1.) Masquerade [X]
2.) Ambassador [X]
3.) Cultist [X]
4.) Chapel [X]
5.) Junk Dealer [X]
6.) Mountebank [X]
7.) Goons [X]
8.) Upgrade [X]
9.) Wharf [X]
10.) Steward [X]
11.) King's Court [X]
12.) Counterfeit [X]
13.) Remake [X]
14.) Hermit [X]
15.) Rebuild [X]
16.) Margrave [X]
17.) Tournament [X]
18.) Ironmonger [X]
19.) Hunting Party [X]
20.) Forager [X]
21.) Governor [X]
22.) Fishing Village [X]
23.) Witch [X]
24.) Wandering Minstrel [X]
25.) Butcher [X]
26.) Bazaar [X]
27.) Horn of Plenty [X]
28.) Vineyard [X]
29.) Jack of all Trades [X]
30.) Border Village [X]
31.) Stables [X]
32.) Peddler [X]
33.) Squire [X]
34.) Fool's Gold [X]
35.) Scrying Pool [X]
36.) Swindler [X]
37.) Menagerie [X]
38.) Monument [X]
39.) Knights [X]
40.) Minion [X]
41.) Torturer [X]
42.) Highway [X]
43.) Hamlet [X]
44.) Native Village [X]
45.) Grand Market [X]
46.) Fairgrounds [X]
47.) Marauder [X]
48.) Courtyard [X]
49.) Herald [X]
50.) Young Witch [X]
51.) Catacombs [X]
52.) Altar [X]
53.) Warehouse [X]
54.) Quarry [X]
55.) Council Room [X]
56.) Baker [X]
57.) Throne Room [X]
58.) Plaza [X]
59.) Familiar [X]
60.) Soothsayer [X]
61.) Pillage [X]
62.) Militia [X]
63.) Stonemason [X]
64.) Sea Hag [X]
65.) Ill-Gotten Gains [X]
66.) Apothecary [X]
67.) Hunting Grounds [X]
68.) Smithy [X]
69.) Envoy [X]
70.) Crossroads [X]
71.) Bridge [X]
72.) Smugglers [X]
73.) Candlestick Maker [X]
74.) Vagrant [X]
75.) Bandit Camp [X]
76.) Watchtower [X]
77.) Moat [X]
78.) Apprentice [X]
79.) Bishop [X]
80.) Conspirator [X]
81.) Village [X]
82.) Urchin [X]
83.) Worker's Village [X]
84.) Silk Road [X]
85.) Gardens [X]
86.) Ironworks [X]
87.) Laboratory [X]
88.) Caravan [X]
89.) Journeyman [X]
90.) Count [X]
91.) Spice Merchant [X]
92.) Haggler [X]
93.) Black Market [X]
94.) Oracle [X]
95.) Fortress [X]
96.) Rabble [X]
97.) Duke [X]
98.) Cartographer [X]
99.) Horse Traders [X]
100.) Scavenger [X]
101.) Possession [X]
102.) Forge [X]
103.) City [X]
104.) Festival [X]
105.) Market [X]
106.) Mining Village [X]
107.) Farming Village [X]
108.) Walled Village [X]
109.) Ghost Ship [X]
110.) Tunnel [X]
111.) Lighthouse [X]
112.) Inn [X]
113.) Tactician [X]
114.) Venture [X]
115.) Nobles [X]
116.) Cutpurse [X]
117.) Treasury [X]
118.) Hoard [X]
119.) Jester [X]
120.) Storeroom [X]
121.) Salvager [X]
122.) Masterpiece [X]
123.) Loan [X]
124.) Oasis [X]
125.) Baron [X]
126.) Embassy [X]
127.) Market Square [X]
128.) Procession [X]
129.) Vault [X]
130.) Pawn [X]
131.) Workshop [X]
132.) Cellar [X]
133.) Library [X]
134.) Fortune Teller [X]
135.) Farmland [X]
136.) Shanty Town [X]
137.) Band of Misfits [X]
138.) Poor House [X]
139.) Beggar [X]
140.) Wishing Well [X]
141.) Moneylender [X]
142.) Duchess [X]
143.) Doctor [X]
144.) Embargo [X]
145.) Develop [X]
146.) Merchant Guild [X]
147.) Mint [X]
148.) Herbalist [X]
149.) Woodcutter [X]
150.) Harem [X]
151.) Alchemist [X]
152.) Lookout [X]
153.) Merchant Ship [X]
154.) Scheme [X]
155.) Rats [X]
156.) Golem [X]
157.) Island [X]
158.) Noble Brigand [X]
159.) Pearl Diver [X]
160.) Death Cart [X]
161.) Explorer [X]
162.) Graverobber [X]
163.) Mystic [X]
164.) Mandarin [X]
165.) Contraband [X]
166.) Secret Chamber [X]
167.) Saboteur [X]
168.) Chancellor [X]
169.) Rogue [X]
170.) Remodel [X]
171.) Talisman [X]
172.) Advisor [X]
173.) University [X]
174.) Bank [X]
175.) Counting House [X]
176.) Coppersmith [X]
177.) Spy [X]
178.) Tribute [X]
179.) Taxman [X]
180.) Nomad Camp [X]
181.) Haven [X]
182.) Cache [X]
183.) Sage [X]
184.) Expand [X]
185.) Armory [X]
186.) Feodum [X]
187.) Trading Post [X]
188.) Outpost [X]
189.) Trader [X]
190.) Trade Route [X]
191.) Feast [X]
192.) Great Hall [X]
193.) Philosopher's Stone [X]
194.) Royal Seal [X]
195.) Treasure Map [X]
196.) Bureaucrat [X]
197.) Stash [X]
198.) Navigator [X]
199.) Thief [X]
200.) Mine [X]
201.) Harvest [X]
202.) Pirate Ship [X]
203.) Transmute [X]
204.) Adventurer [X]
205.) Scout [X]
1. Masquerade
2. Ambassador
3. Steward
4. Rebuild
5. Mountebank
6. Chapel
7. Goons
8. Witch
9. Cultist
10. Wharf
11. Hunting Party
12. Junk Dealer
13. Margrave
14. King’s Court
15. Counterfeit
16. Upgrade
17. Vineyard
18. Jack of All Trades
19. Hermit
20. Torturer
21. Fishing Village
22. Forager
23. Ill-Gotten Gains
24. Fairgrounds
25. Tournament
26. Border Village
27. Young Witch
28. Wandering Minstrel
29. Ironmonger
30. Soothsayer
31. Monument
32. Sea Hag
33. Fool’s Gold
34. Menagerie
35. Stables
36. Governor
37. Minion
38. Remake
39. Swindler
40. Marauder
41. Ghost Ship
42. Journeyman
43. Haggler
44. Horn of Plenty
45. Laboratory
46. Familiar
47. Courtyard
48. Knights
49. Embassy
50. Militia
51. Duke
52. Tactician
53. Bazaar
54. Butcher
55. Cartographer
56. Highway
57. Scrying Pool
58. Peddler
59. Bandit Camp
60. Vault
61. Catacombs
62. Inn
63. Rabble
64. Baker
65. Conspirator
66. Grand Market
67. Altar
68. Silk Road
69. Worker’s Village
70. Lighthouse
71. Squire
72. Watchtower
73. Hamlet
74. Stonemason
75. Throne Room
76. Caravan
77. Warehouse
78. Apprentice
79. Festival
80. Plaza
81. Nobles
82. Herald
83. Gardens
84. Native Village
85. Hunting Grounds
86. Pillage
87. Crossroads
88. Ironworks
89. Hoard
90. Develop
91. Oracle
92. Library
93. Jester
94. Embargo
95. Spice Merchant
96. Baron
97. Apothecary
98. Smithy
99. Bridge
100. Village
101. Market
102. City
103. Council Room
104. Oasis
105. Venture
106. Moat
107. Masterpiece
108. Forge
109. Quarry
110. University
111. Wishing Well
112. Salvager
113. Treasury
114. Mystic
115. Fortress
116. Horse Traders
117. Scheme
118. Remodel
119. Cutpurse
120. Bishop
121. Envoy
122. Procession
123. Noble Brigand
124. Lookout
125. Farming Village
126. Tunnel
127. Smugglers
128. Shanty Town
129. Market Square
130. Candlestick Maker
131. Pawn
132. Armory
133. Beggar
134. Mining Village
135. Possession
136. Count
137. Golem
138. Scavenger
139. Walled Village
140. Moneylender
141. Bank
142. Advisor
143. Storeroom
144. Vagrant
145. Doctor
146. Trader
147. Urchin
148. Mint
149. Workshop
150. Island
151. Merchant Ship
152. Rogue
153. Outpost
154. Merchant Guild
155. Farmland
156. Loan
157. Woodcutter
158. Death Cart
159. Alchemist
160. Talisman
161. Graverobber
162. Coppersmith
163. Saboteur
164. Harem
165. Cellar
166. Fortune Teller
167. Counting House
168. Expand
169. Mandarin
170. Sage
171. Band of Misfits
172. Cache
173. Herbalist
174. Explorer
175. Black Market
176. Duchess
177. Nomad Camp
178. Bureaucrat
179. Feodum
180. Poor House
181. Haven
182. Contraband
183. Tribute
184. Spy
185. Stash
186. Taxman
187. Royal Seal
188. Trading Post
189. Chancellor
190. Trade Route
191. Great Hall
192. Pearl Diver
193. Rats
194. Treasure Map
195. Navigator
196. Secret Chamber
197. Pirate Ship
198. Thief
199. Mine
200. Feast
201. Philosopher’s Stone
202. Transmute
203. Harvest
204. Adventurer
205. Scout
1. Ambassador
2. Rebuild
3. Mountebank
4. Masquerade
5. Wharf
6. Steward
7. King’s Court
8. Goons
9. Doctor
10. Chapel
11. Witch
12. Cultist
13. Jack of All Trades
14. Hunting Party
15. Junk Dealer
16. Margrave
17. Upgrade
18. Counterfeit
19. Torturer
20. Vineyard
21. Fishing Village
22. Stables
23. Governor
24. Ill-Gotten Gains
25. Grand Market
26. Border Village
27. Knights
28. Fairgrounds
29. Tournament
30. Hermit
31. Young Witch
32. Remake
33. Wandering Minstrel
34. Soothsayer
35. Laboratory
36. Ironmonger
37. Monument
38. Marauder
39. Sea Hag
40. Minion
41. Tactician
42. Ghost Ship
43. Journeyman
44. Haggler
45. Horn of Plenty
46. Squire
47. Watchtower
48. Hamlet
49. Scrying Pool
50. Altar
51. Familiar
52. Fool’s Gold
53. Stonemason
54. Swindler
55. Menagerie
56. Embassy
57. Militia
58. Duke
59. Masterpiece
60. Caravan
61. Apprentice
62. Bridge
63. Bazaar
64. Butcher
65. Cartographer
66. Highway
67. Bandit Camp
68. Vault
69. Catacombs
70. Courtyard
71. Inn
72. Rabble
73. Baker
74. Conspirator
75. Hoard
76. Silk Road
77. Worker’s Village
78. Throne Room
79. Candlestick Maker
80. Warehouse
81. Festival
82. Plaza
83. Nobles
84. Lighthouse
85. Native Village
86. Pillage
87. Crossroads
88. Ironworks
89. Develop
90. Oracle
91. Moat
92. Library
93. Jester
94. Embargo
95. Spice Merchant
96. Peddler
97. Baron
98. Herald
99. Apothecary
100. Smithy
101. Gardens
102. Scheme
103. Market
104. City
105. Council Room
106. Oasis
107. Venture
108. Forge
109. Hunting Grounds
110. Village
111. Quarry
112. University
113. Advisor
114. Wishing Well
115. Salvager
116. Fortress
117. Possession
118. Bank
119. Treasury
120. Mystic
121. Horse Traders
122. Remodel
123. Cutpurse
124. Envoy
125. Merchant Ship
126. Noble Brigand
127. Farming Village
128. Bishop
129. Tunnel
130. Shanty Town
131. Sage
132. Pawn
133. Armory
134. Count
135. Mining Village
136. Forager
137. Harem
138. Smugglers
139. Procession
140. Golem
141. Scavenger
142. Walled Village
143. Beggar
144. Merchant Guild
145. Lookout
146. Trader
147. Urchin
148. Workshop
149. Death Cart
150. Island
151. Market Square
152. Trading Post
153. Graverobber
154. Rogue
155. Outpost
156. Mint
157. Farmland
158. Loan
159. Woodcutter
160. Vagrant
161. Alchemist
162. Talisman
163. Storeroom
164. Coppersmith
165. Saboteur
166. Cellar
167. Herbalist
168. Fortune Teller
169. Counting House
170. Mandarin
171. Band of Misfits
172. Cache
173. Explorer
174. Black Market
175. Duchess
176. Nomad Camp
177. Bureaucrat
178. Feodum
179. Moneylender
180. Poor House
181. Haven
182. Contraband
183. Chancellor
184. Tribute
185. Spy
186. Great Hall
187. Pearl Diver
188. Rats
189. Trade Route
190. Treasure Map
191. Navigator
192. Stash
193. Taxman
194. Royal Seal
195. Expand
196. Secret Chamber
197. Philosopher’s Stone
198. Harvest
199. Pirate Ship
200. Thief
201. Mine
202. Transmute
203. Feast
204. Adventurer
205. Scout
Links to descriptions/Explanations: Part I (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=8693.msg263323#msg263323)I think > !I disagree.
