Okay. Now all of the cards are out. What stands out? What seems bad? Any sleepers? Any duds?
Okay. Now all of the cards are out. What stands out? What seems bad? Any sleepers? Any duds?
You’re just trying to lure us into making statements we will all laugh at in two years.
Okay. Now all of the cards are out. What stands out? What seems bad? Any sleepers? Any duds?
You’re just trying to lure us into making statements we will all laugh at in two years.
I think Conclave seems really weak and not interesting at all, but maybe I'm missing something.
Monastery will obviously be really strong. It only costs 2; It is essentially non-terminal, and it can trash coppers that are IN PLAY. Obviously, this is not quite as good as chapel, but it can really do some work I think,
Okay. Now all of the cards are out. What stands out? What seems bad? Any sleepers? Any duds?
I think Conclave seems really weak and not interesting at all, but maybe I'm missing something.I think Conclave:Festival::Imp:Laboratory (except for missing +1 buy), approximately. Among the 96 $5'ers in the Qvist rankings, Laboratory is 23 and Festival is 58, so maybe this'll be a middling $4-coster?
Monastery will obviously be really strong. It only costs 2; It is essentially non-terminal, and it can trash coppers that are IN PLAY. Obviously, this is not quite as good as chapel, but it can really do some work I think.This is not obvious to me.
I think the best case is something like "play Ironworks to gain a card, buy a card for $3 and trash two Coppers".
Monastery will obviously be really strong. It only costs 2; It is essentially non-terminal, and it can trash coppers that are IN PLAY. Obviously, this is not quite as good as chapel, but it can really do some work I think.This is not obvious to me.
Trashing is most valuable early. Number of cards gained per turn is low early and high mid-to-late game. The effect of getting to play the copper you trash is roughly comparable to the +$1 from Forager, another non-terminal trasher—unless you can play and then trash multiple Coppers.
I think the best case is something like "play Ironworks to gain a card, buy a card for $3 and trash two Coppers". That's a pretty strong turn12 to 153 or 4 turn, but it's also somewhat unlikely. More likely is something like Monastery, Estate, 3xCopper. Here you buy a card for $3 and trash an Estate; a Salvager or Moneylender would've let you hit $5 (but they also cost more).
I think it'll be a pretty decent trasher; probably somewhere between the better single-card trashers and the weaker multi-card trashers, which is... just exactly among the top ~25% of trashers? Maybe?
The strength of Changeling will obviously be highly kingdom-dependent, more so than your average card. I think it'll synergize well with Silver gainers—Lucky Coin and Masterpiece spring to mind.
I think with most Night cards the non-terminal nature is a big plus. [...] Do a big terminal draw and still trash stuff.Oh hey, I still haven't quite internalized that Night cards are extra-super-special-non-terminal, in that you can't draw them dead.
I'd mostly agree with your placement, although I think it could easily be on par or better than the weaker multi-trashers, depending on the kingdom of course.So something like Chapel > Steward, Remake > Monastery > Temple, Trading Post?
And the fact that you can trash a copper in play means you aren't forced into those awkward decisions of buying a better card earlier or trashing a copper or two.True; something it has in common with Forager and trash-from-deck cards (Sentry, Lookout, Loan, Doctor). Of these, it's probably most similar to Forager.
I think the best case is something like "play Ironworks to gain a card, buy a card for $3 and trash two Coppers".
Transmogrify + Monastery seems like a good case.
TM an estate into a Monastery, buy a card, trash 2 things.
The strength of Changeling will obviously be highly kingdom-dependent, more so than your average card. I think it'll synergize well with Silver gainers—Lucky Coin and Masterpiece spring to mind.
Yeah I was curious what the use cases for this aspect was. Noticed right away the Lucky Coin synergy (mostly cause I quickly get sick of LC gaining me silvers) but wondering if there is some other fancy stuff you can do with it. Trader is another interesting one: turn the junk card you're getting into a silver into a Changeling.
Oh hey, I still haven't quite internalized that Night cards are extra-super-special-non-terminal, in that you can't draw them dead.
I would get a Monastery in ~100% of my Smithy/BM games for this reason.
So something like Chapel > Steward, Remake > Monastery > Temple, Trading Post?
After one League Match with them:Yeah I'm not really too thrilled with the fate cards. Like there are maybe 2 or 3 boons that are actually decent but the rest are just okay. It's not really something I'd want to revolve my strategy around cycling through the boon deck hoping to get one of the decent effects.
Bard seems really bad. I'm not even sure it passes the Silver test.
Okay. Now all of the cards are out. What stands out? What seems bad? Any sleepers? Any duds?
You’re just trying to lure us into making statements we will all laugh at in two years.
Changeling + Humble Castle......
Changeling + Knights ......
Probably not amazing.... but could be interesting....
Okay, some hot takes based on zero playing with the cards:
Bard is good, and will rank near other power cards like Navigator and Nomad Camp.
I think Conclave seems really weak and not interesting at all, but maybe I'm missing something.
Monastery will obviously be really strong. It only costs 2; It is essentially non-terminal, and it can trash coppers that are IN PLAY. Obviously, this is not quite as good as chapel, but it can really do some work I think,
Yeah... i think for 4, Conclave is ridiculously OP. It basically turns any terminal draw into a mega laboratory with +2 coin and turns every other terminal action into a mega village. I mean you won't get to repeat it with the same actions and maybe have a drawback on durations but that's still a little better than labs.
Okay. Now all of the cards are out. What stands out? What seems bad? Any sleepers? Any duds?
You’re just trying to lure us into making statements we will all laugh at in two years.
Where's the bravery? I want some hot takes!
