Dominion Strategy Forum

Archive => Archive => Dominion: Adventures Previews => Topic started by: jsh357 on April 02, 2015, 09:55:15 am

Title: Preview: Messenger
Post by: jsh357 on April 02, 2015, 09:55:15 am
(https://dominionstrategy.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/adventurespreviewkafka.png)

There are three types of Dominion players. Some of us just play to unwind. Some play to compete. But then there are those of us who just want to watch the piles burn. Here's Messenger, for everyone who loves giving gifts and making merry.

Sometimes you'll get one for the Buy and coins. Sometimes it'll help you cycle your deck all the way down. But most of the time, you'll be using it to hand things out. Maybe your friend opened 5/2 and couldn't get two Ambassadors. Your Messenger purchase helps him with that. Maybe your opponent got himself a Potion and you feel like he should have another. Just be careful; you're getting one too. Maybe there's a sneaky way for you to win by making a bunch of Estates vanish at once. Messenger has you covered. Or maybe you're a jerk holding a Watchtower and you decide to hand out Curses in the most convoluted way possible. Man, what's your problem? Well, go for it, I guess.

The truth is, there are a lot of neat applications of the Messenger. I could go on and on about it, but I've had plenty of time to think about it, so I want you guys to have the fun. I'll leave you with one idea for your cousin's birthday party: try playing a 5 player game with this bad boy. (If you actually go and try that, please don't shoot the messenger)
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Witherweaver on April 02, 2015, 09:57:42 am
Don't Altar him!
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: SirClemens on April 02, 2015, 10:00:52 am
(http://i.imgur.com/kn1vuDU.png)

Gaining Sir Martin is also nice.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Lekkit on April 02, 2015, 10:02:18 am
My favorite previewed card so far.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: werothegreat on April 02, 2015, 10:04:56 am
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: jsh357 on April 02, 2015, 10:05:11 am
My favorite previewed card so far.

Full disclosure: this is my favorite card in Adventures.  I ruined many a game with it.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: markusin on April 02, 2015, 10:06:27 am
Is your avatar supposed to be the Iso version of this?

Is the union of Woodcutter and Chancellor better than either of them? I don't know. But you can really have fun with the on-buy effect. Seems nice if you're playing a non-mirror, or if you just want to accelerate towards the end of the game due to being ahead.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Witherweaver on April 02, 2015, 10:07:06 am
Don't Altar him!

You know... because there are no guns in Dominion.. so you can't actually shoot him anyway....

I'll see myself out.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: jsh357 on April 02, 2015, 10:07:49 am
Is your avatar supposed to be the Iso version of this?

Is the union of Woodcutter and Chancellor better than either of them? I don't know. But you can really have fun with the on-buy effect. Seems nice if you're playing a non-mirror, or if you just want to accelerate towards the end of the game due to being ahead.

Yes, it's the iso version.  I added the gifts he's carrying, though.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: DG on April 02, 2015, 10:12:02 am
Players who like swindlers will also like messengers.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Qvist on April 02, 2015, 10:13:01 am
My favorite previewed card so far.

Full disclosure: this is my favorite card in Adventures.  I ruined many a game with it.

I remember one game with Messenger and Vineyard that ended after 9 turns. Messenger to give out Potions and Messenger to give out Messengers. It was crazy fast.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Warwing25 on April 02, 2015, 10:13:06 am
I assume this card has a quite interesting depth of openings, in that cards that you don't want multiples of become worse. Especially for player one.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: jsh357 on April 02, 2015, 10:16:31 am
I assume this card has a quite interesting depth of openings, in that cards that you don't want multiples of become worse. Especially for player one.

Wow, it's almost like Messenger gives the second player an advantage.

Hey guys, I found it!  Gold star for me!
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: XerxesPraelor on April 02, 2015, 10:18:34 am
So maybe this is the P2 advantage card!

Edit : ninja'd
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Mole5000 on April 02, 2015, 10:19:28 am
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

This card is making me feel tingly and it's not the +Buy that's doing it!
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: jonts26 on April 02, 2015, 10:19:57 am
I assume this card has a quite interesting depth of openings, in that cards that you don't want multiples of become worse. Especially for player one.

Wow, it's almost like Messenger gives the second player an advantage.

Hey guys, I found it!  Gold star for me!

But you already have 5 gold stars.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Mic Qsenoch on April 02, 2015, 10:22:31 am
Players who like swindlers will also like messengers.

I love Swindler, but am not a huge fan of Messenger. Like Embargo, I find it pretty difficult to exploit the effect in a way that really helps you more than them. It's much easier to imagine yourself being clever than actually being clever.

I do like the decks getting random cards though, like Swindler, it's hilarious.

It is fun to play against jsh with Messenger, because then you get a free win.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Burning Skull on April 02, 2015, 10:22:55 am
But you already have 5 gold stars.

So do you, SCSN.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Burning Skull on April 02, 2015, 10:30:13 am
Did I get it right: the gaining effect occurs when you buy Messenger, not when you buy something with Messenger in play?
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: jonts26 on April 02, 2015, 10:31:22 am
Did I get it right: the gaining effect occurs when you buy Messenger, not when you buy something with Messenger in play?

Yes. But only if you didn't buy anything else this turn.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: bedlam on April 02, 2015, 10:35:56 am
Did I get it right: the gaining effect occurs when you buy Messenger, not when you buy something with Messenger in play?

Yes. But only if you didn't buy anything else this turn.

Or, to clarify, only if you bought Messenger with your first buy this turn.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Burning Skull on April 02, 2015, 10:37:09 am
But only if you didn't buy anything else this turn.

That part feels weird to me:
If you go for two or more buys you can choose whether you want to gain extra stuff or not, but if you only have one buy you have no such choice.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: AdamH on April 02, 2015, 10:42:08 am
True story: I was playing an IRL game with this card: 2P, no villages, Sea Hag, no trashing, and Messenger. This was an older version of Messenger but I don't think that matters. He opens Sea Hag, I decide to get Messenger on all of my $4 buys and give us both Curses. I only lost the Curse split 6/4.

I got destroyed.

I had less points than my opponent that game, but I had way more fun.  ;D
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: jonts26 on April 02, 2015, 10:44:27 am
But only if you didn't buy anything else this turn.

That part feels weird to me:
If you go for two or more buys you can choose whether you want to gain extra stuff or not, but if you only have one buy you have no such choice.

Presumably, since in the two buy case, there's another non-messenger card you want, I'd imagine your choice in the one-buy case is do you want messenger or the other card. But really, the alternative being messenger triggers every buy would lead to quickly degenerate games.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: werothegreat on April 02, 2015, 10:46:22 am
But only if you didn't buy anything else this turn.

That part feels weird to me:
If you go for two or more buys you can choose whether you want to gain extra stuff or not, but if you only have one buy you have no such choice.

I'm guessing it's so you can't double up on Messenger's Santa Claus-ing.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: jsh357 on April 02, 2015, 10:54:53 am
But only if you didn't buy anything else this turn.

That part feels weird to me:
If you go for two or more buys you can choose whether you want to gain extra stuff or not, but if you only have one buy you have no such choice.

I'm guessing it's so you can't double up on Messenger's Santa Claus-ing.