I think > !I
Mine: I've got a soft spot for Mine in my heart. I almost certainly overbuy it. I agree that it's one of the least powerful $5 cards, but if it's the only terminal out there, I'll buy it. If it's a Colony game, I'll buy it. If there's a discard attack on the board, I'll often buy it. I'm a bit surprised you ranked it below, say, Chancellor.
yo need a big deckWatch out, WW is going street on us.
yo need a big deckWatch out, WW is going street on us.
Great list so far, WanderingWinder. The cost-based lists are cool, but it's also a good exercise to rank the cards on one list, since cost is just one facet of a card's power.I should probably add in as a difference that these rankings are for full random across all sets as well. But I still appreciate the insights, of course! And I agree that other ways of playing are perfectly valid - just not what my rankings are dealing with.
I'm going to write some…counterpoints isn't really the right word. I play almost exclusively games with cards pulled from 2 expansions at a time, which I believe is how most of the playtesting was done. It's no more or less valid than pure random, but I believe it can offer some insight into why some cards are the way they are.
Scout: Scout sucks. I wish it didn't, but your analysis is pretty much spot-on, with one small omission. Scout's reordering can be useful anytime your deck has cantrips, which is pretty frequent. Great Hall's the obvious poster child since Scout can draw it into hand and then order the top of your deck to choose which card Great Hall will draw when you play it. This obviously doesn't make Scout worth buying on its own, but it's a factor in Scout's favor. Really, the upshot is that Scout is a high-skill card, but it's a very weak high-skill card. It has to have a lot of things in its favor to be worth buying, and even then you may never hit the $4 you need at the right stage in the game. Hell if you're paying $5 for it. Even in an all-Intrigue game it seems marginal. Oh, how I wish it gave +$1.The issue is... like great hall is actually a huge nombo. If you draw one great hall, it's like a cantrip with a re-order effect, that is pretty good of course, but not great, but... great hall is also a bad card, and you are adding bad cards to play more bad cards, which you're going to have a hard time pulling off (your great hall density can't be all that high almost ever), this stops you from getting needed building going, and most of all, the scout could have been another great hall, unless the pile's empty, and most usually another great hall would be better. Ok, it's not a useless card, but even in situations where it's supposedly designed to be good, it is hard to set up correctly for an extremely marginal benefit. Some of that hardness is skill, yes, but some of it is also just structural.
Adventurer: Adventurer is a bit of a paradox because at $6 it competes directly with Gold, yet it needs good Treasure (like Gold) to be viable. Looking through the suggested sets of 10 for the various rulebooks, Adventurer appears on boards where you either (A) have a way to get Gold (or a lot of Silver) without buying it or (B) have a healthy Treasure-based alternative to Gold at a different price point (e.g. Fool's Gold). Whether it's actually a good purchase on such boards is debatable, but I think that's the intent. Could it cost $5? Maybe. That might incentivize Big Money as much as Envoy, but maybe I'm completely wrong.Incentivizing BM as much as envoy is certainly no crime - BM-envoy is pretty weak, just not like, unplayable.
Feast: Sadly, this card doesn't really need to exist. It's not just that it's weak. It's that it almost never changes the strategy of any board it's on.Yes, that is the point! There are some cards fairly low where, ok, maybe you get them reasonably often, but how much better are they than the alternatives? Some, yes, but very very little.
Transmute: OK, here's where my experience diverges. In a game with 4 or 5 Alchemy cards, Transmute tends to usually be a go-to card. First, you're buying the Potion anyway. Ideally, you're picking up a Transmute with an extra buy, but even if you're not, my experience tells me you want it early. Even if it means waiting on that second Apothecary, or whatever. Turning your Estates into Gold is great, but in an Alchemy game it's even more crucial for two reasons. Well, one reason, really: you tend to want to use all your buys on Actions. First because when a Potion hand comes up you want to spend that Potion rather than buying a Gold. Second because many Alchemy cards work better with more Actions in your deck. So you want a few Golds in your deck, but you don't want to buy them. Transmute to the rescue. In the endgame you're often turning some nice Actions into Duchies, and that's great too.Yeah, I don't know. I mean, sure, it has its uses - everything does - but these to me also seem to be decks where okay, how badly do I really want gold anyway? Not very. And most any other form of gaining or remodeling or upgrading would be preferred, but okay, yeah, it's sometimes not available. Still, I think this deserves the low spot.
Mine: I've got a soft spot for Mine in my heart. I almost certainly overbuy it. I agree that it's one of the least powerful $5 cards, but if it's the only terminal out there, I'll buy it. If it's a Colony game, I'll buy it. If there's a discard attack on the board, I'll often buy it. I'm a bit surprised you ranked it below, say, Chancellor.Colony games help it, sort of, because there is platinum, but on the other hand, they also make the game into one where you don't want to spend lots of time nursing and upgrading your treasure. Again, yeah, has its uses, but at 5, doesn't seem to be a gamebreaker almost ever, and I want my 5s to either do that, or be exceptional support cards.
Harvest: It's less obvious than its Alchemy analogues, but just as Transmute is better when you already want a Potion for other reasons, Harvest is better when you already want variety for other reasons. If you're already building a deck around Menagerie, Horn of Plenty, or especially Fairgrounds, Harvest makes a very nice addition that will often pull $4. It's also a great card against deck muckers and cursers, like Fortune Teller, Young Witch, and Jester.Uh, hm. If I were re-doing this list (and I am always redoing the list), moving this down would be one of the first things to look at. Okay, it can pull 4. That's actually not a big deal. Especially when those other cards are present - I would just like more of them please. Again, not useless, but color me meh. And I don't think it's at all 'great' against those attacks, more like 'slightly better'.
Philosopher's Stone: Like Transmute, Philosopher's Stone is way better in games with 4 or 5 Alchemy cards. "But wait," I hear you cry, "Philosopher's Stone is less useful in the kind of Action chain games that Alchemy is famous for!" Well, OK, yes. You're not going to buy Philosopher's Stones for your Scrying Pool deck or your Unstoppable Alchemist Stack™. But you are going to snap them up in a game with Familiar, Herbalist, University (without terminal draw), and even Golem. As with Transmute, the Potion is the biggest part of Philosopher's Stone's opportunity cost. Once you've got a Potion or two in your deck, Philosopher's Stones are often fantastic.I feel like this is more or less what I was saying? The issue here is probably that in laying with like 5 alchemy cards is really disproportionate, because there are only 13, you are going to see combos all the time.
Secret Chamber: Secret Chamber isn't stellar, but it's a beast against Swindler. Normally I will only consider buying a Secret Chamber if I'm going to reliably have a very large hand size, but I am buying it more and more with only Swindler in its favor. It rarely disappoints. You can kind of see how it works with the rest of Intrigue, too. It combos with Scout: draw the Victory cards, then discard them for cash. If you're fighting Torturers, it at least lets you discard those Curses in hand for Coins. "Fun" Fact: unlike Adventurer, Secret Chamber gets zero love in the suggested sets of 10. It's in none of the suggested sets post-Intrigue and only one set in Intrigue itself.Yeah, again, uses, and specific interactions, but these don't save it from being a bad card. I mean, everything has uses.
I have to say that pirate ship is the card I most disagree with in this ranking. On a deck with a strong engine but no other virtual money pirate ship can be a must buy as once you get your engine up you can pin the player relying on treasure cards while simultaneously getting up to 2 province buy potential.I think you need to re-examine your math. Do you know how few cards give +buy without any virtual coin? Hamlet, Market Square, worker's village... So you have, Pirate Ship, and One of those, and the rest of your cards also don't provide virtual coin, and they make a strong engine. And otherwise, you aren't getting 2 provinces a turn. Actually, they are probably not getting so many treasures that you could really get 2 treasures a turn anyway. I mean, okay, it can be good if you already have zanily good engines where you are overdrawing your deck and are swimming in actions, but I have to tell you, not only is such a situation rare, but there are lots of other cards that would work in that situation as well. So it's like, Pirate Ship is good there, yes, but it's not so much the pirate ship that's good, it's the everything else which is good.
It isn't a strong card, but I would guess on roughly 5-10% of the boards, pirate ship is a solid buy and in around half of those it is a must buy. That is far far higher than secret chamber or harvest and definitely superior to thief.
I should probably add in as a difference that these rankings are for full random across all sets as well. But I still appreciate the insights, of course! And I agree that other ways of playing are perfectly valid - just not what my rankings are dealing with.
QuoteTransmute: OK, here's where my experience diverges. In a game with 4 or 5 Alchemy cards, Transmute tends to usually be a go-to card. First, you're buying the Potion anyway. Ideally, you're picking up a Transmute with an extra buy, but even if you're not, my experience tells me you want it early. Even if it means waiting on that second Apothecary, or whatever. Turning your Estates into Gold is great, but in an Alchemy game it's even more crucial for two reasons. Well, one reason, really: you tend to want to use all your buys on Actions. First because when a Potion hand comes up you want to spend that Potion rather than buying a Gold. Second because many Alchemy cards work better with more Actions in your deck. So you want a few Golds in your deck, but you don't want to buy them. Transmute to the rescue. In the endgame you're often turning some nice Actions into Duchies, and that's great too.Yeah, I don't know. I mean, sure, it has its uses - everything does - but these to me also seem to be decks where okay, how badly do I really want gold anyway? Not very. And most any other form of gaining or remodeling or upgrading would be preferred, but okay, yeah, it's sometimes not available. Still, I think this deserves the low spot.QuotePhilosopher's Stone: Like Transmute, Philosopher's Stone is way better in games with 4 or 5 Alchemy cards. "But wait," I hear you cry, "Philosopher's Stone is less useful in the kind of Action chain games that Alchemy is famous for!" Well, OK, yes. You're not going to buy Philosopher's Stones for your Scrying Pool deck or your Unstoppable Alchemist Stack™. But you are going to snap them up in a game with Familiar, Herbalist, University (without terminal draw), and even Golem. As with Transmute, the Potion is the biggest part of Philosopher's Stone's opportunity cost. Once you've got a Potion or two in your deck, Philosopher's Stones are often fantastic.I feel like this is more or less what I was saying? The issue here is probably that in laying with like 5 alchemy cards is really disproportionate, because there are only 13, you are going to see combos all the time.
Taxman: You don't understand this card.
I'm guessing if you played a bunch of Alchemy-heavy games, you'd change your tune about these two (in terms of how they play in Alchemy-heavy games, not where they appear on your power rankings).You'd probably change your tune about Mine as well. It loves potions.
#205 Scout
Right away, we can see something important about how the list is made. The bottom card in the list, Scout, is really not nearly the one that would usually do the most harm to your deck, should you add it to the random deck. It's all about what does the least good. This is important, because with the exception of swindler (and in convoluted situations, ambassador and masquerade), you aren't going to be forced to have a card you don't want in your deck. So the worst a card can be is you don't buy it, and get something else instead. Ergo, the card gets measured about what it adds when you do want as well as how often it is better than the alternatives which are available. It's all about the opportunity cost.
I'm guessing if you played a bunch of Alchemy-heavy games, you'd change your tune about these two (in terms of how they play in Alchemy-heavy games, not where they appear on your power rankings).Ah, well maybe we are just both misunderstanding - I am not talking about alchemy-heavy games there, still just going on the all-random!
