when you can't or don't want to get rid of all of your Copper, since in this case it mitigates the downside of having that Copper in your deck. Stables is a lab with a condition, yeah, but then the upside is that it sifts you past those Coppers to provide you extra reliability, and the condition where you need a treasure in hand to make it work is not a huge deal because you have all of these Coppers laying around.
The important part is bolded. Stables doesn't make having Copper in your deck better, it just makes it less bad. Duke makes having Copper in your deck better, but if I'm focused on drawing cards (probably not playing a slog or any other strategy where Copper is actually good) then my choice between Cache and Gold is usually easy (obvs there are exceptions where the only thing I care about is adding extra payload and I'm overdrawing the crap out of my deck, but this is the exception -- Gold is better).
So Storyteller is similar in this case, in fact it's very similar. It's non-terminal draw with a condition, and it has the same Copper-sifting effect. So in this same vein, you don't want to add Copper to your deck unless you absolutely have to, it just helps you draw past Coppers.
But there are differences, too. Most importantly, Stables-as-a-Lab (this means Stables where you actually have Treasures to discard) is a good card in pretty much every deck ever. Maybe not worth picking up at $5 but it's a really good card and it will help you out. Storyteller functions best in decks with high-value treasures, the kind that have been discussed here at length; remember Storyteller isn't worth it if you're only feeding it Coppers, you need to be increasing your hand size with it or else it probably isn't worth it (again, there are exceptions to this but mansies, they're totes not worth mentioning). Like, I think the takeaway from this is that if I want Storyteller in a deck, I may prioritize Copper trashing slightly less, but I would still probably pick it up if it was there, and I certainly wouldn't add Coppers to the deck if I didn't absolutely have to. Remember that exception with Stables, where I just wanted to add payload and I was overdrawing? That totally doesn't apply with Storyteller.
So yeah, the words "mitigates the downside" of Copper I think are appropriate. "Synergy" just isn't accurate.
-
So you know how Stables is good? Those Stables decks you build? Stables is "especially good" when you can't or don't want to get rid of all of your Copper, since in this case it mitigates the downside of having that Copper in your deck. Stables is a lab with a condition, yeah, but then the upside is that it sifts you past those Coppers to provide you extra reliability, and the condition where you need a treasure in hand to make it work is not a huge deal because you have all of these Coppers laying around.
The important part is bolded. Stables doesn't make having Copper in your deck better, it just makes it less bad. Duke makes having Copper in your deck better, but if I'm focused on drawing cards (probably not playing a slog or any other strategy where Copper is actually good) then my choice between Cache and Gold is usually easy (obvs there are exceptions where the only thing I care about is adding extra payload and I'm overdrawing the crap out of my deck, but this is the exception -- Gold is better).
So Storyteller is similar in this case, in fact it's very similar. It's non-terminal draw with a condition, and it has the same Copper-sifting effect. So in this same vein, you don't want to add Copper to your deck unless you absolutely have to, it just helps you draw past Coppers.
But there are differences, too. Most importantly, Stables-as-a-Lab (this means Stables where you actually have Treasures to discard) is a good card in pretty much every deck ever. Maybe not worth picking up at $5 but it's a really good card and it will help you out. Storyteller functions best in decks with high-value treasures, the kind that have been discussed here at length; remember Storyteller isn't worth it if you're only feeding it Coppers, you need to be increasing your hand size with it or else it probably isn't worth it (again, there are exceptions to this but mansies, they're totes not worth mentioning). Like, I think the takeaway from this is that if I want Storyteller in a deck, I may prioritize Copper trashing slightly less, but I would still probably pick it up if it was there, and I certainly wouldn't add Coppers to the deck if I didn't absolutely have to. Remember that exception with Stables, where I just wanted to add payload and I was overdrawing? That totally doesn't apply with Storyteller.
So yeah, the words "mitigates the downside" of Copper I think are appropriate. "Synergy" just isn't accurate.
>Plays Stables, discards copper
>Draws 3 coppers
FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
-
>Plays Stables, discards copper
>Draws 3 coppers
FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
At least they're not on top of your deck anymore.
-
Well, Storytellering Coppers is basically the same as Cellaring them. I mean, sure, you get an additional card for Storyteller and can't draw them again later, and Cellar in turn can discard other junk, but doing what Cellar can do is certainly not the best use you can get out of a $5 card.
-
Well, Storytellering Coppers is basically the same as Cellaring them. I mean, sure, you get an additional card for Storyteller and can't draw them again later, and Cellar in turn can discard other junk, but doing what Cellar can do is certainly not the best use you can get out of a $5 card.
They can't all be.
-
Well, Storytellering Coppers is basically the same as Cellaring them. I mean, sure, you get an additional card for Storyteller and can't draw them again later, and Cellar in turn can discard other junk, but doing what Cellar can do is certainly not the best use you can get out of a $5 card.
Except you can't draw those Coppers back like you'd be able to with Cellar.
I think the general takeaway is Storyteller likes other-than-Copper Treasure gaining. So Bureaucrat, Explorer, Masterpiece, Treasure Trove, Soothsayer...
EDIT: Also Swamp Hag and Caravan Guard.
-
Well, Storytellering Coppers is basically the same as Cellaring them. I mean, sure, you get an additional card for Storyteller and can't draw them again later, and Cellar in turn can discard other junk, but doing what Cellar can do is certainly not the best use you can get out of a $5 card.
Except you can't draw those Coppers back like you'd be able to with Cellar.
I think the general takeaway is Storyteller likes other-than-Copper Treasure gaining. So Bureaucrat, Explorer, Masterpiece, Treasure Trove, Soothsayer...
EDIT: Also Swamp Hag and Caravan Guard.
-
Well, Storytellering Coppers is basically the same as Cellaring them. I mean, sure, you get an additional card for Storyteller and can't draw them again later, and Cellar in turn can discard other junk, but doing what Cellar can do is certainly not the best use you can get out of a $5 card.
Except you can't draw those Coppers back like you'd be able to with Cellar.
I think the general takeaway is Storyteller likes other-than-Copper Treasure gaining. So Bureaucrat, Explorer, Masterpiece, Treasure Trove, Soothsayer...
EDIT: Also Swamp Hag and Caravan Guard.
Did not see that the first time!
-
Anyone mention yet how Storyteller gets better later in the game? Of course you can sift coppers, but you also sift single silvers, and single gold as well. The condition being that you have better cards/ more high-value treasure to get to. I played a game with only 2 Storytellers speeding up my engine this way and the effect was immense. In fact I'd be willing to be that in most big money decks, ST and maybe a +buy card is all that is needed?
Not to mention chaining together +coin cards that give out actions (w/ the "pay all of your coin" part of the card. For example, Festival>Festival>Silver>Storyteller draws 7 cards. Pretty powerful for accelerating most/all engines, especially for those that run out of money when developing them.