I'm sure Donald will elaborate on this more in the Secret History, but the older versions of Messenger allowed you to get the on-gain benefit every time, and let's just say 3/4 player Dominion was a very different beast.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Burning Skull on April 02, 2015, 11:00:23 am
But only if you didn't buy anything else this turn.

That part feels weird to me:
If you go for two or more buys you can choose whether you want to gain extra stuff or not, but if you only have one buy you have no such choice.

I'm guessing it's so you can't double up on Messenger's Santa Claus-ing.

I was thinking, why not give the player a choice every time (whether it is the first buy or not), but yes, that covers it.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Jimmmmm on April 02, 2015, 11:03:16 am
I hope there's a Treasure/Duration card so (with a cost-reducer) you can Messenger a Mandarin, sending those suckers back on top of the deck. I don't know if that would be good since they'd still get the effects, but it could be fun.

Also, Messengering a Nomad Camp could be a fun way to disrupt your opponent's terminal draw or (if getting the Messenger from the Black Market) ensure your tribute gets you some +actions.

And of course the most obvious exploit would be to Messenger a card with only 1 left in the pile.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Witherweaver on April 02, 2015, 11:05:44 am
I hope there's a Treasure/Duration card so (with a cost-reducer) you can Messenger a Mandarin, sending those suckers back on top of the deck. I don't know if that would be good since they'd still get the effects, but it could be fun.

Also, Messengering a Nomad Camp could be a fun way to disrupt your opponent's terminal draw or (if getting the Messenger from the Black Market) ensure your tribute gets you some +actions.

And of course the most obvious exploit would be to Messenger a card with only 1 left in the pile.

Are Durations in play after your turn? 
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Jimmmmm on April 02, 2015, 11:07:20 am
I hope there's a Treasure/Duration card so (with a cost-reducer) you can Messenger a Mandarin, sending those suckers back on top of the deck. I don't know if that would be good since they'd still get the effects, but it could be fun.

Also, Messengering a Nomad Camp could be a fun way to disrupt your opponent's terminal draw or (if getting the Messenger from the Black Market) ensure your tribute gets you some +actions.

And of course the most obvious exploit would be to Messenger a card with only 1 left in the pile.

Are Durations in play after your turn?

Yep, Lighthouse says, "While this is in play..."
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Witherweaver on April 02, 2015, 11:07:34 am
I hope there's a Treasure/Duration card so (with a cost-reducer) you can Messenger a Mandarin, sending those suckers back on top of the deck. I don't know if that would be good since they'd still get the effects, but it could be fun.

Also, Messengering a Nomad Camp could be a fun way to disrupt your opponent's terminal draw or (if getting the Messenger from the Black Market) ensure your tribute gets you some +actions.

And of course the most obvious exploit would be to Messenger a card with only 1 left in the pile.

Oh, man.. Messenger, Watchtower, Jester.  Or Swindler, but Jester can give them two Curses. 
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Witherweaver on April 02, 2015, 11:09:20 am
I hope there's a Treasure/Duration card so (with a cost-reducer) you can Messenger a Mandarin, sending those suckers back on top of the deck. I don't know if that would be good since they'd still get the effects, but it could be fun.

Also, Messengering a Nomad Camp could be a fun way to disrupt your opponent's terminal draw or (if getting the Messenger from the Black Market) ensure your tribute gets you some +actions.

And of course the most obvious exploit would be to Messenger a card with only 1 left in the pile.

Are Durations in play after your turn?

Yep, Lighthouse says, "While this is in play..."

Alright, yeah.  FAQ/Rulebook make it clear, too. 
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Jimmmmm on April 02, 2015, 11:09:50 am
I hope there's a Treasure/Duration card so (with a cost-reducer) you can Messenger a Mandarin, sending those suckers back on top of the deck. I don't know if that would be good since they'd still get the effects, but it could be fun.

Also, Messengering a Nomad Camp could be a fun way to disrupt your opponent's terminal draw or (if getting the Messenger from the Black Market) ensure your tribute gets you some +actions.

And of course the most obvious exploit would be to Messenger a card with only 1 left in the pile.

Oh, man.. Messenger, Watchtower, Jester.  Or Swindler, but Jester can give them two Curses.

I don't think that works how you think it works.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Witherweaver on April 02, 2015, 11:12:20 am
I hope there's a Treasure/Duration card so (with a cost-reducer) you can Messenger a Mandarin, sending those suckers back on top of the deck. I don't know if that would be good since they'd still get the effects, but it could be fun.

Also, Messengering a Nomad Camp could be a fun way to disrupt your opponent's terminal draw or (if getting the Messenger from the Black Market) ensure your tribute gets you some +actions.

And of course the most obvious exploit would be to Messenger a card with only 1 left in the pile.

Oh, man.. Messenger, Watchtower, Jester.  Or Swindler, but Jester can give them two Curses.

I don't think that works how you think it works.

Oh, you're right, for some reason the top-decking of Mandarin got me thinking everything was getting top-decked.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Jimmmmm on April 02, 2015, 11:12:57 am
I hope there's a Treasure/Duration card so (with a cost-reducer) you can Messenger a Mandarin, sending those suckers back on top of the deck. I don't know if that would be good since they'd still get the effects, but it could be fun.

Also, Messengering a Nomad Camp could be a fun way to disrupt your opponent's terminal draw or (if getting the Messenger from the Black Market) ensure your tribute gets you some +actions.

And of course the most obvious exploit would be to Messenger a card with only 1 left in the pile.

Oh, man.. Messenger, Watchtower, Jester.  Or Swindler, but Jester can give them two Curses.

I don't think that works how you think it works.

Oh, you're right, for some reason the top-decking of Mandarin got me thinking everything was getting top-decked.

Yeah, you had me going for a while too.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Asper on April 02, 2015, 11:15:52 am
I really, really like this. <3

It's probably not all too strong, as i think combining Chancellor and Woodcutter would have been fine for $3 if the cards themselves didn't exist. Obviously they do, but this gives a bonus on buy to make up for the cost. It's far from trivial to decide when you want to use it, though, so if you use it on a card everybody wants, well, it's pretty much no bonus at all. Care to go for a Chancellor-Supported money deck and meanwhile throw some Silvers into your opponent's engine? Or let everyone gain a Copper for your Philosopher's Stone or Counting House? Maybe just gain the last card in a pile? Oh, and the three-piles...

I'm happy  :))

Edit: Oh, i guess Counting House and PS might not be that good with this, considering the fact it can make the game rather short. Hm...
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Jimmmmm on April 02, 2015, 11:18:54 am
So I guess Messenger/Gardens will be a thing?
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Watno on April 02, 2015, 11:19:52 am
Nice card, but I hoped for another event^^
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: werothegreat on April 02, 2015, 11:21:45 am
Play Highway.
Play Black Market.
Buy Messenger.
Gain Lost City.
Draw 3 cards (4-player game).
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Awaclus on April 02, 2015, 11:26:08 am
This sounds pretty good when you're gaining the last card in a pile.

EDIT: It's a good thing I had something new to add to the discussion!
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: chipperMDW on April 02, 2015, 11:58:57 am
I think I can see how this combos with Scout.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: ehunt on April 02, 2015, 11:59:25 am
Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: werothegreat on April 02, 2015, 12:02:13 pm
Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).

Yes, for the same reason Trader-ing an Ironworks gain doesn't give you a bonus.  Ironworks and Messenger both say "gain a card, do something depending on it" not "choose a card, gain it, etc".
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: joel88s on April 02, 2015, 12:10:47 pm
Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).