Disagreements so far:Well, sometimes you don't want silver, but you also need to not want any other 3 or 4 cost cards. And there really aren't many games where you don't want any 3 or 4 cost cards, *really* don't want silver, and are very focused on getting to $5 *one time*. Hey, it's not that they don't exist, but they're rare, and feast usually isn't *that* much of an upgrade even in these situations. Of course the card is a useful thing to have in your deck, but it rarely meets the opportunity cost.
Feast: Yes, Silver is better, but I don't always want Silver. I just want to guarantee I get that Witch or Wharf or whatever next shuffle. Maybe I'm doing a Scrying Pool engine and I want to ditch all my Treasures, not add to them.
Mine: Mine is a great card! Yes, there are other cards that are more powerful than it, and it may just be a "terminal Copper", but the point is to get it early (your first $5, preferably) so it can be used often. It's one of the lynchpins of the First Game engine, turning your Coppers into Golds for Remodel to turn into Provinces.I have no idea how Mine can be a 'great' card. Maybe your definition of 'great' is really loose, and most cards are 'great'. Getting it early, man, that's not my idea of a "I'm going to win this game" plan. Sure, sometimes it's the best move, but I can't recall ever having been like 'Sweet, I got 5, I can get my mine!' or paying $6+ for mine, which is something I will do with virtually every other 5-cost. As for it being a 'lynchpin' of the First Game engine... well, it's useful int hat engine, but I *really* don't think it's a lynchpin - and that is a board which could almost have been designed to show the card off. Again, has it's uses, but they can't all be the best card. Something has to be last.
Pirate Ship: This can be underrated and overrated. It doesn't need to be in a 4-player game, and there doesn't need to be +Buy. Just get a couple of them, hit your opponent 4-5 times, and now you're buying a Province whenever it's in your hand.Problem is, this consistently loses to Big Money *with no help*, which is supposed to be the strategy it's countering, right?
Philosopher's Stone: This is great in sloggy games. True, you won't see it or your Potion very often, but when you do, It can easily add a Province to your Gardens deck.I disagree. It's great to *have* in sloggy games, sure. But you are now wasting a card on that potion, and probably one of your key early ones. And then you are buying a PStone, which saps more time. And then you get something which is worth a reasonably high amount of money. But every potion and P stone could have been, say, another gardens. If it's a slog mirror, you are putting yourself too far behind. If you are playing a non-mirror, poaching provinces is not really in the game plan anyway - your alt VP card should be worth at least almost as much as province, and your province helps them end the game on you. I mean, I have found some uses for it in mountebank games with nothing going on, but you sort of need ti to fall right, and it's still not the hugest of improvements.
Taxman: You don't understand this card.Care to enlighten me?
Trade Route: Trashing is nice at the beginning of the game, though admittedly Forager is essentially the better version of this. Whether to buy an Estate or not becomes a strategic decision (which I find interesting), but even just being able to trash a little can help you out, and then it becomes a powerhouse later in the game.Trashing IS nice at the beginning of the game. Unfortunately this card doesn't do it for you. You are adding what is essentially a worthless card, so next shuffle you actually have MORE junk, the shuffle after you are only back to even, and the shuffle after that you finally see some thinning. And it's terminal. It's absolutely not worth it at 0. And trashing one, getting a buy and a couple of coins isn't really my idea of a powerhouse in the late game - the problem is, it usually has cost you a $5 in terms of opportunity, either because you bought it late when it was good (most often you are producing 5 most every hand by now) or you bought it early instead of something else which could have propelled you to $5 where this did not.
Rats: You read my article on this, right? The whole point of this card is for other things to trash it. So yes, without cost- or type-caring TfBs in the kingdom, Rats is useless - but there will usually be some sort of cost- or type-caring TfB in the kingdom. Is it worth the opportunity cost to buy a single Rats before buying your Bishop or Salvager or Apprentice? YES.I did read your article. Now, let's count the cards which Rats is potentially helped by: Remodel, Swindler, Saboteur, Upgrade, Salvager, Apprentice, Transmute, Watchtower, Bishop, Expand, Forge, Remake, Develop, Trader, Farmland, Procession, Graverobber, Rogue, Stonemason, Butcher, Governor. Okay, I didn't include things like Trade Route, where the card you get from trashing it might be a boon, but I included stuff like Rogue and transmute which probably shouldn't be in here, really. Anyway, there's 21 cards here, and given we have 9 kingdom spots left and there are 204 cards total... There's about a 63% chance that one of these cards will appear with Rats. Now if we take out a bunch of these which are sort of ridiculous includes, I think the actual list of cards that might make me want to go rats is more like, Vineyard, Scrying Pool, Remodel, Upgrade, Salvager,
Question: How are you ranking these cards? I mean, are you ranking them by:I'm ranking them based on what is best, yes it's vague. But to try to explain, it's a combination of 'How often do I want this card over the alternatives' and 'When I do get it, how much better am I for having gotten it than the alternative?" with a little bit of "How does this change how I play even if nobody buys it maybe" (e.g. Noble Brigand really dissuades Silver/Gold strategies, Young Witch makes you get banes you otherwise wouldn't, etc.)
- how much the card will make a difference to either your overall strategy or the game when it's in the kingdom?
- how powerful the card is when it's in your hand (in games in which buying it is a good idea), as in, how much it will benefit your turn?
- how often buying the card is a good move?
- a combination of the second and third above?
- how much the card helps your deck when you buy it
(and of course, all of the above include "relative to the card's cost")
I ask because just saying "I'm ranking the cards by how "good" or "powerful" it is" can be vague. As an example, pearl diver is not powerful at all, but in a kingdom with no other 2 costs you will usually buy it when you have 2 coins. On the other hand, Outpost is a card that isn't good all that often, but in some engines can be crazy powerful. If you were to ask me "which card do you think is better, pearl diver or outpost?" I would have a hard time answering that without clarification.
Ah, well maybe we are just both misunderstanding - I am not talking about alchemy-heavy games there, still just going on the all-random!
I feel like this is more or less what I was saying? The issue here is probably that in laying with like 5 alchemy cards is really disproportionate, because there are only 13, you are going to see combos all the time.
I have to say that pirate ship is the card I most disagree with in this ranking. On a deck with a strong engine but no other virtual money pirate ship can be a must buy as once you get your engine up you can pin the player relying on treasure cards while simultaneously getting up to 2 province buy potential.I think you need to re-examine your math. Do you know how few cards give +buy without any virtual coin? Hamlet, Market Square, worker's village... So you have, Pirate Ship, and One of those, and the rest of your cards also don't provide virtual coin, and they make a strong engine. And otherwise, you aren't getting 2 provinces a turn. Actually, they are probably not getting so many treasures that you could really get 2 treasures a turn anyway. I mean, okay, it can be good if you already have zanily good engines where you are overdrawing your deck and are swimming in actions, but I have to tell you, not only is such a situation rare, but there are lots of other cards that would work in that situation as well. So it's like, Pirate Ship is good there, yes, but it's not so much the pirate ship that's good, it's the everything else which is good.
It isn't a strong card, but I would guess on roughly 5-10% of the boards, pirate ship is a solid buy and in around half of those it is a must buy. That is far far higher than secret chamber or harvest and definitely superior to thief.
Do you know how few cards give +buy without any virtual coin? Hamlet, Market Square, worker's village...
Counterfeit and Contraband give +buy without virtual coin...
I find it very very hard to imagine a board where I can consistently draw my deck with the ability to have 3-4 extra actions per turn AND time to buy 3-4 extra cards which aren't actually help my engine draw AND the ability to draw this essentially dead cards with the rest of my engine consistently by turn 12(!), ESPECIALLY on a board where I would ever ever consider Big Money even if there weren't Pirate Ships. Actually, I would guess you can't even design such a kingdom if you're trying. But even beyond this, I think you're overestimating the ability of PS to pin the opponent. In a mythical kingdom like the one you're describing, the opponent can probably set up the engine and then buy one to two treasures. It's going to be really hard to consistently hit only one or two from a sea of actions and green cards, and even if you can, there is enough virtual coin to just replace them the next turn.I have to say that pirate ship is the card I most disagree with in this ranking. On a deck with a strong engine but no other virtual money pirate ship can be a must buy as once you get your engine up you can pin the player relying on treasure cards while simultaneously getting up to 2 province buy potential.I think you need to re-examine your math. Do you know how few cards give +buy without any virtual coin? Hamlet, Market Square, worker's village... So you have, Pirate Ship, and One of those, and the rest of your cards also don't provide virtual coin, and they make a strong engine. And otherwise, you aren't getting 2 provinces a turn. Actually, they are probably not getting so many treasures that you could really get 2 treasures a turn anyway. I mean, okay, it can be good if you already have zanily good engines where you are overdrawing your deck and are swimming in actions, but I have to tell you, not only is such a situation rare, but there are lots of other cards that would work in that situation as well. So it's like, Pirate Ship is good there, yes, but it's not so much the pirate ship that's good, it's the everything else which is good.
It isn't a strong card, but I would guess on roughly 5-10% of the boards, pirate ship is a solid buy and in around half of those it is a must buy. That is far far higher than secret chamber or harvest and definitely superior to thief.
There exist a not insignificant fraction of boards where you can draw your whole deck and play 3-4 pirate ships a turn after around 12 turns but the +coin is not strong enough to compete with bm otherwise (ie +coin is something like bazaar or treasury). I would guess that pirate ship can crush any money based strategy on those boards even without +buy because it can force a pin well before the 50% VP point. I should clarify that I think pirate ship is virtually never an early buy, instead it has value when bought reactively once the engine has been completed if your opponent has been going for bm.
I like to read advices from advanced opponents, but these ranking lists start to bore me a little. Everything is debatable I think. And well, I don't agree that much with this list. And I especially think Harvest is the new most underrated card of the world (well, sometimes it's fortune teller, it depends on the context), and if I'm only a 5500 player, I have the nerve to think I understand this card more than many more experienced people.You know, that is all fine. You could just ignore the thread if you don't like it. But the point is not to give lists as if from on high of 'this is how it is, and this is how it shall be'. The point is to spur discussion. So like, you think Harvest is underrated - this is exactly the kind of thing I like to see talked about. Why do you think so? What is it that I am missing about the card. And we can do interesting comparisons.
Also feast is maybe not a game-changer, but is interesting with Duke. I like it because every card doesn't need to be game-changing.
Taxman is a lot weaker that I thought it was when I first read it. It would be really strong if you didn't have to gain the treasure, but as is, it can't actually make your deck any smaller. Still, it's an attack that slows down the game, and while doing so somewhat improves the quality of your deck, so there's some value in that. You can potentially slowly build a big drawing engine that hangs on to all the Silver/Gold and keep the attack working all game. It may not be spectacular, but it can't be that much worse than Bureaucrat as your list seems to suggest.
Why is Expand so low?
195. Expand
Expand, a seven cost. Yeah, the problem is, this is so expensive for something that's not a great effect. Remodel is the obvious comparison. and remodel is a decent enough card, though not great, but what is the real use of remodel? The biggest thing is turning estates into engine components. It can also have some usefulness later on in upgrading cards which have outlived their own purposes, and it can turn gold into province or speed the end of the game. Expand does these things hardly better at all, and it costs a heck of a lot more. And it doesn't open up many new strategies either - using all 3 of its expanding powers just doesn't come up that often. It's often like a worse mine, or a worse taxman, or a worse graverobber, or a worse rebuild, or a worse altar, and it's more expensive than all these cards, to boot. The flexibility to do all those different things, but it doesn't save the card altogether.
I'm sorry, I wasn't really asking why Expand is so low; it was more of an "I disagree so I'm going to ask a question that implies that I disagree" kind of thing. Whoops.
I'm sorry, I wasn't really asking why Expand is so low; it was more of an "I disagree so I'm going to ask a question that implies that I disagree" kind of thing. Whoops.
Maybe expound on why you disagree? What makes it a better card, in your view, than what WW said,?
I'm sorry, I wasn't really asking why Expand is so low; it was more of an "I disagree so I'm going to ask a question that implies that I disagree" kind of thing. Whoops.
Maybe expound on why you disagree? What makes it a better card, in your view, than what WW said,?
Yes, please expend the energy to expound on Expand.