Hot take, Tracker is a sleeper card. Like, A tier.I don't think the fact that you get a boon is quite strong enough to make up for the fact that it's terminal (unless you get the +1 action boon, but of course you can't count on that).
The topdecking ability on a $2 cost terminal Copper (sometimes Silver) is interesting enough, but Wisps from Swamp's Gift and the $4 from Earth's Gift can get topdecked too, as well as the Silver and Gold from Mountain's Gift and Sky's Gift respectively. Many of the other Boons help you buy better cards to topdeck that turn, and you always have Pouch as a source of +Buy to topdeck two cheaper components.
Hot take, Tracker is a sleeper card. Like, A tier.I don't think the fact that you get a boon is quite strong enough to make up for the fact that it's terminal (unless you get the +1 action boon, but of course you can't count on that).
The topdecking ability on a $2 cost terminal Copper (sometimes Silver) is interesting enough, but Wisps from Swamp's Gift and the $4 from Earth's Gift can get topdecked too, as well as the Silver and Gold from Mountain's Gift and Sky's Gift respectively. Many of the other Boons help you buy better cards to topdeck that turn, and you always have Pouch as a source of +Buy to topdeck two cheaper components.
Bard is the new Scout.HOT TAKE!!!! HOT TAKE!!!! HOT TAKE!!!! HOT TAKE!!!!#RealBad #Navigatorisbetter #NeverBuy #ShouldCost3. #StillWouldntBuyAt3
Yeah, I get that. I would just almost always prefer a silver over any of those cards - especially on the opening. The fact that it could be a dead card sometimes makes it pretty horrible. I guess the +buy and topdeck ability make tracker okay, but the fact it's terminal keeps it out of the A tier for me. I would probably only get one or two if it was the only +buy on the board.Hot take, Tracker is a sleeper card. Like, A tier.I don't think the fact that you get a boon is quite strong enough to make up for the fact that it's terminal (unless you get the +1 action boon, but of course you can't count on that).
The topdecking ability on a $2 cost terminal Copper (sometimes Silver) is interesting enough, but Wisps from Swamp's Gift and the $4 from Earth's Gift can get topdecked too, as well as the Silver and Gold from Mountain's Gift and Sky's Gift respectively. Many of the other Boons help you buy better cards to topdeck that turn, and you always have Pouch as a source of +Buy to topdeck two cheaper components.
I was about to say, if you think this about Tracker, then Bard must be pathetic in your eyes.Bard is the new Scout.HOT TAKE!!!! HOT TAKE!!!! HOT TAKE!!!! HOT TAKE!!!!#RealBad #Navigatorisbetter #NeverBuy #ShouldCost3. #StillWouldntBuyAt3
Ah.
I haven't played with Bard enough to get a gauge for it, but it's arguable if Navigator is better I think. It really depends on the order of the Boons.
I mean, if you were going to open with Silver anyway, you can maybe look for marginal benefits off Navigator or Bard.
Yeah, I get that. I would just almost always prefer a silver over any of those cards - especially on the opening. The fact that it could be a dead card sometimes makes it pretty horrible. I guess the +buy and topdeck ability make tracker okay, but the fact it's terminal keeps it out of the A tier for me. I would probably only get one or two if it was the only +buy on the board.Hot take, Tracker is a sleeper card. Like, A tier.I don't think the fact that you get a boon is quite strong enough to make up for the fact that it's terminal (unless you get the +1 action boon, but of course you can't count on that).
The topdecking ability on a $2 cost terminal Copper (sometimes Silver) is interesting enough, but Wisps from Swamp's Gift and the $4 from Earth's Gift can get topdecked too, as well as the Silver and Gold from Mountain's Gift and Sky's Gift respectively. Many of the other Boons help you buy better cards to topdeck that turn, and you always have Pouch as a source of +Buy to topdeck two cheaper components.
I was about to say, if you think this about Tracker, then Bard must be pathetic in your eyes.Bard is the new Scout.HOT TAKE!!!! HOT TAKE!!!! HOT TAKE!!!! HOT TAKE!!!!#RealBad #Navigatorisbetter #NeverBuy #ShouldCost3. #StillWouldntBuyAt3
Ah.
I haven't played with Bard enough to get a gauge for it, but it's arguable if Navigator is better I think. It really depends on the order of the Boons.
I mean, if you were going to open with Silver anyway, you can maybe look for marginal benefits off Navigator or Bard.
However, this is all my opinion without having played with either bard or tracker, of course. So I'm certain my opinion will be somehow different with more experience with these cards
why Guardian? its too similar too Light house. So why?
Right, but I think he's saying that it is functionally identical (almost) to lighthouse and if there is going to be an additional protection card, then he'd like to see one that is a little more unique than something that feels almost the same as lighthouse. I agree with him;I do think Donald could have differentiated it a little bit more beyond the mere fact that it is a night card.Quotewhy Guardian? its too similar too Light house. So why?
Because there aren't enough reactions or other protection mechanisms in the previous sets to account for Hexes. It adds some balance. If a set adds attacks, it has to add defenses or the whole game tilts. No directed defense works for Hexes, so a universal attack neutralizer was the only option.
Plus, you can't draw a Night card dead, so it could be better when playing money or a slog that relies on a few big terminal draw cards, particularly if they're attacks. I'd think about throwing it in with Margrave or Torturer, especially if the engine was weak.
Right, but I think he's saying that it is functionally identical (almost) to lighthouse and if there is going to be an additional protection card, then he'd like to see one that is a little more unique than something that feels almost the same as lighthouse. I agree with him;I do think Donald could have differentiated it a little bit more beyond the mere fact that it is a night card.Quotewhy Guardian? its too similar too Light house. So why?
Because there aren't enough reactions or other protection mechanisms in the previous sets to account for Hexes. It adds some balance. If a set adds attacks, it has to add defenses or the whole game tilts. No directed defense works for Hexes, so a universal attack neutralizer was the only option.