Yes, for the same reason Trader-ing an Ironworks gain doesn't give you a bonus.  Ironworks and Messenger both say "gain a card, do something depending on it" not "choose a card, gain it, etc".

Messenger doesn't actually say "depending on it", just "and". Ironworks has an if/then chart....
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: XerxesPraelor on April 02, 2015, 12:11:50 pm
This is fun - kind of like my Revolution, which works on a similar concept. They're still different enough to have both, luckily.

One more awesome card in adventures. This might have the highest density of awesomeness yet.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: crlundy on April 02, 2015, 12:12:09 pm
Why does Messenger restrict itself to being your first buy? Why not just have it be the first time you buy Messenger on a turn? I can see some sad days online when you accidentally buy a Province before Messenger.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: werothegreat on April 02, 2015, 12:12:32 pm
Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).

Yes, for the same reason Trader-ing an Ironworks gain doesn't give you a bonus.  Ironworks and Messenger both say "gain a card, do something depending on it" not "choose a card, gain it, etc".

Messenger doesn't actually say "depending on it", just "and". Ironworks has an if/then chart....

Which is shorthand for "if the card you gained with Ironworks is an..."  Which is another way of saying "do something depending on what you gain".
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: ehunt on April 02, 2015, 12:19:43 pm
yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Donald X. on April 02, 2015, 12:20:34 pm
Why does Messenger restrict itself to being your first buy? Why not just have it be the first time you buy Messenger on a turn? I can see some sad days online when you accidentally buy a Province before Messenger.
The text has to fit on the cards. We didn't know the Chancellor part would be scrunched, and with that on two lines you can't fit any more lines.

Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Witherweaver on April 02, 2015, 12:20:39 pm
yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.

I don't know what "it" is, but he's got it.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: joel88s on April 02, 2015, 12:21:26 pm
I assume this card has a quite interesting depth of openings, in that cards that you don't want multiples of become worse. Especially for player one.

I can imagine a game of Chapel Chicken: whoever buys one first opens himself to his opponent(s) sticking him with a second one.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Donald X. on April 02, 2015, 12:22:30 pm
Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).
I am not at home and so will consider this question some other time, when I have easy access to rulebooks and things.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Donald X. on April 02, 2015, 12:24:02 pm
yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.

I don't know what "it" is, but he's got it.
Annette Hanshaw - I've Got It But It Don't Do Me No Good
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Witherweaver on April 02, 2015, 12:26:53 pm
yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.

I don't know what "it" is, but he's got it.
Annette Hanshaw - I've Got It But It Don't Do Me No Good

Bell Biv DeVoe - Poison (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2SzzP7-sCg)
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: TheOthin on April 02, 2015, 12:27:48 pm
Sir Martin's best friend!
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: werothegreat on April 02, 2015, 12:31:25 pm
With Watchtower in hand, this is a cheaper Ill-Gotten Gains.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: joel88s on April 02, 2015, 12:35:11 pm
Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).

Yes, for the same reason Trader-ing an Ironworks gain doesn't give you a bonus.  Ironworks and Messenger both say "gain a card, do something depending on it" not "choose a card, gain it, etc".

EDIT: Ah, but maybe the dispositive point is the 'would gain' clause on Trader: since you never gained the card Messenger tried to gains, there's nothing to dole out. Got it.
EDIT: Ah, but maybe the dispositive point is the 'would gain' clause on Trader: since you never gained the card Messenger tried to gain, there's no card to dole out.
Messenger doesn't actually say "depending on it", just "and". Ironworks has an if/then chart....

Which is shorthand for "if the card you gained with Ironworks is an..."  Which is another way of saying "do something depending on what you gain".

Yes, that's what Ironworks says and means. My point though it that Messenger has no "if". It has an "and".

So if we accept the Clintonian assertion that:
yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.
and "it" means the card that Messenger tried to gain, would not each other player gain a copy of that "it"?
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: werothegreat on April 02, 2015, 12:42:38 pm
Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).

Yes, for the same reason Trader-ing an Ironworks gain doesn't give you a bonus.  Ironworks and Messenger both say "gain a card, do something depending on it" not "choose a card, gain it, etc".

EDIT: Ah, but maybe the dispositive point is the 'would gain' clause on Trader: since you never gained the card Messenger tried to gain, there's no card to dole out.
Messenger doesn't actually say "depending on it", just "and". Ironworks has an if/then chart....

Which is shorthand for "if the card you gained with Ironworks is an..."  Which is another way of saying "do something depending on what you gain".

Yes, that's what Ironworks says and means. My point though it that Messenger has no "if". It has an "and".

So if we accept the Clintonian assertion that:
yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.
and "it" means the card that Messenger tried to gain, would not each other player gain a copy of that "it"?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.  You are correct.

To me, that suggests simultaneity.  Which would mean if you chose to gain a Curse, and revealed Trader, you'd get a Silver, and everyone else would get a Curse.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: joel88s on April 02, 2015, 12:46:29 pm
Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).

Yes, for the same reason Trader-ing an Ironworks gain doesn't give you a bonus.  Ironworks and Messenger both say "gain a card, do something depending on it" not "choose a card, gain it, etc".

EDIT: Ah, but maybe the dispositive point is the 'would gain' clause on Trader: since you never gained the card Messenger tried to gain, there's no card to dole out.
Messenger doesn't actually say "depending on it", just "and". Ironworks has an if/then chart....

Which is shorthand for "if the card you gained with Ironworks is an..."  Which is another way of saying "do something depending on what you gain".

Yes, that's what Ironworks says and means. My point though it that Messenger has no "if". It has an "and".

So if we accept the Clintonian assertion that:
yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.
and "it" means the card that Messenger tried to gain, would not each other player gain a copy of that "it"?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.  You are correct.

To me, that suggests simultaneity.  Which would mean if you chose to gain a Curse, and revealed Trader, you'd get a Silver, and everyone else would get a Curse.

Haha, I was just in the process of trying unsuccessfully to edit the previous post to say: Wait, maybe the dispositive point is the 'would gain' clause on Trader. If you Trader the 'would-be-gained' card, Messenger nevers gains it, so there's nothing to dole out! In which case you were right for a different reason.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Witherweaver on April 02, 2015, 12:48:35 pm
I'm tempted to think it has the  Ironworks-type ruling.

1) Buy Messenger
2) Attempt to gain Curse
3) Reveal Trader, gaining a Silver
4) Continue with Messenger: "Each other player gains a copy of it".  There is no "it", because Messenger did not gain a card.

I'm like 0 for 100 on these ruling questions, though, so a good rule of thumb would be to assume the official rule is whatever isn't what I'm saying.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Witherweaver on April 02, 2015, 12:49:51 pm
In other words, I think "it" is the card that Messenger gained, not tried to gain
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: joel88s on April 02, 2015, 12:50:59 pm
Oh no, if we apply the Witherweaver-Is-Always-Wrong axiom, that screws up everything.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Witherweaver on April 02, 2015, 12:53:13 pm
Oh no, if we apply the Witherweaver-Is-Always-Wrong axiom, that screws up everything.

Also known as the WAWA.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: eHalcyon on April 02, 2015, 12:54:36 pm
So I guess Messenger/Gardens will be a thing?