I'm sorry, I wasn't really asking why Expand is so low; it was more of an "I disagree so I'm going to ask a question that implies that I disagree" kind of thing. Whoops.
Maybe expound on why you disagree? What makes it a better card, in your view, than what WW said,?
Yes, please expend the energy to expound on Expand.
Maybe expound on why you disagree? What makes it a better card, in your view, than what WW said,?
For instance, we can compare Harvest to Navigator. Navigator always makes 2, Harvest makes 1-4 (usually 2-4, probably most often 3 followed by 4 followed by 2, 3 being about average). Navigator looks at one more card than Harvest. Navigator lets you keep the cards on top of your deck if you want. Navigator lets you re-order the cards if you keep them. Navigator costs less. Harvest can be sapped at no money if you draw all of your deck, whereas Navigator can't. So almost the only thing for Harvest here is that it tends to make more money. Okay, that is one of the most significant factors here, obviously. But I also think the cost is really big, as Harvest has a lot more to compete with at $5 than Navigator does at $4. So it seems to me that Navigator is pretty clearly better than Harvest.Harvest and navigator is an interesting comparison.
Little analyses like ^that^ are some of my favorite things to do.
I'm ranking them based on what is best, yes it's vague. But to try to explain, it's a combination of 'How often do I want this card over the alternatives' and 'When I do get it, how much better am I for having gotten it than the alternative?" with a little bit of "How does this change how I play even if nobody buys it maybe" (e.g. Noble Brigand really dissuades Silver/Gold strategies, Young Witch makes you get banes you otherwise wouldn't, etc.)
So I guess I would say "How much more likely am I to win by getting this card compared to the best alternative, averaged over all possible kingdoms". Now that might be a little confusing, because you don't count it as extra negative when it's not the best alternative - it just gets a 0 above baseline in those cases.
I hope this makes things clearer, but I fear that it does not.
Harvest gives $3, often $4 (and $4 is a lot of money).
This reminds me of the baseball sabermetrics idea of "Wins Above Replacement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wins_Above_Replacement)". I wonder if it would be possible to do something similar for Dominion in a statistical way?
And on average, discarding 4 cards from your deck does not help or hurt you.But it does. Before greening, you reshuffle faster, which means you get your newly-gained improvements to your deck faster, which means your deck is going to keep improving faster and faster. Except when it triggers the reshuffle when you're about to buy a good card. After greening, reshuffling fast means you get your green cards to your deck faster, which hurts you, unless you trigger the reshuffle when you're about to buy a green card.
I very rarely get $4 from Harvest. I'd say it's like:25% for $2, really ? I would say not more than 10%. I get $4 way more often. If you get $2 so often, it means that you shouldn't have bought that Harvest at all. However, just like menagerie, getting $4 different cards is easy (well, menagerie is easier because of disappearing cash, but even)
$1 : 5%
$2 : 25%
$3 : 50%
$4 : 20%
Maybe expound on why you disagree? What makes it a better card, in your view, than what WW said,?
Honestly, if you replaced about half of the negative adjectives in WW's reasoning with positive ones, that would quite adequately explain why I disagree...
It's often like a worse mine, or a better taxman, or a worse graverobber, or a better rebuild, or a worse altar, and it's more cheap than all these cards, to boot.
I very rarely get $4 from Harvest. I'd say it's like:25% for $2, really ? I would say not more than 10%. I get $4 way more often. If you get $2 so often, it means that you shouldn't have bought that Harvest at all. However, just like menagerie, getting $4 different cards is easy (well, menagerie is easier because of disappearing cash, but even)
$1 : 5%
$2 : 25%
$3 : 50%
$4 : 20%
Did I get the right ones?
Probably Rebuild or King's Court. I'd personally choose Chapel.
For the record my top 5 are Chapel, Ambassador, Masquerade, Rebuild and King's Court (not necessarily that order). I wouldn't put Goons that high--it's great, but the other ones totally shape your deck and transform the game.
For the record my top 5 are Chapel, Ambassador, Masquerade, Rebuild and King's Court (not necessarily that order). I wouldn't put Goons that high--it's great, but the other ones totally shape your deck and transform the game.
I don't see how you can put Ambassador above Masquerade, but maybe that's just me.
For the record my top 5 are Chapel, Ambassador, Masquerade, Rebuild and King's Court (not necessarily that order). I wouldn't put Goons that high--it's great, but the other ones totally shape your deck and transform the game.
I don't see how you can put Ambassador above Masquerade, but maybe that's just me.
Man, I said they weren't in order. Learn to read, Mr. Journalist. Man.
(I would have put Ambassador at #1 before Dark Ages)
I've yet to play a board with KC that hasn't been an insane engine or megaturn game.
I've yet to play a board with KC that hasn't been an insane engine or megaturn game.
I'm not sure I can even squeeze KC into the top 10.
Cellar is cheaper than Warehouse, and warehouse is pretty good. Expand is more expensive than all these cards, and most of them are pretty bad, apart from its effect largely being worse.Did I get the right ones?
Cellar is bad because Warehouse.
I think KC is probably borderline top 10 for me. Ambassador and Masq have to be top 10, as does Goons, the $5 junk attacks (Mountebank, Witch, Cultist), and Wharf. That leaves 3 spots for KC, Tournament, Fishing Village, Governor and Rebuild. Right now, I'm leaning towards Governor, Tournament, KC.
I think KC is probably borderline top 10 for me. Ambassador and Masq have to be top 10, as does Goons, the $5 junk attacks (Mountebank, Witch, Cultist), and Wharf. That leaves 3 spots for KC, Tournament, Fishing Village, Governor and Rebuild. Right now, I'm leaning towards Governor, Tournament, KC.
No chapel in your top 10?
Anyway, I'm finding that making a top 10 for myself is really really hard. I feel like I need to put 15 cards in there.
There exist a not insignificant fraction of boards where you can draw your whole deck and play 3-4 pirate ships a turn after around 12 turns but the +coin is not strong enough to compete with bm otherwise (ie +coin is something like bazaar or treasury). I would guess that pirate ship can crush any money based strategy on those boards even without +buy because it can force a pin well before the 50% VP point. I should clarify that I think pirate ship is virtually never an early buy, instead it has value when bought reactively once the engine has been completed if your opponent has been going for bm.
My only real disagreement so far is that Advisor is either slightly or way too high. The card is terrible.Advisor can be really good; you need a lot of them. If your deck is homogeous enough (e.g. Advisor/Masterpiece) then it draws two OK cards and discards an OK card. Otherwise, if you are drawing your deck anyway, it doesn't matter what they discard.
I think KC is probably borderline top 10 for me. Ambassador and Masq have to be top 10, as does Goons, the $5 junk attacks (Mountebank, Witch, Cultist), and Wharf. That leaves 3 spots for KC, Tournament, Fishing Village, Governor and Rebuild. Right now, I'm leaning towards Governor, Tournament, KC.
No chapel in your top 10?
Anyway, I'm finding that making a top 10 for myself is really really hard. I feel like I need to put 15 cards in there.
I wouldn't put ambassador in the top 10, not even in the top 20. KC and Chapel not in the top 10 either. Swindler not in the top 50.You don't think swindler makes the top 25% of cards? I mean, not in the top 10? sure, not in the top 20? reasonable, but you really think there are 50 cards more powerful than a $3 junker that also directly hurts the opponents economy?
... and I just love playing around Sea Hag.
... and I just love playing around Sea Hag.
So did the neighbor kids... until the day they disappeared.
I'm not sure I can even squeeze KC into the top 10.
I agree here. No way KC is in the top 5. I don't buy KC every game I see it, it's as simple as that. Neither do I buy chapel all the time, and I just love playing around Sea Hag.
Heh, I haven't put a tier system here, I am just putting out 10ish cards at a time. Probably that I give each little section a title is confusing - I put it in there just as a 2 second thought for a little fun, but yeah probably I shouldn't. The only actual real big tier I see here so far is that Scout and Adventurer are clearly a bottom tier to their own. There aren't really clearly delineated tiers, though, it's mostly marginal differences all around. Probably the next reasonably large ump for me will come between 172 and 173. Then 148/149, 134/135, 118/119, 93/94, 67/68, 56/57, 29/30, and 21/22. Everything in the top 21 is pretty zany strong, but I actually guess 10/11 is a pretty significant split, as is 6/7.I think KC is probably borderline top 10 for me. Ambassador and Masq have to be top 10, as does Goons, the $5 junk attacks (Mountebank, Witch, Cultist), and Wharf. That leaves 3 spots for KC, Tournament, Fishing Village, Governor and Rebuild. Right now, I'm leaning towards Governor, Tournament, KC.
No chapel in your top 10?
Anyway, I'm finding that making a top 10 for myself is really really hard. I feel like I need to put 15 cards in there.
That's why WW's tier system is so much better. No need to try to say there is a top tier consisting of only ten cards. I bet his final group will have 13 +/- 2 cards.
I'm not sure I can even squeeze KC into the top 10.
I agree here. No way KC is in the top 5. I don't buy KC every game I see it, it's as simple as that. Neither do I buy chapel all the time, and I just love playing around Sea Hag.
I'm curious about the playing around Sea Hag part. Can you expand on that?
My only real disagreement so far is that Advisor is either slightly or way too high. The card is terrible.Advisor can be really good; you need a lot of them.
If your deck is homogeous enough (e.g. Advisor/Masterpiece) then it draws two OK cards and discards an OK card.
Otherwise, if you are drawing your deck anyway, it doesn't matter what they discard.
Another thing is situations when you want to draw bad cards to trash them; Count and Forge let you trash a lot of cards at once, and a bunch of Advisors let you draw almost everything you want to trash, instantly powering up your Advisors.
Even in the opening, you can play the "do I have my Chapel this hand?" game.
Then of course there are situations where you literally don't care what else in your hand; Secret Chamber/Storeroom/Vault, Cellar discarding exactly as many cards remain in your deck (Cellar/Counting House-style). Double-Tactician/Vault generates $9 per turn without assistance, tack on two Advisors and you can get a Colony; Secret Chamber/Storeroom works for Provinces with just one Advisor.
The only situation I can think of where my deck is more or less homogenously filled with OK cards is either Trader/Feodum or Masterpiece/Feodum...Chapel? If there are no bad cards in your deck, everything is at least OK.
You can't draw your deck with AdvisorObviously you can; everything except one card, anyway. Two other "+1 Card"s in your deck are sufficient to draw the whole thing, or one if you don't mind it being the one card you don't draw.
My only real disagreement so far is that Advisor is either slightly or way too high. The card is terrible.Advisor can be really good; you need a lot of them.
I challenge you (or anyone reading this) to post one log where Advisor was "really good" :)
I'm not sure I can even squeeze KC into the top 10.
I agree here. No way KC is in the top 5. I don't buy KC every game I see it, it's as simple as that. Neither do I buy chapel all the time, and I just love playing around Sea Hag.
I'm curious about the playing around Sea Hag part. Can you expand on that?
Sea Hag hurts the opponent, but doesn't provide any resources for me either. I consider playing around it when...
* Trashing cost $5, like Upgrade, Junk Dealer, Trading Post
* Power $5 cards provide better cursing, like Mountebank, Witch
* Trashing is really good, like Remake, Masquerade, Chapel, sometimes Forge
* This (http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120610-103838-8e61051b.html) great game against Marin. I lost it by opening Sea Hag.
* A rush/slog with Ironworks & Silk Road/Gardens
This list is in no particular order and by no means complete. Just trying to illustrate Sea Hag is not an auto-buy.
The tough thing about ranking Expand is dealing with the price. $7 is a really rough price-point in Province games, so that hurts a lot. I remember when the "win rate given turn purchased" graphs existed on councilroom.com, the value was below 0.8 regardless of turn number for Expand, since usually just the fact that you hit $7 is bad. But I think there are definitely a reasonable number of situations in which Expand is really, really good. In Colony games, where the competition from Province isn't so strong at the $8 price-point, it's good more often than it's bad, I'd say.
The Next Bit of Cards (which is not meant to be construed as a tier!)
Cellar is cheaper than Warehouse, and warehouse is pretty good.
Expand is more expensive than all these cards, and most of them are pretty bad, apart from its effect largely being worse.
If there's one thing these rankings are telling me, it's that if a card isn't good for an engine, it's pretty much garbage in your eyes.
If there's one thing these rankings are telling me, it's that if a card isn't good for an engine, it's pretty much garbage in your eyes.