Plus, you can't draw a Night card dead, so it could be better when playing money or a slog that relies on a few big terminal draw cards, particularly if they're attacks. I'd think about throwing it in with Margrave or Torturer, especially if the engine was weak.
Right, but I think he's saying that it is functionally identical (almost) to lighthouse and if there is going to be an additional protection card, then he'd like to see one that is a little more unique than something that feels almost the same as lighthouse. I agree with him;I do think Donald could have differentiated it a little bit more beyond the mere fact that it is a night card.Quotewhy Guardian? its too similar too Light house. So why?
Because there aren't enough reactions or other protection mechanisms in the previous sets to account for Hexes. It adds some balance. If a set adds attacks, it has to add defenses or the whole game tilts. No directed defense works for Hexes, so a universal attack neutralizer was the only option.
Plus, you can't draw a Night card dead, so it could be better when playing money or a slog that relies on a few big terminal draw cards, particularly if they're attacks. I'd think about throwing it in with Margrave or Torturer, especially if the engine was weak.
Guardian's gain to hand clause is pretty big I think. Especially in the early going if you can tell that your opponent is due to draw their mountebank or if you know you're about to face a cultist chain, you can spend a $2 buy as insurance to make sure you're protected for your next turn. Likewise, it's good if you know you're going to want an extra boost in cash for the next turn. It's almost like villa where you probably don't want to buy it until the actual turn you need it. Also, I've always found it strange that there have only been 2 cards that just straight up nullify attacks. I don't think it hurts to have a 3rd one just to increase the odds of one showing up in a random kingdom.Oh yeah, I forgot that Guardian is gained to hand. That does make it different.
I've always found it strange that there have only been 2 cards that just straight up nullify attacks.
Champion has always bothered me; by the time you get it, the game is usually over and basically decided anyway. It's a deceptively boring card.QuoteI've always found it strange that there have only been 2 cards that just straight up nullify attacks.
Three. Moat, Lighthouse and Champion.
Two supply cards, though. So Champion has an asterisk. Also literally.
I'm very disappointed with the Guardian artwork. I was expecting this: (https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/media/minecraft.gamepedia.com/f/fd/Guardian.png?version=27a1d7f6160134073367258b711d593f)
I'm very disappointed with the Guardian artwork. I was expecting this: (https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/media/minecraft.gamepedia.com/f/fd/Guardian.png?version=27a1d7f6160134073367258b711d593f)
I was expecting this for haunted mirror:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/pjkngLDANouLm/giphy.gif)
Yeah man, I'm super disappointed that none of the cards have animated gif arts.I mean, it's two thousand and friggin seventeen fer cripes-sakes. You would think they could do that by now.
Champion has always bothered me; by the time you get it, the game is usually over and basically decided anyway. It's a deceptively boring card.QuoteI've always found it strange that there have only been 2 cards that just straight up nullify attacks.
Three. Moat, Lighthouse and Champion.
Two supply cards, though. So Champion has an asterisk. Also literally.
But anyway, we're talking about Guardian. Now that I am realizing you can always play it the turn you get it, I see now that it is really strong and definitely different from lighthouse. I would say this makes it for sure better than lighthouse in most cases.
The thing that we also need to take into account when evaluating night cards is that they are NOT action cards. This makes a difference for things like scrying pool and ironmonger, where it matters whether or not "action" is in its type. That part slightly diminishes Guardian, but not by much.
Guardian does have its benefits toward the end of the game as well. Not only can you immediately set up your defense again if it gets trashed, but if you're expecting that you're going to end the game on the next turn, you can buy it and ensure that your hand is protected (while giving you plus $1). It could be a very useful late game strategy on certain boards.Champion has always bothered me; by the time you get it, the game is usually over and basically decided anyway. It's a deceptively boring card.QuoteI've always found it strange that there have only been 2 cards that just straight up nullify attacks.
Three. Moat, Lighthouse and Champion.
Two supply cards, though. So Champion has an asterisk. Also literally.
But anyway, we're talking about Guardian. Now that I am realizing you can always play it the turn you get it, I see now that it is really strong and definitely different from lighthouse. I would say this makes it for sure better than lighthouse in most cases.
The thing that we also need to take into account when evaluating night cards is that they are NOT action cards. This makes a difference for things like scrying pool and ironmonger, where it matters whether or not "action" is in its type. That part slightly diminishes Guardian, but not by much.
Lighthouse gives +coin the turn you play it, unlike Guardian. Like all the gain-to-hand night cards, Guardian is better than other compatible cards at its price point when you gain it, but drops off in power as the game goes on. This is often fine considering the snowball-y nature of Dominion.
I mean, it's two thousand and friggin seventeen fer cripes-sakes. You would think they could do that by now.Well, you can buy a keyboard (https://store.artlebedev.com/electronics/devices/optimus-popularis/) where the legend on each key is dynamically reprogrammable, even animated. Trouble is, it costs $1,500.
Yeah man, I'm super disappointed that none of the cards have animated gif arts.I mean, it's two thousand and friggin seventeen fer cripes-sakes. You would think they could do that by now.
Champion has always bothered me; by the time you get it, the game is usually over and basically decided anyway.Going for Champion just because it looks cool is a mistake. But you can build some powerful strategies around it.
Also Goat. The only thing bad about Goat is that there can be only one.
Okay, some hot takes based on zero playing with the cards: [...] Monastery/Banquet will be a thing.With Banquet on the board and three Coppers in hand, Monastery is approximately like an Altar with +1 action and -1 buy: on net it trashes one copper and gains a $5'er.