In a Gardens mirror, the on-buy is a wash because everybody gains the thing.  It may be better if the others aren't going for Gardens.  Messenger could help with emptying piles, and it comes with +1 Buy, so there's that too.

With Watchtower in hand, this is a cheaper Ill-Gotten Gains.

Not quite... you end up with one Curse in the trash instead of still in the pile, and Messenger in your deck functions pretty differently from IGG in your deck.

I'm tempted to think it has the  Ironworks-type ruling.

1) Buy Messenger
2) Attempt to gain Curse
3) Reveal Trader, gaining a Silver
4) Continue with Messenger: "Each other player gains a copy of it".  There is no "it", because Messenger did not gain a card.

I'm like 0 for 100 on these ruling questions, though, so a good rule of thumb would be to assume the official rule is whatever isn't what I'm saying.

I agree with this.  Trader makes it so that Messenger failed to gain a card itself, so there is no "it" to copy.  That's how it works with Ironworks as well.  The salient points are the "would gain" on Trader and the "it" on Messenger/Ironworks.  I don't think the "if" on Ironworks factors into it.




Also, this is a really neat card.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: joel88s on April 02, 2015, 01:05:28 pm
Looks like WAWA may have failed us for once, eHalcyon agrees with us at any rate.

But isn't Watchtower different? It says 'when you gain', not 'would gain'. So you actually do gain the card. So doesn't that mean:
1) Buy Messenger; Gain Curse.
2) Everyone gains a curse.
3) You (and anyone else) can now reveal Watchtower and say "ehhhhh, no thanks."
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: joel88s on April 02, 2015, 01:07:52 pm
Also...

Also, this is a really neat card.

Yeah, that.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: popsofctown on April 02, 2015, 01:09:50 pm
So I guess Messenger/Gardens will be a thing?

In a Gardens mirror, the on-buy is a wash because everybody gains the thing.  It may be better if the others aren't going for Gardens.  Messenger could help with emptying piles, and it comes with +1 Buy, so there's that too.

With Watchtower in hand, this is a cheaper Ill-Gotten Gains.

Not quite... you end up with one Curse in the trash instead of still in the pile, and Messenger in your deck functions pretty differently from IGG in your deck.

I'm tempted to think it has the  Ironworks-type ruling.

1) Buy Messenger
2) Attempt to gain Curse
3) Reveal Trader, gaining a Silver
4) Continue with Messenger: "Each other player gains a copy of it".  There is no "it", because Messenger did not gain a card.

I'm like 0 for 100 on these ruling questions, though, so a good rule of thumb would be to assume the official rule is whatever isn't what I'm saying.

I agree with this.  Trader makes it so that Messenger failed to gain a card itself, so there is no "it" to copy.  That's how it works with Ironworks as well.  The salient points are the "would gain" on Trader and the "it" on Messenger/Ironworks.  I don't think the "if" on Ironworks factors into it.




Also, this is a really neat card.

Messenger gaining curse after you have control of the Garden split hurts the thin Province strat more than your bloated Gardens deck.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: eHalcyon on April 02, 2015, 01:42:39 pm
Looks like WAWA may have failed us for once, eHalcyon agrees with us at any rate.

But isn't Watchtower different? It says 'when you gain', not 'would gain'. So you actually do gain the card. So doesn't that mean:
1) Buy Messenger; Gain Curse.
2) Everyone gains a curse.
3) You (and anyone else) can now reveal Watchtower and say "ehhhhh, no thanks."

Yeah, there's no confusion with Watchtower here.  You can go to the Transmogrify thread for that.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: joel88s on April 02, 2015, 01:48:59 pm
Looks like WAWA may have failed us for once, eHalcyon agrees with us at any rate.

But isn't Watchtower different? It says 'when you gain', not 'would gain'. So you actually do gain the card. So doesn't that mean:
1) Buy Messenger; Gain Curse.
2) Everyone gains a curse.
3) You (and anyone else) can now reveal Watchtower and say "ehhhhh, no thanks."

Yeah, there's no confusion with Watchtower here.  You can go to the Transmogrify thread for that.

Oh, I see, you were just pointing out the subtle difference from IGG of trashing one curse as well as dishing them.

And thanks for the reminder of the Watchtowermogrify discussion. Great times.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: dghunter79 on April 02, 2015, 03:19:06 pm
Messenger is a great card for those of us who are constantly compelled to try "creative" strategies and are tired of competing against more rational players!
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: liopoil on April 02, 2015, 03:23:04 pm
With Watchtower in hand, this is a cheaper Ill-Gotten Gains.
Stop it! Ugh, was looking forward to this one.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Throwaway_bicycling on April 02, 2015, 04:23:57 pm

Or maybe you're a jerk holding a Watchtower and you decide to hand out Curses in the most convoluted way possible. Man, what's your problem? Well, go for it, I guess.

Actually, I think the way to hand out Curses in the most convoluted way possible would be to have some cost reducer like Highway in play, buy Messenger, and choose to gain IGG.

Then, if you are playing multiplayer (say in that five-player game you suggest), a total of 20 curses will be gained, and if you reveal Watchtower each time, I'm guessing somebody is going to shoot you...
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Witherweaver on April 02, 2015, 04:27:27 pm

Or maybe you're a jerk holding a Watchtower and you decide to hand out Curses in the most convoluted way possible. Man, what's your problem? Well, go for it, I guess.

Actually, I think the way to hand out Curses in the most convoluted way possible would be to have some cost reducer like Highway in play, buy Messenger, and choose to gain IGG.

Then, if you are playing multiplayer (say in that five-player game you suggest), a total of 20 curses will be gained, and if you reveal Watchtower each time, I'm guessing somebody is going to shoot you...

I think the most convoluted way to hand out a Curse would be to buy Messenger from the Black Market deck, gain a Copper, causing your opponent to gain a Copper, and then continually Spy/Scrying Pool until that Copper (hey, he could have trashed all his starters away) is back on the top of his deck, and then Swindler the Copper into a Curse.

(Or something similar with Jester.)
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: GendoIkari on April 02, 2015, 04:45:10 pm
yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.

The ruling was that "it" is the card ironworks DID gain, not the one it tried to gain. If it were the one it tried to gain, then you would still get the ironworks bonus with trader.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: GendoIkari on April 02, 2015, 04:46:37 pm
In other words, I think "it" is the card that Messenger gained, not tried to gain.

Exactly. Otherwise the ironworks trader interaction would be ruled differently.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: -Stef- on April 02, 2015, 05:17:44 pm
I assume this card has a quite interesting depth of openings, in that cards that you don't want multiples of become worse. Especially for player one.

I can imagine a game of Chapel Chicken: whoever buys one first opens himself to his opponent(s) sticking him with a second one.

I would certainly "solve" this by just buying chapel. Suppose we start out like...

I open Chapel ($3)
You buy Messenger, giving us both a Chapel ($4)
I buy messenger, giving us both a Silver ($4)
You buy Silver ($3)

... I wouldn't dare tell you who is in the better spot now. Second Chapel may be really bad if it collides with the first and a silver/messenger.
But it also may be a gift from heaven if they don't collide, as I still get to really trash down despite all the quick gains on the first shuffle.
Your "single chapel strategy" isn't near as good as normal either, because you already have 3 other cards you don't want to trash.