If that were true, Expand would be higher.
Hey, WanderingWinder. Is it just me, or do I remember a time when you were sort of the star non-engine player of the site? If there's one thing these rankings are telling me, it's that if a card isn't good for an engine, it's pretty much garbage in your eyes.
Haven and Moneylender worse than Bureaucrat? I don't think so, friend. I just don't think so.I expected people to find the haven weird, and like I said, it's probably a personal bias. Moneylender, man isn't that what I said? If not, it's what I meant to say. I dunno, maybe that makes it better than I have here, I just don't really feel so - like it's not a card that I get very much or have any memories of being happy at having gotten.
What's nice about Moneylender is that it trashes Coppers without killing your purchasing power in early hands (like, Apprentice and Salvager don't get any cash from Copper trashing). Of course it is a dead card later and sure, I think a lot of other trashers are better. Spice Merchant is similar, and definitely better, mostly because it's a much more efficient cycler. But this seems too soon for Moneylender to appear.
Haven. Haven, huh? Wow.
Hey, WanderingWinder. Is it just me, or do I remember a time when you were sort of the star non-engine player of the site? If there's one thing these rankings are telling me, it's that if a card isn't good for an engine, it's pretty much garbage in your eyes.There are a couple of things here. One, big money is just not that good nowadays, in general. Two, and related, I actually think I am more of a Big Money player still, compared to average, and still less BMy than I was before, it's just things are so enginey now. Three, and most important, I don't think the statement is actually true - none of the cards I've gone through so far are really any good for Big Money - in fact they are generally more useful for engines, when they are useful.... actually, a huge chunk of them don't even beat BMU.
Three, and most important, I don't think the statement is actually true - none of the cards I've gone through so far are really any good for Big Money - in fact they are generally more useful for engines, when they are useful.... actually, a huge chunk of them don't even beat BMU.You're just trying to hide the power of Poor House-Big Money.
Moneylender at 179? And we haven't seen Counting House (among others) yet? I'll take Moneylender, you take Counting House :)I'm curious when we will see Spice Merchant, and how much difference there will be between it and Moneylender. It certainly seems somewhat better, but many of the objections to Moneylender apply almost equally to Spice Merchant.
Feodum at 178... OMFG. Otherwise, I like that part of the list.
Hey, WanderingWinder. Is it just me, or do I remember a time when you were sort of the star non-engine player of the site? If there's one thing these rankings are telling me, it's that if a card isn't good for an engine, it's pretty much garbage in your eyes.
Feodum does require you to go quite far out of your way to make it score a decent amount of points though. You don't typically want a deck of boatloads of silver. It's much harder to use it as a support card than Silk Road or Gardens, it really requires you to dedicate your strategy to it for it to be worth much.
This. I think many people are missing the point on feodum : it's rarely a rush-alt-VP card like Gardens and Silk road, more often it's completely different (and also can be used ONLY for the on-trash effect)Feodum does require you to go quite far out of your way to make it score a decent amount of points though. You don't typically want a deck of boatloads of silver. It's much harder to use it as a support card than Silk Road or Gardens, it really requires you to dedicate your strategy to it for it to be worth much.
On the other hand, if you have a deck that's good for Feodums, you can probably also get Provinces pretty easily; probably not all your points are coming from the Feodums.
181. Haven:
This one I agree with you, but I decided to write something anyway just to clarify the argument. Haven has 2 uses, in my mind: (1) if you can overdraw your deck, you can save a Scrying Pool or Village or whatever for next turn to add reliability, and (2) it lets you play cards that need to line up with other cards (like Coppersmith or Baron) in a non-engine deck. In (1), well, this is probably not really a huge impact. Often if you can draw your whole deck, you have enough reliability that it just doesn't matter all that much. And (2) just turns bad strategies into acceptible ones, not actually good ones. So it's pretty meh.
There are three problems. One, you need to do something with it, just like any engine.
Two, its cost is pretty prohibitive - opening for it is pretty dangerous.
Three, building a more conventional engine is often just faster, and although this tends to be a little more consistent, the speed is often more important.
Alchemist below Workshop, Moat, Woodcutter, Pawn, Shanty Town, Trading Post, Embargo, Native Village, Lookout, Smugglers, Outpost, Horse Traders, Crossroads, Oracle, Noble Brigand, Farmland, Beggar, Vagrant, Sage, Armory, Death Cart, Scavenger, Count, Rogue, Doctor, Advisor... really?Would I rather have Alchemist in my deck or any of those cards? Alchemist, 9 times out of 10. But it costs SO much (and those are cheap! Many also have uses other than 'card-drawer in an engine'). The issue is, if there's a halfway reasonable village on the board, it's just so much easier to get lots of the village plus that card. If there isn't, then Alchemist is probably not all that hot anyway, and it goes to big money. In big money, Alchemist might be worth it on a colony board, definitely not on a province board.QuoteThere are three problems. One, you need to do something with it, just like any engine.
That holds for all drawers, so that hardly passes as a critic of Alchemist.QuoteTwo, its cost is pretty prohibitive - opening for it is pretty dangerous.
Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing :DQuoteThree, building a more conventional engine is often just faster, and although this tends to be a little more consistent, the speed is often more important.
Sure, it isn't the best drawer in the game, but I prefer it all day over Moat, Courtyard, Oracle, Advisor and Crossroads (if you can consider that a drawer). In an otherwise mirror on a random board where my engine relies on Alchemists and yours on your favorite among those listed, I love my chances.
Incidentally, in your post, you name a card I have in my top 10(!)
Shouldn't Outpost be out your post, not in your post?Incidentally, in your post, you name a card I have in my top 10(!)
It's Outpost, isn't it?
Shouldn't Outpost be out your post, not in your post?Incidentally, in your post, you name a card I have in my top 10(!)
It's Outpost, isn't it?
It's [REDACTED], isn't it?
Alchemist below Workshop, Moat, Woodcutter, Pawn, Shanty Town, Trading Post, Embargo, Native Village, Lookout, Smugglers, Outpost, Horse Traders, Crossroads, Oracle, Noble Brigand, Farmland, Beggar, Vagrant, Sage, Armory, Death Cart, Scavenger, Count, Rogue, Doctor, Advisor... really?
Incidentally, in your post, you name a card I have in my top 10(!)
It's Outpost, isn't it?
Incidentally, in your post, you name a card I have in my top 10(!)
It's Outpost, isn't it?
I bet crossroads.
181. Haven:
This one I agree with you, but I decided to write something anyway just to clarify the argument. Haven has 2 uses, in my mind: (1) if you can overdraw your deck, you can save a Scrying Pool or Village or whatever for next turn to add reliability, and (2) it lets you play cards that need to line up with other cards (like Coppersmith or Baron) in a non-engine deck.
Would I rather have Alchemist in my deck or any of those cards? Alchemist, 9 times out of 10. But it costs SO much (and those are cheap! Many also have uses other than 'card-drawer in an engine'). The issue is, if there's a halfway reasonable village on the board, it's just so much easier to get lots of the village plus that card.
If there isn't, then Alchemist is probably not all that hot anyway, and it goes to big money. In big money, Alchemist might be worth it on a colony board, definitely not on a province board.
Of course this is an oversimplification, but well, that cost is a lot.
Incidentally, in your post, you name a card I have in my top 10(!)
Alchemist below Workshop, Moat, Woodcutter, Pawn, Shanty Town, Trading Post, Embargo, Native Village, Lookout, Smugglers, Outpost, Horse Traders, Crossroads, Oracle, Noble Brigand, Farmland, Beggar, Vagrant, Sage, Armory, Death Cart, Scavenger, Count, Rogue, Doctor, Advisor... really?You seriously think that Alchemist is better than Oracle and Scavenger ?
Better than Scavenger, worse than Oracle, I would say.Alchemist below Workshop, Moat, Woodcutter, Pawn, Shanty Town, Trading Post, Embargo, Native Village, Lookout, Smugglers, Outpost, Horse Traders, Crossroads, Oracle, Noble Brigand, Farmland, Beggar, Vagrant, Sage, Armory, Death Cart, Scavenger, Count, Rogue, Doctor, Advisor... really?You seriously think that Alchemist is better than Oracle and Scavenger ?
I disagree on the rest too, but these two are so good.
171. Band of Misfits
Another one that's hard to evaluate. But the best 4-or-cheaper on the board, even when you get to pick the situation, often loses out to another 5-cost. That it can't be any really key cheap cards for long really really hurts this. But it has so much versatility that it can't be *that* bad. Probably it's best where there's lots of mediocre 3s-4s and at least some cantrip, or where you can use at as *either* smithy or village for an engine.
171. Band of Misfits
Another one that's hard to evaluate. But the best 4-or-cheaper on the board, even when you get to pick the situation, often loses out to another 5-cost. That it can't be any really key cheap cards for long really really hurts this. But it has so much versatility that it can't be *that* bad. Probably it's best where there's lots of mediocre 3s-4s and at least some cantrip, or where you can use at as *either* smithy or village for an engine.
I think a Throne Room deck deserves special mention. A card you can choose to be a Throne Room or a Bureaucrat (deliberately not picking any of the more powerful $4) can't be that bad.
This made me wonder about Outpost. Why is it terminal? They don't stack at all, so it doesn't seem like anything would really break.Donald X's philosophy seems to be to put as little text on a card as is necessary. The question you should be asking is: does Outpost need "+1 action"? It doesn't, so that's why it doesn't have it.
While Graverobber is no power card, it's much better than the much too high ranked Rogue.I can't find myself agreeing with this evaluation. If it's gaining, it's usually at least an explorer, though not much better very often. When it's attacking, it's Dame Sylvia. Okay, she's maybe not the best knight, but knights are pretty good, generally much better than the explorer-esque card. So I don't see how it's way overrated, and I don't *think* the main bit of the value is the gaining...
The games where Rogue is decent to good is the gain-from-the-trash ability. I rarely had a game where the attack was crucial.
Rogue gives you +2$, but being able to expand Action cards is a huge bonus over Rogue most of the times.
But Rogue so rarely attacks.Well, right. But this is (spoiler alert) well below where the knights are on my list, and not *that* far above Explorer.
Edit: Right, these are two player games. In that case, Rogue can attack a bit more often if there aren't many other forms of trashing. Still not very reliable as Knight. I doubt I would get it unless I was intending to profit off of the gaining (or really need a terminal Silver).
158. Loan
An early trasher which not only is non-terminal, but also can't be drawn dead. The issue is that you usually have some other treasure you don't want to hit (of course you don't have to trash it, but you must skip it, and moreover it reduces loan's effectiveness), and more importantly you are effectively adding another copper to get the trashing, which is supposed to get rid of coppers anyway!
158. Loan
An early trasher which not only is non-terminal, but also can't be drawn dead. The issue is that you usually have some other treasure you don't want to hit (of course you don't have to trash it, but you must skip it, and moreover it reduces loan's effectiveness), and more importantly you are effectively adding another copper to get the trashing, which is supposed to get rid of coppers anyway!
In my opinion the biggest drawback of Loan is the risk of skipping your key cards. Say, Mountebank. In theory Loan is a nice addition on a Mountebank board to trash all those Coppers, but accidentially discarding this one Mountebank you would have drawn next turn is a huge deal. Well, maybe deck tracking can prevent this to some extend, but probably only towards the end of a shuffle.
158. Loan
An early trasher which not only is non-terminal, but also can't be drawn dead. The issue is that you usually have some other treasure you don't want to hit (of course you don't have to trash it, but you must skip it, and moreover it reduces loan's effectiveness), and more importantly you are effectively adding another copper to get the trashing, which is supposed to get rid of coppers anyway!
In my opinion the biggest drawback of Loan is the risk of skipping your key cards. Say, Mountebank. In theory Loan is a nice addition on a Mountebank board to trash all those Coppers, but accidentially discarding this one Mountebank you would have drawn next turn is a huge deal. Well, maybe deck tracking can prevent this to some extend, but probably only towards the end of a shuffle.
I don't think that's a big deal at all. Sure, a Loan might cause you to skip your key card, but it also might skip a lot of the junk allowing you to play your key card more often. And good deck tracking can make it more likely to do the latter than the former.