Tragic Hero seems even worse than Library for drawing. I had to go back and look at it again to make sure I read it right. A freaking Smithy is almost always going to be better. Why is this $5?+Buy
Tragic Hero seems even worse than Library for drawing. I had to go back and look at it again to make sure I read it right. A freaking Smithy is almost always going to be better. Why is this $5?+Buy
Tragic Hero seems even worse than Library for drawing. I had to go back and look at it again to make sure I read it right. A freaking Smithy is almost always going to be better. Why is this $5?Yeah, it doesn't seem very strong. Although the somewhat complex nature of it makes it hard to evaluate for me. But my assessment based on my general experience of Dominion (without having used this crad) is this. You do get the +buy as SuperHans pointed out. So it has that over Smithy, but that drawback is rough, and I think some people may be underestimating how much that will hurt. It won't be very good in engines because any strategy where you want to be drawing your deck every turn will require more than 8 cards in hand for the most part. I guess one might be okay in that deck if it is drawn at the top of the shuffle. However, the fact that you gain a treasure when you lose it could be good sometimes. For instance, a free Fortune would be amazing. Usually, though, when gold is the best treasure, this only helps a money-ish deck since an engine doesn't want too many treasures in the deck getting in the way of the draw cards.
Here'sme talking out my assa hot take: big money with Sheperd and Crypt is a thing, even more so with support from Monastery and/or Goat.
Night Watchman: Don't overbuy this. Otherwise, the sifting is really nice. Seems solid to me if you can't draw your entire deck.I have a hard time being confident about anything to do with Night Watchman.
Tracker: Likely weak, but at least it costs $2, and hey you get to start the game with Pouch. +Buy is always nice to have around.I haven't really tried out the effect, but while building an engine, getting to topdeck the Village and Smithy you just bought has to be great for reliability. Is it worth having a terminal copper around? Is that terminal copper only worth it if you have $2 and a spare buy, or would you ever get it on $3+ with 1 buy? Err derr merr hurr... *shrug*
Night Watchman: Don't overbuy this. Otherwise, the sifting is really nice. Seems solid to me if you can't draw your entire deck.I have a hard time being confident about anything to do with Night Watchman.
Obvious comparisons are Scouting Party and Cartographer. Cartographer Qvist-ranks 74th out of 96 $5'ers, and Scouting Party ranks 25th out of 39 $2-costers. Note that both are below the middle in their respective brackets. Don't read too much into this, but do read more than nothing into it.
Unlike Cartographer, Night Watchman doesn't give +1 card. In your Night phase that's probably not a big issue, since it's all about setting up your next turn; in addition to improving your next turn, Cartographer (but not Scouting Party) can also set up your top-of-deck for later in the same action phase. Unlike Scouting Party and like Cartographer, Night Watchman can discard any set of cards, not some fixed amount.
So how big is the effect of Night Watchman being a card you need to draw (and the opportunity cost of not drawing some other card)? How big is it compared to the cost of $2 and on net not costing a buy only if you have at least one buy left?
Uh, if you drew a Silver instead of Night Watchman, you could buy Scouting Party where you would otherwise be able to play Night Watchman; but a Silver also helps you hit high(-ish) price points, which Night Watchman doesn't. But playing Night Watchman is always at least as good as and sometimes better than getting Scouting Party if the cost is the same (it can do all the same things and then some).
The effect of gaining Night Watchman to hand is similar to "Event: Do what Night Watchman does. Gain a Night Watchman." which makes the first half similar to a better Scouting Party.
There's this other card that clears at least some bad cards off the top of your deck. It's non-terminal and it doesn't draw; it doesn't let you discard coppers, curses or ruins, though, and it doesn't do any Party+ing.
Is Night Watchman the new Scout? I guess no, but it does have some features in common with the butt of everyone's favorite jokes. What would make it better than Scout, in decks where you don't draw deck, is that it can skip any card, not just green (and that your terminal draw can't draw it dead). What's the value of having one dead card now and lowering the risk of having dead cards next turn?
Vagrant can peel all the bad* cards off the top. Is Night Watchman comparable to playing a Navigator, always keeping, followed by a few Vagrants? (Ignore the $2 from Navigator.)
One last thing. Here's a move: get a good card on turn 1, get Night Watchman on turn 2, play the good card on turn 3. It's probably great with Chapel, but if trashing is slow and you want to hit $5, picking a Silver rather than a Night Watchman to go with your Moneylender might be better. Maybe? I dunno, but it's something to think about.QuoteTracker: Likely weak, but at least it costs $2, and hey you get to start the game with Pouch. +Buy is always nice to have around.I haven't really tried out the effect, but while building an engine, getting to topdeck the Village and Smithy you just bought has to be great for reliability. Is it worth having a terminal copper around? Is that terminal copper only worth it if you have $2 and a spare buy, or would you ever get it on $3+ with 1 buy? Err derr merr hurr... *shrug*
Silver/Night Watchman guarantees $5 on turn 3. Potion/Night Watchman guarantees $3P on turn 3.You just blew my mind. Night Watchman just went up in value for me.
Silver/Night Watchman guarantees $5 on turn 3. Potion/Night Watchman guarantees $3P on turn 3.You just blew my mind. Night Watchman just went up in value for me.
There's an interesting subtheme of "can't play the same card twice", isn't there? Imp, Necromancer, and now Conclave.
I have a hard time being confident about anything to do with Night Watchman.What about Guide?
Obvious comparisons are Scouting Party and Cartographer.
There's an interesting subtheme of "can't play the same card twice", isn't there? Imp, Necromancer, and now Conclave.
Vampire : [...] at turn $3 or $4 [...] by turn $6/$7As they say, time is money.