Off course a lot depends on the kingdom, but I assume we're talking about a kingdom where chapel is good in the first place.
Certainly interesting to think about though.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: jsh357 on April 02, 2015, 05:20:55 pm
Yes, I think stuffing someone with Chapels usually doesn't work out, at least in the opening.  A second Potion can be bad if you are trying to hit Familiar, though.  Also terminal cards you only want one of (like Moneylender). As the Messenger buyer, you have to take in to consideration how useful the gained card is to yourself as well, though. 
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: WanderingWinder on April 02, 2015, 06:25:30 pm
I need to do so much math for various openings, especially given how things can be different based on 4/3 vs 3/4.

Um, play effect of card is pretty mediocre, but not really that awful. Both woodcutter and chancellor give you some things you like, especially in engines.

Much more interesting for buy effect. Obvious thing is to get cards which are good for you but not them... too many terminals? If I'm playing a money deck, against their engine, silvers? In any case, you are probably going to be able to end the game pretty fast, not only because this slams piles down fast (really fast), but also because it gives both players bonuses... I guess maybe it gives penalties sometimes, huh? There isn't much reason not to just pick bad cards a lot? Well, you have to take one of these to do it, that's a reason. Probably usually bonuses then. Which can end the game fast as well - we've seen it on Governor, though I suspect this isn't as good as governor by a good margin. Well, maybe. Card is probably fairly good, because of that on-buy. But there is opportunity cost I guess. I doubt it's broken.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Willvon on April 02, 2015, 07:19:57 pm
So this would be like Ill-Gotten Gains, where you can give out curses and they can't use Moat or Lighthouse to stop it, right? But unless you have a Watchtower, (or perhaps a Trader depending on the ruling by Donald X), you will get a curse also. So would there ever be a rush to use this as a curser like Ill-Gotten Gains?
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: SCSN on April 02, 2015, 07:24:51 pm
So this would be like Ill-Gotten Gains, where you can give out curses and they can't use Moat or Lighthouse to stop it, right? But unless you have a Watchtower, (or perhaps a Trader depending on the ruling by Donald X), you will get a curse also. So would there ever be a rush to use this as a curser like Ill-Gotten Gains?

No, unless your deck can handle the cursing a lot better than you opponent's deck there's no reason to buy this turn after turn to share the curses. And since getting to a deck that can handle curses well takes time, you won't be seeing a IGG-like rush with this card.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Just a Rube on April 02, 2015, 08:37:36 pm
So this would be like Ill-Gotten Gains, where you can give out curses and they can't use Moat or Lighthouse to stop it, right? But unless you have a Watchtower, (or perhaps a Trader depending on the ruling by Donald X), you will get a curse also. So would there ever be a rush to use this as a curser like Ill-Gotten Gains?

No, unless your deck can handle the cursing a lot better than you opponent's deck there's no reason to buy this turn after turn to share the curses. And since getting to a deck that can handle curses well takes time, you won't be seeing a IGG-like rush with this card.
Not to mention that a lot of what makes the IGG rush so powerful is that it empties 2 piles at once, while giving something that can still buy things reasonably well. On the other hand, a Messenger Rush would involve buying a bunch of terminal Wood-Chancellors, and still only empty one pile (while not actually winning the curse split).
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: joel88s on April 02, 2015, 09:06:52 pm
yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.

The ruling was that "it" is the card ironworks DID gain, not the one it tried to gain. If it were the one it tried to gain, then you would still get the ironworks bonus with trader.

So are you saying if you mistakenly tried to Messenger a curse and then revealed Trader, everyone would get a Silver?
Or is the ruling with Ironworks/Trader (remind me) that Ironworks didn't gain that Silver, Trader did?
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: joel88s on April 02, 2015, 09:10:59 pm
I assume this card has a quite interesting depth of openings, in that cards that you don't want multiples of become worse. Especially for player one.

I can imagine a game of Chapel Chicken: whoever buys one first opens himself to his opponent(s) sticking him with a second one.

I would certainly "solve" this by just buying chapel. Suppose we start out like...

I open Chapel ($3)
You buy Messenger, giving us both a Chapel ($4)
I buy messenger, giving us both a Silver ($4)
You buy Silver ($3)

... I wouldn't dare tell you who is in the better spot now. Second Chapel may be really bad if it collides with the first and a silver/messenger.
But it also may be a gift from heaven if they don't collide, as I still get to really trash down despite all the quick gains on the first shuffle.
Your "single chapel strategy" isn't near as good as normal either, because you already have 3 other cards you don't want to trash.

Off course a lot depends on the kingdom, but I assume we're talking about a kingdom where chapel is good in the first place.
Certainly interesting to think about though.

I see, so if I try to overload you with Chapels, you say "Fine, I'll give you good cards so your Chapel won't work as well!"
Great stuff.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: eHalcyon on April 02, 2015, 09:13:33 pm
yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.

The ruling was that "it" is the card ironworks DID gain, not the one it tried to gain. If it were the one it tried to gain, then you would still get the ironworks bonus with trader.

So are you saying if you mistakenly tried to Messenger a curse and then revealed Trader, everyone would get a Silver?
Or is the ruling with Ironworks/Trader (remind me) that Ironworks didn't gain that Silver, Trader did?

You would gain a card with Ironworks/Messenger.
You reveal Trader, gaining a Silver instead.
Ironworks/Messenger gives you a bonus based on the card that Ironworks/Messenger gained.
Ironworks/Messenger did not actually gain a card due to Trader interference, so the subsequent effects don't happen.  There is no "it" for them to work from.  Ironworks has no reference to determine its bonus and Messenger doesn't know what card should have copies distributed.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: TheOthin on April 02, 2015, 09:28:31 pm
So Messenger/Trader can try to gain anything, then replace it with a Silver and not have to share?

Not ideal, but could be useful.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: joel88s on April 02, 2015, 09:30:40 pm
yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.

The ruling was that "it" is the card ironworks DID gain, not the one it tried to gain. If it were the one it tried to gain, then you would still get the ironworks bonus with trader.

So are you saying if you mistakenly tried to Messenger a curse and then revealed Trader, everyone would get a Silver?
Or is the ruling with Ironworks/Trader (remind me) that Ironworks didn't gain that Silver, Trader did?

You would gain a card with Ironworks/Messenger.
You reveal Trader, gaining a Silver instead.
Ironworks/Messenger gives you a bonus based on the card that Ironworks/Messenger gained.
Ironworks/Messenger did not actually gain a card due to Trader interference, so the subsequent effects don't happen.  There is no "it" for them to work from.  Ironworks has no reference to determine its bonus and Messenger doesn't know what card should have copies distributed.

Right, so the Silver you gain is gained by Trader, the Ironworks/Messenger says "That's not what I ordered, I don't know where that came from."

So does that mean you could actually use that intentionally if for some reason you actually wanted to get both a Messenger and a Silver, without giving out the Silver to everyone else? "I buy Messenger, gaining a baloney sandwich. Oops, no, here's Trader, I'll take a Silver instead." And of course no one gains a baloney sandwich.

[Ninja'd more succinctly]
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Gherald on April 02, 2015, 09:42:34 pm
The best part is you can reveal your Trader to also not gain a Messenger.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: eHalcyon on April 02, 2015, 09:53:50 pm
So does that mean you could actually use that intentionally if for some reason you actually wanted to get both a Messenger and a Silver, without giving out the Silver to everyone else? "I buy Messenger, gaining a baloney sandwich. Oops, no, here's Trader, I'll take a Silver instead." And of course no one gains a baloney sandwich.