158. Loan
An early trasher which not only is non-terminal, but also can't be drawn dead. The issue is that you usually have some other treasure you don't want to hit (of course you don't have to trash it, but you must skip it, and moreover it reduces loan's effectiveness), and more importantly you are effectively adding another copper to get the trashing, which is supposed to get rid of coppers anyway!
In my opinion the biggest drawback of Loan is the risk of skipping your key cards. Say, Mountebank. In theory Loan is a nice addition on a Mountebank board to trash all those Coppers, but accidentially discarding this one Mountebank you would have drawn next turn is a huge deal. Well, maybe deck tracking can prevent this to some extend, but probably only towards the end of a shuffle.
I don't think that's a big deal at all. Sure, a Loan might cause you to skip your key card, but it also might skip a lot of the junk allowing you to play your key card more often. And good deck tracking can make it more likely to do the latter than the former.
Let's say you open Sea Hag/Loan for some reason. In Turn 3 you draw Loan but no Hag. Do you play it? Probably yes, it WILL hit a Copper, and the risk of hitting the Hag is quite small after all. But if you do, it's awful, and maybe even a reason to not open Loan.
Okay, let's say you draw Estate, 3x Copper, Loan. If you play the Loan, it has an 20% chance to skip your Hag before hitting one of the remaining Coppers. That sucks.
On the other hand, there is already a 29% chance that your Hag is one of the bottom two cards and will miss the reshuffle. If that is the case, there is a 66% chance that playing the Loan will cause the Hag to be promoted into your turn 4 hand and make the reshuffle after all. This makes it essentially an even proposition that the Loan will hurt or help you play your Sea Hag. Plus it trashes a Copper.
Of course, opening Loan on a Sea Hag board is highly questionable anyway as Copper is more valuable in Curse slogs, but I was just continuing with the example you chose and I hope I illustrated my point well enough.
High variance: bad for the high echelons, good for us bungling morons. On the flipside of your second argument, deck thinning lets you win your curse split so you endup with less copper but also less curses.Okay, let's say you draw Estate, 3x Copper, Loan. If you play the Loan, it has an 20% chance to skip your Hag before hitting one of the remaining Coppers. That sucks.
On the other hand, there is already a 29% chance that your Hag is one of the bottom two cards and will miss the reshuffle. If that is the case, there is a 66% chance that playing the Loan will cause the Hag to be promoted into your turn 4 hand and make the reshuffle after all. This makes it essentially an even proposition that the Loan will hurt or help you play your Sea Hag. Plus it trashes a Copper.
Of course, opening Loan on a Sea Hag board is highly questionable anyway as Copper is more valuable in Curse slogs, but I was just continuing with the example you chose and I hope I illustrated my point well enough.
It's certainly questionable, so maybe Young Witch/Loan(bane) is a better example. Of course I get your point and you're probably right that it's more likely to be benefitial than bad, but the point is that it's high variance and can really screw you if you happen to end up on the wrong side of it.
In my oppinion the biggest drawback of Loan is the risk of skipping your key cards.
High variance: bad for the high echelons, good for us bungling morons.
In my oppinion the biggest drawback of Loan is the risk of skipping your key cards.
I would personally say that hitting non-Copper Treasures is Loan's biggest drawback. Sometimes you have no choice but to get a Silver to reach $5 in kingdoms with Loan, and when your Loan hits your Silver, that's just bad in every way.
Let's say you open Sea Hag/Loan for some reason.
In my oppinion the biggest drawback of Loan is the risk of skipping your key cards.
I would personally say that hitting non-Copper Treasures is Loan's biggest drawback. Sometimes you have no choice but to get a Silver to reach $5 in kingdoms with Loan, and when your Loan hits your Silver, that's just bad in every way.
Isn't that an example of skipping your key card, then?
181. Haven:
This one I agree with you, but I decided to write something anyway just to clarify the argument. Haven has 2 uses, in my mind: (1) if you can overdraw your deck, you can save a Scrying Pool or Village or whatever for next turn to add reliability, and (2) it lets you play cards that need to line up with other cards (like Coppersmith or Baron) in a non-engine deck.
There is a very common third use, which is smoothing out money in the late game. Play Haven, realise you now have 10 money, stash a Silver, almost certainly buying a Province next turn as well. Or a slightly different scenario, play Haven, find you've hit the dreaded 7, stash a Silver and buy either a Duchy or (if it seems a shrewder move) a different 5-cost card. This has got me out of trouble plenty of times and makes it very worthy for something that only costs 2. I think it's pretty incredible that Haven is listed below Vagrant.
The thing is, you can't look at it as either Explorer or Knight. It's usually both, and you don't get to choose. You have to gain at least as often as you attack, so if you're not going to be happy with the gaining, it's going to be bad, even if you mainly want it for the attack.While Graverobber is no power card, it's much better than the much too high ranked Rogue.I can't find myself agreeing with this evaluation. If it's gaining, it's usually at least an explorer, though not much better very often. When it's attacking, it's Dame Sylvia. Okay, she's maybe not the best knight, but knights are pretty good, generally much better than the explorer-esque card. So I don't see how it's way overrated, and I don't *think* the main bit of the value is the gaining...
The games where Rogue is decent to good is the gain-from-the-trash ability. I rarely had a game where the attack was crucial.
Rogue gives you +2$, but being able to expand Action cards is a huge bonus over Rogue most of the times.
181. Haven:
This one I agree with you, but I decided to write something anyway just to clarify the argument. Haven has 2 uses, in my mind: (1) if you can overdraw your deck, you can save a Scrying Pool or Village or whatever for next turn to add reliability, and (2) it lets you play cards that need to line up with other cards (like Coppersmith or Baron) in a non-engine deck.
There is a very common third use, which is smoothing out money in the late game. Play Haven, realise you now have 10 money, stash a Silver, almost certainly buying a Province next turn as well. Or a slightly different scenario, play Haven, find you've hit the dreaded 7, stash a Silver and buy either a Duchy or (if it seems a shrewder move) a different 5-cost card. This has got me out of trouble plenty of times and makes it very worthy for something that only costs 2. I think it's pretty incredible that Haven is listed below Vagrant.
The problem is that in a money deck, you'd usually rather have Silver, so you only get Haven when you happen to hit $2, which is not often enough for this to be worth much in terms of it's overall value. But I do agree with you that it's probably better than Vagrant.
I think it might be asking too much to expect a given $2 to be better than silver, which is a $3 card. I guess we have been spoiled with things like Chapel and Hamlet.... and Fool's Gold, Lighthouse, Courtyard, Crossroads, Squire, and Embargo. And maybe to a lesser extent, Moat, Cellar, Pawn, Beggar, Herbalist.
In reality, hitting exactly $2 is a rarity except in junker games and when you have lots of buys, so the $2 cards have to be worth buying at $3+ to have real meaningful value.
Also with 2 card trashers early in the game - steward, ambassador, remake... And it needs mentioning that a main use of 2s is often with spare buys, or just like $4 and 2 buys. Still, I feel like 2s often need to compete with 3s, if not all the time.QuoteIn reality, hitting exactly $2 is a rarity except in junker games and when you have lots of buys, so the $2 cards have to be worth buying at $3+ to have real meaningful value.
Not really. The chances of getting the 3 estate + 2 copper hand in either the first or second shuffle isn't so low. You've also got plenty of actions like lookout, workshop, and island that provide no coins.
146. Trader
141. Scavenger
People compare this to Chancellor, but I don't think that's really the main thrust of the card. Sure, it can be chancellor-with-a-plus. But the plus is big! You get to set up your next turn with the best card in your deck (or sometimes even this turn!) And it can be a lot better than chancellor toward the middle of your shuffle, where not using the discard ability can be very powerful, either to just get lots of extra plays on a key card, or because you have pretty good ideas as to what's being set up.
Whoops. Fixed.146. Trader
I'm not sure I agree with your arguments for this placement.
Because I'm not trying to give the whole picture of the card in these blurbs. It's still only a terminal-silver with a benefit, and a delayed one, if reasonably nice. Also, not the nicest benefit ever, as getting the card you want is nice, but hopefully I will get to that anyway....Quote141. Scavenger
People compare this to Chancellor, but I don't think that's really the main thrust of the card. Sure, it can be chancellor-with-a-plus. But the plus is big! You get to set up your next turn with the best card in your deck (or sometimes even this turn!) And it can be a lot better than chancellor toward the middle of your shuffle, where not using the discard ability can be very powerful, either to just get lots of extra plays on a key card, or because you have pretty good ideas as to what's being set up.
This sounds awfully positive for a card that's barely out of the bottom quarter. Why isn't it higher?
Intuitively, shouldn't most of the $4 villages be grouped up close together? They're all pretty close in power, I think. I mean, they all have their individual uses, but on many boards, Fortress, Walled Village and Worker's Village are all fairly interchangeable.Depends on your definition of relatively close. You can look forward to the next few soon, anyway
Intuitively, shouldn't most of the $4 villages be grouped up close together? They're all pretty close in power, I think. I mean, they all have their individual uses, but on many boards, Fortress, Walled Village and Worker's Village are all fairly interchangeable.
Intuitively, shouldn't most of the $4 villages be grouped up close together? They're all pretty close in power, I think. I mean, they all have their individual uses, but on many boards, Fortress, Walled Village and Worker's Village are all fairly interchangeable.
But, at $4 you are almost never unable to get it when you can get a vanilla Village.
Intuitively, shouldn't most of the $4 villages be grouped up close together? They're all pretty close in power, I think. I mean, they all have their individual uses, but on many boards, Fortress, Walled Village and Worker's Village are all fairly interchangeable.
I mostly agree with this, but also feel that Walled Village has gotten too much of a bad rap lately. Sure, it's the weakest of the $4 villages, and probably the worst village. But, at $4 you are almost never unable to get it when you can get a vanilla Village. I have a hard time saying it's significantly worse than Village, especially since you can sometimes make use of its extra ability. If Village comes significantly further down the list, I will be disappointed.
Intuitively, shouldn't most of the $4 villages be grouped up close together? They're all pretty close in power, I think. I mean, they all have their individual uses, but on many boards, Fortress, Walled Village and Worker's Village are all fairly interchangeable.
I mostly agree with this, but also feel that Walled Village has gotten too much of a bad rap lately. Sure, it's the weakest of the $4 villages, and probably the worst village. But, at $4 you are almost never unable to get it when you can get a vanilla Village. I have a hard time saying it's significantly worse than Village, especially since you can sometimes make use of its extra ability. If Village comes significantly further down the list, I will be disappointed.
Don't forget that Walled Village only works if you have a Google+ account. That alone bumps it down a bit.
Intuitively, shouldn't most of the $4 villages be grouped up close together? They're all pretty close in power, I think. I mean, they all have their individual uses, but on many boards, Fortress, Walled Village and Worker's Village are all fairly interchangeable.
This is a thread in which I am going to give a comprehensive ranking of all the kingdom cards in Dominion. I don't want this to be seen in any way as trying to degrade Qvist's rankings. Indeed, that is one of my favorite projects on this site. Yet I am still doing this - what's the difference? There are a few key differences: This is purely my own rankings, not composited with other people; this is purely for the 2-player version of the game; this includes all price points into a single comprehensive list; I'm only looking at pure random setups with all cards. I will also probably not have such detailed descriptions on each card. Anyway, on to the list!Are you seriously putting woodcutter above nomad camp?
1.
2.
3.
...
159. Woodcutter
...
176. Nomad Camp
...
203. Feast
204. Adventurer
205. Scout
Links to descriptions/Explanations: Part I (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=8693.msg263323#msg263323)
Part II (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=8693.msg263410#msg263410)
Part III (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=8693.msg264716#msg264716)
Part IV (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=8693.msg265448#msg265448)
Part V (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=8693.msg265762#msg265762)
Part VI (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=8693.msg266106#msg266106)
I explain this in my blurb for NC.This is a thread in which I am going to give a comprehensive ranking of all the kingdom cards in Dominion. I don't want this to be seen in any way as trying to degrade Qvist's rankings. Indeed, that is one of my favorite projects on this site. Yet I am still doing this - what's the difference? There are a few key differences: This is purely my own rankings, not composited with other people; this is purely for the 2-player version of the game; this includes all price points into a single comprehensive list; I'm only looking at pure random setups with all cards. I will also probably not have such detailed descriptions on each card. Anyway, on to the list!
1.
2.
3.
...
159. Woodcutter
...
176. Nomad Camp
...