Playing a Shepherd and discarding one estate [= a blank cantrip]It looks a lot like a Laboratory to me. Assume you won't shuffle before your clean-up phase; then Estate does the same for (and/or to) you whether it's in your hand or your discard pile. In this case, Shepherd say "+1 action, +2 cards, perform a distinction-without-a-difference". That's a Lab right there. The fact it doesn't change your hand size doesn't make it any less of a Lab. Let me say that more clearly, it does the same good thing for your hand that a Lab would, at the same cost: no loss of actions, no loss of useful cards.
Pixie revealing Flame's Gift, trashing itself and 0-2 cards from your hand, is strictly better than Bomb.
[Pixie+Flame's Gift is meant] to celebrate Bomb: to make it an official part of Dominion cannon.First of all, notsureif spelling.
I think you may not be aware of the legend that is Bomb. Which I guess is ok, but 90-93% of the people here get the reference.[Pixie+Flame's Gift is meant] to celebrate Bomb: to make it an official part of Dominion cannon.First of all, notsureif spelling.
Second of all, I think canonizing fan cards is something Donald avoids as a General principle.
A few players find engines far less explosive in Nocturne.
Got my copy today and after a few games, I am loving this expansion. The cards have this, how do I say it, this ambiguous synergy with one another that's just, well, it's special. Can't wait to play more.
this ambiguous synergy
A few players find engines far less explosive in Nocturne. This isn't the only reason that comes to mind, but does anyone think weaker payload has something to do with it? The most powerful engines will usually have something better than Gold. Bridge, Horn of Plenty, a LOT of Prosperity cards, Highways, Hagglers, Merchant Guilds, Market Square tricks (technically gold but obscene amounts all at once) Bridge Trolls, Fortune. There are plenty of expansions where the deck has stronger payloads available than treasure. In Nocturne, the best thing available is still Gold, though (once you're drawing the deck, obviously). Seaside is an exception to this, but given the raw power of cards like Ambassador and Wharf, the engines are still memorable even if they only go up to double province.
Payload is probably the least important part of an engine. Trashing, draw, buys, and usually actions are all more important for making one work. But it IS the factor that turns "my deck is coming together" into "I can pick up 8 provinces this turn."
A few players find engines far less explosive in Nocturne. This isn't the only reason that comes to mind, but does anyone think weaker payload has something to do with it? The most powerful engines will usually have something better than Gold. Bridge, Horn of Plenty, a LOT of Prosperity cards, Highways, Hagglers, Merchant Guilds, Market Square tricks (technically gold but obscene amounts all at once) Bridge Trolls, Fortune. There are plenty of expansions where the deck has stronger payloads available than treasure. In Nocturne, the best thing available is still Gold, though (once you're drawing the deck, obviously). Seaside is an exception to this, but given the raw power of cards like Ambassador and Wharf, the engines are still memorable even if they only go up to double province.
Payload is probably the least important part of an engine. Trashing, draw, buys, and usually actions are all more important for making one work. But it IS the factor that turns "my deck is coming together" into "I can pick up 8 provinces this turn."
this ambiguous synergy
If this was on purpose I'll buy you a beer.
Is Den of Sin really worse than Caravan once it's in your deck? That's a really close call.
It's worse than Laboratory once in your deck, sure.
Is Den of Sin really worse than Caravan once it's in your deck? That's a really close call.
It's worse than Laboratory once in your deck, sure.
I don't think it's weaker than Caravan and it's not even clear whether it's worse than Lab. The consistency is a big factor.
If that were the case Den of Sin would be better than Lab in 3 ways: great first play effect, cannot be drawn as it is a Night card and same/similiar beyond-first-play effect.Is Den of Sin really worse than Caravan once it's in your deck? That's a really close call.
It's worse than Laboratory once in your deck, sure.
I don't think it's weaker than Caravan and it's not even clear whether it's worse than Lab. The consistency is a big factor.
If that were the case Den of Sin would be better than Lab in 3 ways: great first play effect, cannot be drawn as it is a Night card and same/similiar beyond-first-play effect.
I think it is fair to say that DXV doesn't make such obvious blunders.
I cannot imagine any situation in which I would prefer Caravan over Lab or +1 Action | At the start of your next turn +2 Cards over Caravan.
You are right. A Treasure that says At the start of the turn after the next one: +$3 would not be technically strictly weaker than Gold as there could be weird situations in which it is better. But common sense suffices to realize that such a card would be a sucker compared to Gold.If that were the case Den of Sin would be better than Lab in 3 ways: great first play effect, cannot be drawn as it is a Night card and same/similiar beyond-first-play effect.
I think it is fair to say that DXV doesn't make such obvious blunders.
But not strictly better. There are situations where you want Lab over DoS and vice versa.
What's noteworthy is that DXV already made Hunting Party, which is sort of just better than Lab, and so far it doesn't look like it has ruined the game or anything.
I can: you're playing an engine and you already have (almost) enough draw to draw your deck but can't do so consistently.If you nearly draw your deck you play those durations a little more frequently than every 2nd turn whereas a Lab could be played every turn.
I started the Pixie/Flame's > Bomb subthread.notsureif spelling [of cannon/canon].I think you may not be aware of the legend that is Bomb. Which I guess is ok, but 90-93% of the people here get the reference.
[I think Donald avoids canonizing fan cards as a General principle].
[he] was not particularly open to the constructive criticism that people offered to the point where they were banned. And IIRC came back under multiple other accounts that became similarly belligerent, and were likewise banned.IINM he was banned for massive incivility towards Theory (maybe others too), not for being impervious to suggestions, and he came back only once under a single account.
That quote is from the Dominion: Gunpowder thread, from a sub-discussion about how to give constructive criticism.I just bluntly state the facts.