[Ninja'd more succinctly]

Yes.  You could even buy Messenger to gain Silver, then use Trader to replace that Silver with Silver.  Then nobody else gains a Silver but you do.  And I like Gherald's idea of also using Trader to replace the Messenger itself with Silver.  It still works because Messenger's thing is on-first-buy, not on-gain.  Then you just gain two Silver.

(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Yo-Dawg-Heard-You.jpg)
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: werothegreat on April 02, 2015, 09:59:56 pm
So does that mean you could actually use that intentionally if for some reason you actually wanted to get both a Messenger and a Silver, without giving out the Silver to everyone else? "I buy Messenger, gaining a baloney sandwich. Oops, no, here's Trader, I'll take a Silver instead." And of course no one gains a baloney sandwich.

[Ninja'd more succinctly]

Yes.  You could even buy Messenger to gain Silver, then use Trader to replace that Silver with Silver.  Then nobody else gains a Silver but you do.  And I like Gherald's idea of also using Trader to replace the Messenger itself with Silver.  It still works because Messenger's thing is on-first-buy, not on-gain.  Then you just gain two Silver.

(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Yo-Dawg-Heard-You.jpg)

Does this mean that there's no way to reveal Trader for Cache to get three Silvers instead?
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: GendoIkari on April 02, 2015, 10:02:25 pm
yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.

The ruling was that "it" is the card ironworks DID gain, not the one it tried to gain. If it were the one it tried to gain, then you would still get the ironworks bonus with trader.

So are you saying if you mistakenly tried to Messenger a curse and then revealed Trader, everyone would get a Silver?
No, definitely not.
Quote
Or is the ruling with Ironworks/Trader (remind me) that Ironworks didn't gain that Silver, Trader did?
Yes, this. The original gain never happened; so messenger/ironworks never gained a card.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Jimmmmm on April 02, 2015, 10:04:38 pm
I guess with Trader, it's useful to think that it's preventing you from gaining something and then gaining something itself, rather than changing what you gain.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: GendoIkari on April 02, 2015, 10:05:07 pm
So does that mean you could actually use that intentionally if for some reason you actually wanted to get both a Messenger and a Silver, without giving out the Silver to everyone else? "I buy Messenger, gaining a baloney sandwich. Oops, no, here's Trader, I'll take a Silver instead." And of course no one gains a baloney sandwich.

[Ninja'd more succinctly]

Yes.  You could even buy Messenger to gain Silver, then use Trader to replace that Silver with Silver.  Then nobody else gains a Silver but you do.  And I like Gherald's idea of also using Trader to replace the Messenger itself with Silver.  It still works because Messenger's thing is on-first-buy, not on-gain.  Then you just gain two Silver.

(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Yo-Dawg-Heard-You.jpg)

Does this mean that there's no way to reveal Trader for Cache to get three Silvers instead?

Correct. You'll have to live with 2 Silvers and a Cache.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: GendoIkari on April 02, 2015, 10:07:31 pm
I guess with Trader, it's useful to think that it's preventing you from gaining something and then gaining something itself, rather than changing what you gain.

Absolutely. Trader only causes these confusions because it still ends up gaining a card. But it could also say something like "when you would gain a card, you may reveal this. If you do, trash a card from your hand instead." The card that you gain is not being replaced; the entire gain is.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Marcory on April 02, 2015, 10:23:17 pm
Quote
Does this mean that there's no way to reveal Trader for Cache to get three Silvers instead?

No, there is. Gain the Cache, trash it with Watchtower, reveal and discard Market Square, gain a Gold, reveal Trader to gain a Silver instead, then gain the two coppers, reveal Trader, gain two Silvers instead.

Also Embargo, Border Village, Haggler.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: werothegreat on April 02, 2015, 10:25:00 pm
Now I want to play Bridge, buy Messenger, and give everyone a Cache.  Just to be a dick.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: joel88s on April 02, 2015, 10:42:06 pm
Now I want to play Bridge, buy Messenger, and give everyone a Cache.  Just to be a dick.

Yeah but don't you know they all have Trader in their hand?
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: GendoIkari on April 02, 2015, 11:13:49 pm
Quote
Does this mean that there's no way to reveal Trader for Cache to get three Silvers instead?

No, there is. Gain the Cache, trash it with Watchtower, reveal and discard Market Square, gain a Gold, reveal Trader to gain a Silver instead, then gain the two coppers, reveal Trader, gain two Silvers instead.

Also Embargo, Border Village, Haggler.

This is not revealing a Trader for Cache.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: GwinnR on April 03, 2015, 03:43:51 am
Oh, another Chancellor. I hope it won't get translated into german again as "discard your draw pile"!
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: WanderingWinder on April 03, 2015, 08:10:27 am
First round of math. Chances of hitting 3p+ on turns 3-4 given various deck configurations. How you get to those with these cards is left up to the reader - there are lots of possibilities, but in a practical game, it's not THAT hard to work out.

One note before I start: I treated all terminal silvers as though they were actual silvers. If you have multiple silvers, then collision will lower these a little bit. Also, Messenger's Chancellor effect can help.

(What's listed are the cards in excess of the starting deck).


P: 60.6%
PP: 66.9%
PS: 65.4%
PSS: 65.7%
PSSS: 64.1%
PPS: 74.2%
PPSS: 77.9%

Please note this is the chances for hitting at least one - multi-potion openings give the chance for 2 hits as well.

tl;dr giving someone a second potion ups their chances of hitting the amount they needed


You can actually get the chances of hitting 4p to be quite reasonable on some of these (not super high), but that still seems like not a great idea usually.

If you only need to hit 2p, having a second potion is amazing, and reasonably often you should be hitting two.

So the thought of spamming them with another, an extra potion just seems pretty bad - you are just helping them. Taking a second for yourself may be reasonable.

I'll try to get 3x silver and 4x silver run for chances of hitting 5 at least once, 5 twice, 6 at least once, 6 twice, 7 at least once, run at some point soon. But if someone wants to beat me to it (or just check my math on these), that would be great.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Mole5000 on April 03, 2015, 09:45:31 am
I've thought about Messanger some more and decided it is the new Jester.

i.e. a card I got enormously excited about but is actually mediocre.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: WanderingWinder on April 03, 2015, 12:29:54 pm
More math. Same as before, 'S' denotes Silver, and I'm treating terminal silvers as actual silvers.

S/S (I ripped these from an old post on the main page):
Chance of hitting at least one $9+: 0%
Chance of hitting at least one $8+: 0%
Chance of hitting at least one $7+: 8.8%
Chance of hitting two at least $7+: 0%
Chance of hitting at least one $6+: 42.4%
Chance of hitting two at least $6+: 0%
Chance of hitting at least one $5+: 91.2%
Chance of hitting two at least $5+: 14.9%

S/S/S
Chance of hitting at least one $9+: 0%
Chance of hitting at least one $8+: 3.3%
Chance of hitting at least one $7+: 22.3%
Chance of hitting two at least $7+: 0%
Chance of hitting at least one $6+: 65.5%
Chance of hitting two at least $6+: 2.9%
Chance of hitting at least one $5+: 97.1%
Chance of hitting two at least $5+: 33.9%

S/S/S/S:
Chance of hitting at least one $9+: 0.7%
Chance of hitting at least one $8+: 9.5%
Chance of hitting at least one $7+: 22.3%
Chance of hitting two at least $7+: 0.3%
Chance of hitting at least one $6+: 79.9%
Chance of hitting two at least $6+: 11.3%
Chance of hitting at least one $5+: 98.9%
Chance of hitting two at least $5+: 49.4%
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: jamfamsam on April 03, 2015, 01:01:32 pm
Has Donald ruled on the Messenger/Trader issue and I missed it?
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Donald X. on April 03, 2015, 01:16:08 pm
Has Donald ruled on the Messenger/Trader issue and I missed it?
No.