203. Feast
204. Adventurer
205. Scout
Links to descriptions/Explanations: Part I (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=8693.msg263323#msg263323)
Part II (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=8693.msg263410#msg263410)
Part III (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=8693.msg264716#msg264716)
Part IV (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=8693.msg265448#msg265448)
Part V (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=8693.msg265762#msg265762)
Part VI (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=8693.msg266106#msg266106)
Intuitively, shouldn't most of the $4 villages be grouped up close together? They're all pretty close in power, I think. I mean, they all have their individual uses, but on many boards, Fortress, Walled Village and Worker's Village are all fairly interchangeable.
I mostly agree with this, but also feel that Walled Village has gotten too much of a bad rap lately. Sure, it's the weakest of the $4 villages, and probably the worst village. But, at $4 you are almost never unable to get it when you can get a vanilla Village. I have a hard time saying it's significantly worse than Village, especially since you can sometimes make use of its extra ability. If Village comes significantly further down the list, I will be disappointed.
Don't forget that Walled Village only works if you have a Google+ account. That alone bumps it down a bit.
It would be hilarious if Walled Village really did nothing unless you had a Google+ account.
Intuitively, shouldn't most of the $4 villages be grouped up close together? They're all pretty close in power, I think. I mean, they all have their individual uses, but on many boards, Fortress, Walled Village and Worker's Village are all fairly interchangeable.
Oh. How can you think this, Mr. Expert Card Designer? I say it's Walled Village, more-than-slight jump Mining Village, more-than-slight jump Fortress, substantial jump Farming Village, huge jump Worker's Village, huge jump Plaza, slight jump Wandering Minstrel.
It would be hilarious if Walled Village really did nothing unless you had a Google+ account.Walled Village $4
Intuitively, shouldn't most of the $4 villages be grouped up close together? They're all pretty close in power, I think. I mean, they all have their individual uses, but on many boards, Fortress, Walled Village and Worker's Village are all fairly interchangeable.
Oh. How can you think this, Mr. Expert Card Designer? I say it's Walled Village, more-than-slight jump Mining Village, more-than-slight jump Fortress, substantial jump Farming Village, huge jump Worker's Village, huge jump Plaza, slight jump Wandering Minstrel.
What do you mean by "jump"? If a slight jump is ~5 cards, your $4 villages are going to be spread over like 50+ cards. It seems like it would be difficult to find that many cards to squeeze between them in value.
Additionally, I don't agree with your ordering of them. Farming ~= Walled, and Worker's is the best. Seems like you're over-valuing what they do with VP cards or curses in your deck (where Farming and Wandering are stronger).
Sure Farming is slightly better than Walled, but you have 2 "more-than-slight" jumps and a "substantial" jump between them. Being able to skip VP cards isn't worth that much. Wandering Minstrel and Plaza are both good as well, but again, they are at least close to Worker's. You have then at least a "huge" jump ahead, which can't be right.
Worker's is clearly best. In an engine you often buy a Herbalist/Woodcutter/Nomad Camp only for the +buy if there's no better option, with Worker's you can just completely skip those cards. Would you ever be willing to buy a terminal that solely performs the added bonus of any of those other villages? Like, a terminal "Super Scout" that discards your treasures and victories and lets you rearrange your upcoming actions (for fairness sake, let's also give it +$2 to make it the equivalent of woodcutter)?
Workers is not the only source of +buy in the game! It's certainly a very good one, but a lot of other worthwhile engine components have +buy attached. I say Wandering Minstrel's filtering gets your engine up much, much faster (and can even create an engine in a low trashing or even slog environment). Which easily gives it the nod, I say.
Would you ever be willing to buy a terminal that solely performs the added bonus of any of those other villages? Like, a terminal "Super Scout" that discards your treasures and victories and lets you rearrange your upcoming actions (for fairness sake, let's also give it +$2 to make it the equivalent of woodcutter)?
WM seems sweet for sure, but WV is very very good. That's about the most useful analysis avaliable.
I have to wonder about the position of Shanty Town. It seems like many people on this site regard Shanty Town as roughly equal to or even slightly superior to vanilla village. I'm certainly less skilled than they, but I can't help but question this decision nonetheless. Shanty Town is an expensive necropolis unless it draws, but how often does it draw? Only if it is either the only action in hand or the last action in hand that you play. However, this brings up two thorny issues. First, if you have such a low action density that Shanty Town can normally be drawn without any actions, the likelihood of getting an action in the two cards you draw ought to be quite low, making the +2 actions a waste. And if you have terminal actions in your main hand, playing a +actions source followed by shanty town requires a pretty specific set-up. Shanty town, terminal, shanty town... and the end result is inferior to Village.
I wonder if people who like shanty town regard it as a lab variant instead of a village. It seems like that's the better way to regard it. In terms of engine enabling, typically the main purpose of a village, shanty town leaves much to be desired.
In my own ranking, I'm not sure I'd put it above Adventurer. Does anyone here understand it better?
128. BishopI think you're really underrating this. Yes it's a bad opening, but it's greatness later in the game gives is enough value that it should at least be up with Silk Road, for instance, which is also bad early but can be worth a lot of points.
I think this is the biggest trap card in the game. You just don't often want to be the first buy to buy bishop. Or more specifically, it's generally a very very bad early game card. It just trashes for your opponent so much better than it does you, and you are wasting time on it. Okay, there's the golden deck, but there's very often something to beat it (any non-deck attack does it, and there's some ways to outrace it). But anyway, that shows the point - it's much more of a late game card. At this point, the trashing doesn't help your opponents much - they often won't even take it, because it will hurt them right now (which is more relevant than the long-term prospects by now), or they want to hold on to their points. And man, you can really hammer home some massive points, say, setting up an engine which gains and then trashes 2-3 gold every turn (or trashes then buys; it all works), all the while not helping your opponent end the game much at all. Setting this up is reasonably rare, though, and sometimes the engine is good anyway.
Forager has some strong combos, for example potion cards and counterfeit. I feel this might be bit of a play style thing - I feel WW values weak early game trashing less than other top players.
I have to wonder about the position of Shanty Town. It seems like many people on this site regard Shanty Town as roughly equal to or even slightly superior to vanilla village. I'm certainly less skilled than they, but I can't help but question this decision nonetheless. Shanty Town is an expensive necropolis unless it draws, but how often does it draw? Only if it is either the only action in hand or the last action in hand that you play. However, this brings up two thorny issues. First, if you have such a low action density that Shanty Town can normally be drawn without any actions, the likelihood of getting an action in the two cards you draw ought to be quite low, making the +2 actions a waste. And if you have terminal actions in your main hand, playing a +actions source followed by shanty town requires a pretty specific set-up. Shanty town, terminal, shanty town... and the end result is inferior to Village.
I wonder if people who like shanty town regard it as a lab variant instead of a village. It seems like that's the better way to regard it. In terms of engine enabling, typically the main purpose of a village, shanty town leaves much to be desired.
In my own ranking, I'm not sure I'd put it above Adventurer. Does anyone here understand it better?
Even if the extra actions are wasted, you still get the $5 lab effect on a $3 costIf the extra actions are wasted, you get the $2 moat effect on a $3 cost.
Even if the extra actions are wasted, you still get the $5 lab effect on a $3 costIf the extra actions are wasted, you get the $2 moat effect on a $3 cost.
But the actions aren't necessarily wasted, which is what makes Shanty Town viable (I agree with the rest of your post).
134. Count
A reasonable card in slogs, where gaining copper isn't bad, setting cards back can often be good, 3 coins is nothing to sneeze at, and gaining duchies is generally excellent. The trashing option deserves some attention, but on the other hand, it doesn't trash *that* well, as you have to do some negative and it can sometimes be awkward to be able to protect the stuff you want to. Okay, can be strictly-better-once-you-have-it Mandarin, too, so really the versatility is what gets this card here and not lower.
That discussion about Count happened on the 5-cost cards list thread once. WW talked about Count a bunch there.
I have to wonder about the position of Shanty Town. It seems like many people on this site regard Shanty Town as roughly equal to or even slightly superior to vanilla village. I'm certainly less skilled than they, but I can't help but question this decision nonetheless. Shanty Town is an expensive necropolis unless it draws, but how often does it draw? Only if it is either the only action in hand or the last action in hand that you play. However, this brings up two thorny issues. First, if you have such a low action density that Shanty Town can normally be drawn without any actions, the likelihood of getting an action in the two cards you draw ought to be quite low, making the +2 actions a waste. And if you have terminal actions in your main hand, playing a +actions source followed by shanty town requires a pretty specific set-up. Shanty town, terminal, shanty town... and the end result is inferior to Village.
I wonder if people who like shanty town regard it as a lab variant instead of a village. It seems like that's the better way to regard it. In terms of engine enabling, typically the main purpose of a village, shanty town leaves much to be desired.
In my own ranking, I'm not sure I'd put it above Adventurer. Does anyone here understand it better?
In reality it's nothing like Village and you usually shouldn't buy Shanty Town in situations where you're looking for a Village.
Yes, you often want +buy, but rarely more than one, maximum two.
I don't agree with the general consensus that Worker's village is one of the best villages. Yes, you often want +buy, but rarely more than one, maximum two. And since in an engine that wants +buy you play more than one village per turn, the benefit of Worker's village is not that useful, while if you have a farming village for example, having the benefit several times worth more IMO (and there are lot of good +buy, other than Worker's).I understand that worker's village, much like a Grand Market chain, often results in surplus buys. There are a few ways to capitalize on that, especially in the Prosperity set that those cards come from: Quarry makes each buy more effective for engine building, Peddler picks up an economic boost with spare buys, and Goons essentially turns massive buy count into a win condition.Worker's Village, like Scout or Outpost, is abnormally solid amongst other cards from its expansion.
Yes, you often want +buy, but rarely more than one, maximum two.
You're completely ignoring one of the most important aspects of having lots of buys: end-game control. Having lots of buys restricts your opponent's options as there'll always be the lingering threat of you ending the game. Conversely, if I know you only have 2 or 3 buys, I can keep building a stronger and stronger deck until the piles aredangerouslycomfortably low.
You don't need to exercise all your options all the time to make having them a big boon.
Also, Worker's bonus becomes more and more important over the course of the game, whereas Wandering and Farming become weaker as your deck quality improves and you draw ever larger number of cards. So like early trashing, WV is an excellent long-term investment.
I have to strongly disagree with Urchin/Mercenary's position; man, +2 Cards +$2 is already a good card, trashing two makes it good; the discard attack puts it into GET IN MY DECK NOW territory. Your beef with it seems to mainly be that it's hard to convert your Urchin into a Mercenary; that's probably because you aren't opening Urchin/Urchin and picking up a third Urchin (or better attack) on the reshuffle. Even with a 5/2 opening, you probably will be spending the $5 on an attack. Three Mercenaries is a good number to have, I think; you can play one almost every turn until you run out of fuel, and then you trash the other two. They're definitely weaker if you get them later - you will draw them with cards you don't want to trash, and they will draw your other action cards dead. But get them early, especially in games where there isn't better trashing, and it's a positive feedback loop not only because more trashing helps you play your trasher more often, but also because the discard attack hurts your opponent's ability to trash with their own Mercenaries.
I can't think of a single situation where I'm looking for a Village but wouldn't buy a Shanty Town if it was the only Village available.Village/Moat is a workable draw engine if you have some way to trash. Shanty Town/Moat really isn't. (Same goes for other terminals drawing 2 cards.)
And while few players would by Moat solely for the +draw, many solid and powerful cards draw the same amount. Ghost Ship, Witch, even Masquerade. If engines are desirable on a board with those cards, village pulls still further ahead of shanty town.
One problem with urchin/mercenary is that the decks that are able to trigger the urchin reliably are the decks that don't need the mercenary.There's your problem, you should have three of them by turn 4.
The biggest issue with Mercenary is against discard attacks (including other Mercenaries).Indeed! The "other Mercenaries" part is exactly the deal; you want to get your Mercenaries first, so your opponent can't trash effectively, and also can't attack you effectively. And if you have it earlier, discarding your "good" cards doesn't hurt so much because the best two other cards in your hand probably include a Copper anyway, and drawing dead isn't such a big deal either because on average you draw a Copper. Mercenary is primarily a trasher; if you buy Chapel late, then you'll think Chapel is bad, too.