We already had this argument about Caravan vs. Den of Sin. It's here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17789.0) and here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17757.msg727983#msg727983).What people? You mean guys like LFN? Oh no, looks like he disagreed with you. ::)
Oh wait, josh56 is actually the one who started the argument in the first place. You seem to be repeating the exact same arguments despite knowing that people disagreed with them the first time. Stop it, you're being tiresome.
The fact that LFN disagreed with me has also already been stated--by LFN when he disagreed with me--and now you are stating it again. Look, I already linked the threads, people can read it on their own. You're not adding anything new.We already had this argument about Caravan vs. Den of Sin. It's here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17789.0) and here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17757.msg727983#msg727983).What people? You mean guys like LFN? Oh no, looks like he disagreed with you. ::)
Oh wait, josh56 is actually the one who started the argument in the first place. You seem to be repeating the exact same arguments despite knowing that people disagreed with them the first time. Stop it, you're being tiresome.
All of this just boils down to Durations 101: you want the good stuff now instead of laterYou're acting like this is all obvious stuff that everyone agrees on when you recently participated in an argument where at least some people were disagreeing with you. I may think Den of Sin's on-play effect is better than Caravan, but I'm not so condescending to act like this is obvious and everyone agrees with me.
You're acting like this is all obvious stuff that everyone agrees on when you recently participated in an argument where at least some people were disagreeing with you. I may think Den of Sin's on-play effect is better than Caravan, but I'm not so condescending to act like this is obvious and everyone agrees with me.Talking about nonsense, you wrote stuff like: "With Haunted Woods, you get +3 cards at the beginning of the turn, and then you later pay the cost of -1 card -1 action."
I'm not going to reply to this I'm just going to highlight it as evidence that you are being condescending, and also believe you are correct to be condescending.You're acting like this is all obvious stuff that everyone agrees on when you recently participated in an argument where at least some people were disagreeing with you. I may think Den of Sin's on-play effect is better than Caravan, but I'm not so condescending to act like this is obvious and everyone agrees with me.Talking about nonsense, you wrote stuff like: "With Haunted Woods, you get +3 cards at the beginning of the turn, and then you later pay the cost of -1 card -1 action."
This isn't an argument I can agree with or not, it is merely factually false. So if you are confused about the order of play, what happens on the first and second turn, going over the basics of Durations might be helpful.
Pot calling the kettle back. If you think that calling obvious falsehoods nonsense is condescending you might not wanna use that very word yourself.I'm not going to reply to this I'm just going to highlight it evidence that you are being condescending, and also believe you are correct to be condescending.You're acting like this is all obvious stuff that everyone agrees on when you recently participated in an argument where at least some people were disagreeing with you. I may think Den of Sin's on-play effect is better than Caravan, but I'm not so condescending to act like this is obvious and everyone agrees with me.Talking about nonsense, you wrote stuff like: "With Haunted Woods, you get +3 cards at the beginning of the turn, and then you later pay the cost of -1 card -1 action."
This isn't an argument I can agree with or not, it is merely factually false. So if you are confused about the order of play, what happens on the first and second turn, going over the basics of Durations might be helpful.
I find it amusing to have people say that Den of Sin has a delayed effect compared to Lab. You get to play Den of Sin the very same turn you buy it, while you have to wait a full shuffle to play Lab.It provides an early kick but is then a bit weaker whereas Lab is just an ordinary, linear "snowball" card.
Den of Sin is worse than Lab in the sense that you can't chain them, and that if you draw your deck you can only play them one turn out of two, but it's definitely "faster" than Lab.
Talking about nonsense, you wrote stuff like: "With Haunted Woods, you get +3 cards at the beginning of the turn, and then you later pay the cost of -1 card -1 action."
You are right. A Treasure that says At the start of the turn after the next one: +$3 would not be technically strictly weaker than Gold as there could be weird situations in which it is better. But common sense suffices to realize that such a card would be a sucker compared to Gold.
I don't see how you can compare a Lab variant like Stables or Hunting Party that are situationally stronger or weaker than Lab with a definitely weaker duration Lab variant like Caravan or the hypothetical Action version of Den of Sin.
If you nearly draw your deck you play those durations a little more frequently than every 2nd turn whereas a Lab could be played every turn.
Caravan isn't comparable because it only gives you one card at the start of your next turn, making it only half as strong.
Caravan isn't comparable because it only gives you one card at the start of your next turn, making it only half as strong.
Caravan is directly comparable to Den of Sin's on-play. Caravan provides a non-terminal one card now (replacing itself) and one card next turn. Den of Sin is a non-terminal stop card that provides two cards next turn. Den of Sin is a Caravan variant. If Den of Sin cost $4 and didn't have its on-gain ability, I think it would have a similar power level as Caravan. Of course, Den of Sin's on-gain ability makes it very attractive, even at $5.
Pot calling the kettle back. If you think that calling obvious falsehoods nonsense is condescending you might not wanna use that very word yourself.I'm not going to reply to this I'm just going to highlight it evidence that you are being condescending, and also believe you are correct to be condescending.You're acting like this is all obvious stuff that everyone agrees on when you recently participated in an argument where at least some people were disagreeing with you. I may think Den of Sin's on-play effect is better than Caravan, but I'm not so condescending to act like this is obvious and everyone agrees with me.Talking about nonsense, you wrote stuff like: "With Haunted Woods, you get +3 cards at the beginning of the turn, and then you later pay the cost of -1 card -1 action."
This isn't an argument I can agree with or not, it is merely factually false. So if you are confused about the order of play, what happens on the first and second turn, going over the basics of Durations might be helpful.
Caravan isn't comparable because it only gives you one card at the start of your next turn, making it only half as strong.