"It" is the card you gained, so if you Trader that card no-one else gets anything. You can Trader the Messenger itself without disrupting anything.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: WanderingWinder on April 03, 2015, 02:36:24 pm
The more I think about this, the more it seems really strong. I want to play this in Big Money and wreck your engine. Yeah, I said it. Just dishing out silvers all day long makes my money deck better, your engine... less clear. Definitely looking forward to it, anyway.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Gherald on April 03, 2015, 04:05:13 pm
(http://s.quickmeme.com/img/94/945f19637c025270208f6e0e3449fcf8ef342c825e64676ba5f0922784f3a227.jpg)

This is based on a comment he made during AdamH's Gokodom streaming match, where he suggested that Adam's optimal play was to use ambassador to return "at least one Silver."

(http://i.imgur.com/U6HLzFx.jpg)

Am I doing it right?

Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: -Stef- on April 03, 2015, 04:20:05 pm
Am I doing it right?

Yes you're doing it right but I can't believe WW is in this case.
Sure there are some engines you can stop with free silvers (village/smithy/no trashing) but most of them just say thank you very much.
Against say a Steward and a Workers Village it's already really bad.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: WanderingWinder on April 03, 2015, 04:27:09 pm
Am I doing it right?

Yes you're doing it right but I can't believe WW is in this case.
Sure there are some engines you can stop with free silvers (village/smithy/no trashing) but most of them just say thank you very much.
Against say a Steward and a Workers Village it's already really bad.
It's not so much about harming the engine as it is about helping the BM.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: GendoIkari on April 03, 2015, 05:25:48 pm
The more I think about this, the more it seems really strong. I want to play this in Big Money and wreck your engine. Yeah, I said it. Just dishing out silvers all day long makes my money deck better, your engine... less clear. Definitely looking forward to it, anyway.

Your problem here is that you have to buy a terminal for every Silver you want to dish out, and you don't want many terminals. Once you have 1 or 2 (or less if you have terminal draw), you'd much rather have just a Silver than a Silver and a Messenger.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: WanderingWinder on April 03, 2015, 05:41:00 pm
The more I think about this, the more it seems really strong. I want to play this in Big Money and wreck your engine. Yeah, I said it. Just dishing out silvers all day long makes my money deck better, your engine... less clear. Definitely looking forward to it, anyway.

Your problem here is that you have to buy a terminal for every Silver you want to dish out, and you don't want many terminals. Once you have 1 or 2 (or less if you have terminal draw), you'd much rather have just a Silver than a Silver and a Messenger.

So I just buy a silver. Really, though, I imagine you can get quite a number of terminals - 3, 4? The silver isn't all that damaging anyway, it's more that it's not so helpful. And I, the money player, get to open triple Silver, following up with quite a bit more. I get my deck quite thick with silvers nice and quickly. And it's quite a while before I would rather have no Messenger than Messenger. Also, I have a decent amount of pile control for a money deck.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: GendoIkari on April 03, 2015, 06:27:50 pm
The more I think about this, the more it seems really strong. I want to play this in Big Money and wreck your engine. Yeah, I said it. Just dishing out silvers all day long makes my money deck better, your engine... less clear. Definitely looking forward to it, anyway.

Your problem here is that you have to buy a terminal for every Silver you want to dish out, and you don't want many terminals. Once you have 1 or 2 (or less if you have terminal draw), you'd much rather have just a Silver than a Silver and a Messenger.

So I just buy a silver. Really, though, I imagine you can get quite a number of terminals - 3, 4? The silver isn't all that damaging anyway, it's more that it's not so helpful. And I, the money player, get to open triple Silver, following up with quite a bit more. I get my deck quite thick with silvers nice and quickly. And it's quite a while before I would rather have no Messenger than Messenger. Also, I have a decent amount of pile control for a money deck.

But you don't get Silver any quicker than you would by just buying Silver normally.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: WanderingWinder on April 03, 2015, 06:30:56 pm
The more I think about this, the more it seems really strong. I want to play this in Big Money and wreck your engine. Yeah, I said it. Just dishing out silvers all day long makes my money deck better, your engine... less clear. Definitely looking forward to it, anyway.

Your problem here is that you have to buy a terminal for every Silver you want to dish out, and you don't want many terminals. Once you have 1 or 2 (or less if you have terminal draw), you'd much rather have just a Silver than a Silver and a Messenger.

So I just buy a silver. Really, though, I imagine you can get quite a number of terminals - 3, 4? The silver isn't all that damaging anyway, it's more that it's not so helpful. And I, the money player, get to open triple Silver, following up with quite a bit more. I get my deck quite thick with silvers nice and quickly. And it's quite a while before I would rather have no Messenger than Messenger. Also, I have a decent amount of pile control for a money deck.

But you don't get Silver any quicker than you would by just buying Silver normally.

I get silver-or-silver-equivalents quite a bit faster.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Flip5ide on April 04, 2015, 04:39:03 am
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: ehunt on April 04, 2015, 05:14:03 am
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)

Messenger is so funny compared to base set cards. It's got the Chancellor and the Woodcutter bonus.  Most of the time, the on-buy is going to be neutral-ish if your deck looks like your opponent's, and a mild boon to you if it doesn't. If you're playing against someone who's better than you at tactics, it might pay even more than usual to imitate their strategy, lest they find ways to use extra estates that you can't.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: werothegreat on April 04, 2015, 08:54:06 am
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)

"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: GendoIkari on April 04, 2015, 09:09:03 am
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)

"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".

This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: AJD on April 04, 2015, 09:12:16 am
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)

"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".

This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".

Gendo is right and Wero is wrong; the case of whoever is determined by the smallest clause it's actually in. It's acting as the subject of was asking. It's not the object of for; the object of for is the entire clause whoever was asking.

(That's the standard rule, anyway)
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: GendoIkari on April 04, 2015, 09:19:29 am
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)

"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".

This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".

Gendo is right and Wero is wrong; the case of whoever is determined by the smallest clause it's actually in. It's acting as the subject of was asking. It's not the object of for; the object of for is the entire clause whoever was asking.

(That's the standard rule, anyway)

Assuming you're correct, Flip5ide was right, not I. Or, I was right in my first instinct, but I did say in my post that I thought Wero was right, which makes me wrong.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: enfynet on April 04, 2015, 09:36:37 am
Oh come on. Do we really need a Previews: Messenger [Serious] thread already?
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: werothegreat on April 04, 2015, 10:01:48 am
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)

"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".

This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".

Gendo is right and Wero is wrong; the case of whoever is determined by the smallest clause it's actually in. It's acting as the subject of was asking. It's not the object of for; the object of for is the entire clause whoever was asking.