Caravan is directly comparable to Den of Sin's on-play. Caravan provides a non-terminal one card now (replacing itself) and one card next turn. Den of Sin is a non-terminal stop card that provides two cards next turn. Den of Sin is a Caravan variant. If Den of Sin cost $4 and didn't have its on-gain ability, I think it would have a similar power level as Caravan. Of course, Den of Sin's on-gain ability makes it very attractive, even at $5.
Den of Sin is as good as two Caravans for your next turn.
But I don't see how Sacred Grove isn't the worst card of the set. Unless it's the only +Buy and you really need a +Buy, why would you pick it up over other $5 cost cards? It's a terminal Gold that has no other benefit (apart from the +Buy), because the Boon can be optionally received by the other players 10 out of 12 times. That might even be a boon (pun) for them, because they can actually refuse that Silver from the Mountain.
Sacred Grove is non-attack payload. It's usually going to be stronger than Wine Merchant and Merchant Ship. It's probably a little weaker than Courtier and Merchant Guild. It's not the most exciting card in the world, but it seems like a fine card to me...
tristan 4.0 is banned.
Sacred Grove is non-attack payload. It's usually going to be stronger than Wine Merchant and Merchant Ship. It's probably a little weaker than Courtier and Merchant Guild. It's not the most exciting card in the world, but it seems like a fine card to me...
I don't know what you're trying to say with "non-attack payload". So is Mandarin, but so what? I think Merchant Ship is usually pretty weak, but it does give +$4 (more than Sacred Grove) and it let's you start a turn with $, so yeah, better than Sacred Grove. Wine Merchant is good when you can play several, which is often what you try going for. I don't see any use for Sacred Grove except if it's the only +1 Buy.
tristan 4.0 is banned.
I'm like 99% sure you're joking, but, you are joking, right? That would be the quickest witch hunt ever if not.
More on topic: I don't know that I think Josh was being condescending until after he was first accused of being condescending, although I should admit I haven't read those other two threads Trivialknot linked to. I agree with Seprix though, deescalation would be good, because this has been a very enjoyable thread so far, and it'd be cool to keep it like that
Sacred Grove is non-attack payload.Synergies, conditional on village support:
some Boons are easier to make use of in the middle of your turn than at the start (for example the trashing Boon, the discard treasure for a $4 Boon, and the discard 3 for Gold boon). And then you can get the +$1 Boons sometimes to get a non-symmetrical bonus.I'm not convinced many of the Boons are especially worse to play between your turns than in the middle of your turn. It feels to me that could go either way, depending on how you're playing your turn. Maybe once you have an engine running you go out of your way to try to have lots of cards in hand when you play Sacred Grove, but that won't always be possible.
some Boons are easier to make use of in the middle of your turn than at the start (for example the trashing Boon, the discard treasure for a $4 Boon, and the discard 3 for Gold boon). And then you can get the +$1 Boons sometimes to get a non-symmetrical bonus.Then again, does the Boon stuff need to be a net benefit to the current player? I'm staring at Contraband, Courtier, Mandarin, Count, Legionary, Swamp Hag, all priced at $5, all giving you the potential for +$3. Are any actually as good as a flat +$3,+1Buy? Maybe Sacred Grove would have to cost more without the Boons?
Set against that, it's already been pointed out that you gaining a mandatory Silver while your opponents have the option of gaining one is asymmetric against you.
some Boons are easier to make use of in the middle of your turn than at the start (for example the trashing Boon, the discard treasure for a $4 Boon, and the discard 3 for Gold boon). And then you can get the +$1 Boons sometimes to get a non-symmetrical bonus.I'm not convinced many of the Boons are especially worse to play between your turns than in the middle of your turn. It feels to me that could go either way, depending on how you're playing your turn. Maybe once you have an engine running you go out of your way to try to have lots of cards in hand when you play Sacred Grove, but that won't always be possible.
Set against that, it's already been pointed out that you gaining a mandatory Silver while your opponents have the option of gaining one is asymmetric against you.
some Boons are easier to make use of in the middle of your turn than at the start (for example the trashing Boon, the discard treasure for a $4 Boon, and the discard 3 for Gold boon). And then you can get the +$1 Boons sometimes to get a non-symmetrical bonus.I'm not convinced many of the Boons are especially worse to play between your turns than in the middle of your turn. It feels to me that could go either way, depending on how you're playing your turn. Maybe once you have an engine running you go out of your way to try to have lots of cards in hand when you play Sacred Grove, but that won't always be possible.
Set against that, it's already been pointed out that you gaining a mandatory Silver while your opponents have the option of gaining one is asymmetric against you.
You write "set against that", but aren't both of your points saying the same thing, that Sacred Grove is not good? Markusin was making an argument for Sacred Grove, saying that some Boons are not such a benefit to the other players since they get them between turns, and you're saying that's not necessarily true.
some Boons are easier to make use of in the middle of your turn than at the start (for example the trashing Boon, the discard treasure for a $4 Boon, and the discard 3 for Gold boon). And then you can get the +$1 Boons sometimes to get a non-symmetrical bonus.I'm not convinced many of the Boons are especially worse to play between your turns than in the middle of your turn. It feels to me that could go either way, depending on how you're playing your turn. Maybe once you have an engine running you go out of your way to try to have lots of cards in hand when you play Sacred Grove, but that won't always be possible.
Set against that, it's already been pointed out that you gaining a mandatory Silver while your opponents have the option of gaining one is asymmetric against you.
You write "set against that", but aren't both of your points saying the same thing, that Sacred Grove is not good? Markusin was making an argument for Sacred Grove, saying that some Boons are not such a benefit to the other players since they get them between turns, and you're saying that's not necessarily true.
I actually don't know how "set against that" is supposed to be used in conversation. It's not something I hear very often, and I interpreted it as a generic framing device rather than implying a contradiction like "on the other hand" does.
(However, the phrase "I'm set against that" means firm opposition, as far as I'm aware. Maybe someone has that at the back of their mind.)
I wasn't joking. And I was confident in my analysis, which I would be happy to share with you over PM.tristan 4.0 is banned.
I'm like 99% sure you're joking, but, you are joking, right? That would be the quickest witch hunt ever if not.
More on topic: I don't know that I think Josh was being condescending until after he was first accused of being condescending, although I should admit I haven't read those other two threads Trivialknot linked to. I agree with Seprix though, deescalation would be good, because this has been a very enjoyable thread so far, and it'd be cool to keep it like that
I agree that Tragic Hero seems pretty weak. Compare it to Margrave for instance. I you want it for building an engine, it will pretty soon trash itself for a Treasure you often don't want. In a big money terminal deck, where you could use the Treasure, it never trashes itself.
I agree that Tragic Hero seems pretty weak. Compare it to Margrave for instance. I you want it for building an engine, it will pretty soon trash itself for a Treasure you often don't want. In a big money terminal deck, where you could use the Treasure, it never trashes itself.
Sometimes there's no other +card. Tragic Hero is, as pointed out, (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17894.msg733519;topicseen#msg733519) very powerful with Necromancer ... but as Trash is commons, this is more an argument against TH, as I would expect everyone piling up on Necromancers and waiting to everyone else to make their first move with TH. A bit like activating Cities.
Necromancer can only play the same Tragic Hero in the trash once per turn.If you Necro the TH and it trashes itself, isn't it turned face up?
I thought it would fail to trash itself as it cannot find itself in play.
Necromancer can only play the same Tragic Hero in the trash once per turn.If you Necro the TH and it trashes itself, isn't it turned face up?
I stand corrected. You all agree that if I Necro an Encampment and don't reveal, it gets set aside (and if it's face down, everyone gets to look at it) and later gets returned to the supply (face up)?
No, for the same reason Reserve cards you Necro don’t go to your Tavern mat.Huh, dangit. I could'a sworn I remember DXV saying that Necro playing an action merely failed to put the action in play but didn't impact its movement in any other way. The Nocturne rulebook states something different. Huh.
Huh, dangit. I could'a sworn I remember DXV saying that Necro playing an action merely failed to put the action in play but didn't impact its movement in any other way. The Nocturne rulebook states something different. Huh.
tristan 4.0 is banned.
I'm like 99% sure you're joking, but, you are joking, right? That would be the quickest witch hunt ever if not.
More on topic: I don't know that I think Josh was being condescending until after he was first accused of being condescending, although I should admit I haven't read those other two threads Trivialknot linked to. I agree with Seprix though, deescalation would be good, because this has been a very enjoyable thread so far, and it'd be cool to keep it like that
While I don't think he really did anything too bad here, he definitely showed behavior similar enough to Tristan's to get me to suspect him. If he was really banned I'm pretty sure it would be due to his past accounts behavior than whatever he did now. And while there's no way for me to be sure he's actually tristan, I guess Theory might have some way to find out.
With thief and pixie in the kingdom you can steal someone's goat and make a goat eat another goat. Goat cannibalism confirmed canon.Or just use Masquerade.
Not that you should buy a thief to begin with.
With thief and pixie in the kingdom you can steal someone's goat and make a goat eat another goat. Goat cannibalism confirmed canon.Or just use Masquerade.
Not that you should buy a thief to begin with.
Now, I said the same thing about Empires when Empires came out, the reason being trashing was weak (relative to Adventures and Dark Ages)I'm not sure the set that includes Donate can fairly be accused of having weak trashing!
Someone said the exact same thing when Empires came out, and my response is still the same: Donate is just one card. Or zero, depending on how you count them. In Empires-heavy games, specific landmarks and events don't come out very often relative to kingdom cards. At the time that I shared my initial impressions of Empires, I think I had played literally one game with Donate, whereas I had played several with all the kingdom card trashers (Catapult, Temple, Sacrifice).Now, I said the same thing about Empires when Empires came out, the reason being trashing was weak (relative to Adventures and Dark Ages)I'm not sure the set that includes Donate can fairly be accused of having weak trashing!
Catapult and Temple are also some of the most powerful trashers in the game and Sacrifice is fine.Well, Catapult is powerful, but it certainly doesn't make for quick games, and games with it would feel sloggier compared to other trashers.
Exorcist - Another card I thought would be strong, but I might reconsider. It seems like it should be at least as good as Raze, but it's slowed down because it costs $4, and you don't get Will'o'wisp until the next shuffle. I think you'd rather have a trasher that gave you economy instead of spirits.
If you can trash away your Coppers, the Attack is quite powerful.
Pooka- There are many cases in Dominion where a card is much more than the sums of it's parts, Lab is Moat + Ruined Village, but it's far better than any of these two will ever be.
Pooka- There are many cases in Dominion where a card is much more than the sums of it's parts, Lab is Moat + Ruined Village, but it's far better than any of these two will ever be.
Just a note that this is wrong.
Moat + Ruined Village takes up two card slots in your hand and takes two Actions to play, while Lab takes up one slot and takes one Action. You have to look at the net effect: Lab is +1 Card, Moat is -1 Action and +1 Card, and Ruined Village is -1 Card. The net effect of Moat + Ruined Village is -1 Action. (If you play both, you will have the same number of cards as you started with, but one Action less.)
So an activated Menagerie = 2 Labs = Village + Smithy = (+2 Cards)
In Dominion a card is the sum of its parts, except for the different circumstances under which you get those parts. In the above equation, the Labs are more reliable.
So honestly, I'm actually sort of glad that the Dutch translation probably won't be here for another year.