(That's the standard rule, anyway)

I think the problem is arising from the fact that English annoyingly abbreviates the starts of dependent clauses. To have no ambiguity, it should be "for him, who", but English let's you scrunch that up.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: GendoIkari on April 04, 2015, 10:05:32 am
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)

"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".

This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".

Gendo is right and Wero is wrong; the case of whoever is determined by the smallest clause it's actually in. It's acting as the subject of was asking. It's not the object of for; the object of for is the entire clause whoever was asking.

(That's the standard rule, anyway)

I think the problem is arising from the fact that English annoyingly abbreviates the starts of dependent clauses. To have no ambiguity, it should be "for him, who", but English let's you scrunch that up.

So what you're saying is that we need more commas.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Flip5ide on April 04, 2015, 10:18:47 am
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)

"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".

This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".

Gendo is right and Wero is wrong; the case of whoever is determined by the smallest clause it's actually in. It's acting as the subject of was asking. It's not the object of for; the object of for is the entire clause whoever was asking.

(That's the standard rule, anyway)

I think the problem is arising from the fact that English annoyingly abbreviates the starts of dependent clauses. To have no ambiguity, it should be "for him, who", but English let's you scrunch that up.

So what you're saying is that we need more commas.

I just use the rule of thumb, →  if you can replace the word, answer the question, or rephrase the sentence to have: he, then use who; him, use whom. I could be wrong. For instance, "There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking," becomes  ". . . he was asking."
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: AJD on April 04, 2015, 10:43:59 am
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)

"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".

This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".

Gendo is right and Wero is wrong; the case of whoever is determined by the smallest clause it's actually in. It's acting as the subject of was asking. It's not the object of for; the object of for is the entire clause whoever was asking.

(That's the standard rule, anyway)

I think the problem is arising from the fact that English annoyingly abbreviates the starts of dependent clauses. To have no ambiguity, it should be "for him, who", but English let's you scrunch that up.

"Whoever" is longer than "him, who", so I'm not sure what you mean by "abbreviates". And I'm not sure what you mean by "ambiguity" either; I don't see how "for whoever was asking" is any more ambiguous than "for him who was asking" (but I do think it has a different meaning).
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Donald X. on April 04, 2015, 11:25:11 am
"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".
Not so!

"Whom" is used in certain old expressions, such as "for whom the bell tolls," and in situations where you want to make a statement with your word choice. Otherwise people say "who." "Whom" is dying.

Similarly, "ye" is used in certain old expressions, such as "hear ye, hear ye," and in situations where you want to sound old-timey. Otherwise people say "you." "Ye" is dead.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: AJD on April 04, 2015, 11:46:13 am
"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".
Not so!

"Whom" is used in certain old expressions, such as "for whom the bell tolls," and in situations where you want to make a statement with your word choice. Otherwise people say "who." "Whom" is dying.

I don't quite agree—whom is pretty robust with pied-piped prepositions, as in To whom should I direct this request? Admittedly, pied-piping prepositions is itself pretty rare—people would mostly just say Who should I direct this request to?, with the preposition stranded at the end of the sentence—but it's far from obsolete. (It's certainly less obsolete than whom is in non–pied-piping contexts, for instance.) And as far as I can tell you almost always get whom and almost never who in that situation.

(Also, maybe this should be moved to another thread.)
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: shmeur on April 04, 2015, 11:52:24 am
Maybe he's a hinting that today's preview card will be the Prescriptive Grammarian: each player gains a curse for every grammatical error made.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: TheOthin on April 04, 2015, 12:04:09 pm
Maybe he's a hinting that today's preview card will be the Prescriptive Grammarian: each player gains a curse for every grammatical error made.
(http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=73941&type=card)
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Witherweaver on April 04, 2015, 04:28:05 pm
Guys, guys, guys.  It's:

"There's the +Buy card, for, whomever was asking."
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: dghunter79 on April 04, 2015, 05:29:11 pm
I think the problem is arising from the fact that English annoyingly abbreviates the starts of dependent clauses. To have no ambiguity, it should be "for him, who", but English let's you scrunch that up.

In this case it would have been "for he who was asking."  "For him, who was asking" means something different.

For a particularly vivid example, compare

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

with

"Let him, who is without sin, cast the first stone."
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: AJD on April 04, 2015, 05:37:29 pm
I think the problem is arising from the fact that English annoyingly abbreviates the starts of dependent clauses. To have no ambiguity, it should be "for him, who", but English let's you scrunch that up.

In this case it would have been "for he who was asking."  "For him, who was asking" means something different.

For a particularly vivid example, compare

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

with

"Let him, who is without sin, cast the first stone."

By standard prescriptive rules, you're wrong; it must be him either way because it's the object of the preposition, regardless of the restrictiveness or non-restrictiveness of the who clause.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: werothegreat on April 05, 2015, 02:01:32 am
Go home, English, you're drunk.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: shmeur on April 05, 2015, 03:33:09 am
Go home, English, you're drunk.
 

That comma splice though!
[^ That sentence fragment though!]
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: joel88s on April 05, 2015, 09:48:45 am
Go home, English, you're drunk.

He who, hee hoo.
Me, drunk?
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Young Nick on April 05, 2015, 02:17:27 pm
Didn't read previous comments but thank god Chancelor's big brother came out to play.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: shmeur on April 05, 2015, 02:43:29 pm
I hope we get a reaction/reserve card/event that benefits from shuffling the deck.  Is that too much to ask for ?
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: werothegreat on April 05, 2015, 04:39:14 pm
I hope we get a reaction/reserve card/event that benefits from shuffling the deck.  Is that too much to ask for ?

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/2/23/Stash.jpg)
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: enfynet on April 05, 2015, 07:31:59 pm
I hope we get a reaction/reserve card/event that benefits from shuffling the deck.  Is that too much to ask for ?

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/2/23/Stash.jpg)
Poor Stache... Always forgotten...
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Gherald on April 05, 2015, 11:43:58 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/GNyLtK0.png)

Combos with Pearl Diver, Chancellor/Messenger not as much
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Witherweaver on April 05, 2015, 11:47:10 pm
Combos with Gillette.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: pacovf on April 06, 2015, 05:23:26 am
Don't know how useful it is, but you can use Messenger to double cost reduction: with one Highway, you can get a 5$ card for 3$; with 2, a 6$ card for $2, etc. Of course, everybody else is also gaining that card, but it might be good if you are relying on Apprentice for draw and you just want fodder that they can't use, or something.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: faust on April 06, 2015, 05:24:40 am
Don't know how useful it is, but you can use Messenger to double cost reduction: with one Highway, you can get a 5$ card for 3$; with 2, a 6$ card for $2, etc. Of course, everybody else is also gaining that card, but it might be good if you are relying on Apprentice for draw and you just want fodder that they can't use, or something.

Relying on Apprentice for draw + playing a Highway engine = bad times.
Title: Re: Preview: Messenger
Post by: Witherweaver on April 06, 2015, 08:51:49 am
Don't know how useful it is, but you can use Messenger to double cost reduction: with one Highway, you can get a 5$ card for 3$; with 2, a 6$ card for $2, etc. Of course, everybody else is also gaining that card, but it might be good if you are relying on Apprentice for draw and you just want fodder that they can't use, or something.

Relying on Apprentice for draw + playing a Highway engine = bad times.

Meme'd that for you

(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/61004245.jpg)