One problem with urchin/mercenary is that the decks that are able to trigger the urchin reliably are the decks that don't need the mercenary.There's your problem, you should have three of them by turn 4.
One problem with urchin/mercenary is that the decks that are able to trigger the urchin reliably are the decks that don't need the mercenary.There's your problem, you should have three of them by turn 4.
The occasions where you want to open Urchin/Urchin are pretty uncommon, the number where you want to open Urchin/Urchin/Urchin has got be close to zero. You get no economic development that way.
One problem with urchin/mercenary is that the decks that are able to trigger the urchin reliably are the decks that don't need the mercenary.There's your problem, you should have three of them by turn 4.
The occasions where you want to open Urchin/Urchin are pretty uncommon, the number where you want to open Urchin/Urchin/Urchin has got be close to zero. You get no economic development that way.
When I think Urchin is viable and there isn't another cheap attack I want, I often open Triple Urchin/X. Mercenary also gives +$2 to go with the draw, which is pretty decent in terms of economic development. Sure, it slows you down initially, but that isn't a problem if you can expect to slow down your opponent even more over the course of the entire game, which is usually the case if you can play a Mercenary almost every turn for a while.
Two recent games where I opened Triple Urchin:
http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20130706/log.505d732a51c359e6597efeb8.1373131404710.txt
http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20130707/log.5101a6c4e4b02b7235c3860f.1373194618461.txt
One problem with urchin/mercenary is that the decks that are able to trigger the urchin reliably are the decks that don't need the mercenary.There's your problem, you should have three of them by turn 4.
The occasions where you want to open Urchin/Urchin are pretty uncommon, the number where you want to open Urchin/Urchin/Urchin has got be close to zero. You get no economic development that way.
When I think Urchin is viable and there isn't another cheap attack I want, I often open Triple Urchin/X. Mercenary also gives +$2 to go with the draw, which is pretty decent in terms of economic development. Sure, it slows you down initially, but that isn't a problem if you can expect to slow down your opponent even more over the course of the entire game, which is usually the case if you can play a Mercenary almost every turn for a while.
Two recent games where I opened Triple Urchin:
http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20130706/log.505d732a51c359e6597efeb8.1373131404710.txt
http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20130707/log.5101a6c4e4b02b7235c3860f.1373194618461.txt
I don't understand it still. The first game you get a free win anyway because your opponent ignores Goons. I think it would be much better to go with the sure trashing of Steward. Especially since you can pick up Pawn with $2. Of course it's a nice Mercenary board because of Fortress, but I don't think that triple Urchin is the best play.
The second board is horribly weak so maybe this is the kind of place where you want that many Urchins, it's a lot more convincing than the first game. But you still kind of get a free win because your opponent ignores the attack entirely.
Maybe I am underestimating how often this comes up, but the heavy Urchin opening only looks good to me if there are no strong $5s/$4s/$3s or you need the trashing really badly and Mercenary is the only way to get it.
I don't understand it still. The first game you get a free win anyway because your opponent ignores Goons. I think it would be much better to go with the sure trashing of Steward. Especially since you can pick up Pawn with $2. Of course it's a nice Mercenary board because of Fortress, but I don't think that triple Urchin is the best play.
Without Fortress I'd have gone for Steward for sure, but Mercenary-Fortress is huge. Once my deck is trashed down, Mercenary will keep giving me both draw and +$2, whereas Steward does only one of those. I'm not even sure whether Steward would get me to a Goons earlier, especially without adding Silver to my deck, what I really don't want here because of the weak draw. I'm a bit confused about what you mean by "sure trashing". With 3 Urchins and one other cantrip, I'm assured to gain a Mercenary no later than T5 or T6. This is quite a bit slower than Steward of course, but I think the overall advantages make up for it.
QuoteThe second board is horribly weak so maybe this is the kind of place where you want that many Urchins, it's a lot more convincing than the first game. But you still kind of get a free win because your opponent ignores the attack entirely.
But ignoring the attack can only be a mistake here if you think he should have gotten it himself, in which case he should have opened triple Urchin too. In the absence of other attacks, getting only 2 Urchins is the worst of both worlds: you suffer from the slowdown but still need a decent amount of luck to get one Mercenary, let alone two.
QuoteMaybe I am underestimating how often this comes up, but the heavy Urchin opening only looks good to me if there are no strong $5s/$4s/$3s or you need the trashing really badly and Mercenary is the only way to get it.
I'd certainly skip Urchin if there's Wharf or Rebuild, but if there's a good engine and in the absence of other strong trashing, I'd happily open triple Urchin on a Witch board (I'm unsure about Mountebank, the 2 junk cards may well be too much). You may both be overestimating how often other strong trashing is available (the only cheap trashers that get rid of >1 card/turn are Chapel, Steward and Remake, and the last usually sucks if you're playing with Shelters), and underestimating how insanely strong Mercenary is. It gives you all 3 of Steward's options at once in addition to a Militia attack. Had it been a supply card, it would probably have costed $6.
Edit: My point isn't that Urchin is always a must buy (it certainly isn't) but that if you want to get it at all, you often want at least 2 and usually 3 during your first 4 turns, hence double or triple Urchin openings are not at all bad and should not be uncommon.
I think my main point is: on most boards there is another card that can help you pair up Urchin/attack while being more helpful for your deck than a third Urchin.
There's also a real possibility that I'm just trying to avoid multiple copies of a cantrip that requires me to click a billion times just to do nothing with it (while lying to myself that it's better strategy).
I don't really understand your * system. What does it means ?If I am putting it *around* a word (like I did with the word 'around' there), I am doing it to emphasize the word; it's similar to italicization, bolding, or underlining in this way, but I will often do it because it's faster to type out.
My only real disagreement so far is that Advisor is either slightly or way too high. The card is terrible.Advisor can be really good; you need a lot of them.
I challenge you (or anyone reading this) to post one log where Advisor was "really good" :)
119. Treasury
Peddler which returns to you. Solid enough, but usually I want my $5 peddler variants to have better upside. Actually, in a lot of engines, I don't even like having this in my hand so much - and especially not great against discard attacks or with scrying pool. Well, still peddler's not so bad.
Does someone have a good minimal working example implying mystic and showing a case where it shines?
Does someone have a good minimal working example implying mystic and showing a case where it shines?
Does someone have a good minimal working example implying mystic and showing a case where it shines?
It's great with Scout.
http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20130709/log.50675f6afca284ca61206e88.1373414826404.txt
In Dark Ages, it combos very well with Vagrant, Ironmonger, and Wandering Minstrel. There are a bunch of other cards that topdeck, but that combo requires a village of some sort.
Does someone have a good minimal working example implying mystic and showing a case where it shines?
With Wishing Well and Mystic, there are really two strategies to follow: play the odds, or play for what you want to be there. If you play the odds, you have a good chance of getting something, but it probably isn't that great. The other approach is to go with things like "If I draw a Village, I'll be able to play my Smithy" and so you guess Village even though it's not the most likely card to draw. I will often use one to just wish for my payload card, assuming I haven't seen it this reshuffle, even though I only have one of them. With this later approach you don't have great odds of getting anything, but when you get it it's really good. Which approach is better and when? I really don't know.It really depends on how much the cards help you, and how good your estimate of the most probable card is. Also note that sometimes you want to wish wrong to get a card in the next hand rather than the current one.
I think in that game there were 39 Mystic plays and only about 12 missed. And four of those misses were by the opponent. LastFootnote's success rate was probably around 75-80%.
I don't see how Bank is so much higher than Expand. The only real problems with Expand are:But Expand has a lot of potential to be a $7 Confusion in games where it doesn't shine, while Bank is rarely worse than Gold.
1. It costs $7
2. It's not good if you have a small hand size.
Bank has the exact same problems, and in the games where these problems are avoidable, it seems Expand is better much more often.
I don't see how Bank is so much higher than Expand. The only real problems with Expand are:
1. It costs $7
2. It's not good if you have a small hand size.
Bank has the exact same problems, and in the games where these problems are avoidable, it seems Expand is better much more often.
But Expand has a lot of potential to be a $7 Confusion in games where it doesn't shine, while Bank is rarely worse than Gold.Yeah, but you know that in advance, so you just buy Gold instead. This point was mentioned at the start of the lists. It's not about how bad a card can be, since you can just not buy it.
2. Bank has way more upside.Not sure about this. So it can be +$10 or something ridiculous. But you can KC Expand or something, and get something equally, if not more, ridiculous.
But Expand has a lot of potential to be a $7 Confusion in games where it doesn't shine, while Bank is rarely worse than Gold.Yeah, but you know that in advance, so you just buy Gold instead. This point was mentioned at the start of the lists. It's not about how bad a card can be, since you can just not buy it.2. Bank has way more upside.Not sure about this. So it can be +$10 or something ridiculous. But you can KC Expand or something, and get something equally, if not more, ridiculous.
169. Counting HouseTry it with Counterfeit. Just play it last so you don't have to trash your coppers.
...and lack of +buy to take advantage of the huge effect it can give you.
169. Counting HouseTry it with Counterfeit. Just play it last so you don't have to trash your coppers.
...and lack of +buy to take advantage of the huge effect it can give you.
Hoping there's more to this thread... :)There is. Had a family wedding over the weekend. Ate most of my last week. Should post next part tonight or tomorrow.
As do other sources of nonterminal +buy: looking up on the wiki, those would be Hamlet, Market, Market Square, Worker's Village, Candlestick Maker, Counterfeit, Festival, Pawn.However, Counterfeit can never be drawn dead, unlike any action, terminal or non-terminal.
I bet the cheap ones that also give money - so, Pawn, Candlestick Maker - would be the best CH enablers.
There goes my hypothesis of a 114-way tie.Hoping there's more to this thread... :)There is. Had a family wedding over the weekend. Ate most of my last week. Should post next part tonight or tomorrow.
Had a family wedding over the weekend. Ate most of my last week.
Had a family wedding over the weekend. Ate most of my last week.
Man, that must have been one giant feast.
True. I'm going to guess he travelled along sufficient highways, at least.Had a family wedding over the weekend. Ate most of my last week.
Man, that must have been one giant feast.
Could gain a Province playing a Feast that big...
169. Counting HouseTry it with Counterfeit. Just play it last so you don't have to trash your coppers.
...and lack of +buy to take advantage of the huge effect it can give you.
Counterfeit's trashing is optional. It also costs $5; when do you buy it? I do like that it provides a +buy w/o requiring an action.
106. Oasis
Another pretty high skill card. It's like a cross between silver and warehouse. If both of those were on the board, you would usually want one or the other
107. Venture
As others have pointed out, this is basically a peddler variant. Well, it tends to run somewhere between silver and gold, though exceeding gold isn't so rare.
A thin deck with sifting? I don't know what one of those looks like, if I have a thin deck, what junk am I sifting through?The Victory cards you buy eventually.
Or one that isn't as thin as it could be. I'm looking at those games with Lookout, Moneylender, Spice Merchant, etc. as the trasher.
Edit: By "thin as it could be" I mean a deck that has trashed some, but not all of its starting cards.
113. Advisor
Obviously this card needs some help. Basically you want some kind of sifter and/or cantrips and/or engines. But in an established engine, it can be virtually a lab. Of course, it can actually be very harmful to your deck as well, particularly if there are one or two key cards you want to play, as this can just make them miss the reshuffle.
None of those will be drawn dead either if you're not putting any terminal draw in your deck. Which you're probably not, in a counting house deck. I guess pawn can be terminal draw? Still.Well... I guess I was being serious, but you do make a good point. I guess I just meant counterfeit has an advantage over other +buy. In your case with counting house that probably makes sense that you wouldn't need terminal actions anyways.
I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not.
91. Moat
Yeah, I think moat is good, even in 2 player. I mean, it's not really about the reaction. Not totally, anyway. Drawing two cards isn't so bad. You really can make an engine out of villages and these, if you have enough support (generally strong trashing). Okay, so I mean, it's not the best thing ever, but it only costs 2, which is pretty good value. And then that defense. I mean, attacks are just pretty strong in a lot of cases, and being able to stop a good percentage, even if it's a minority, is just nice. It's a nice engine card.
It's not hard these days to get the action chain and +buys needed to spam Peddlers.There's an interesting question: how have relative strengths of cards evolved over time?
I think Peddler is underrated here. (Versus, say, Moat.) It's not hard these days to get the action chain and +buys needed to spam Peddlers. Imagine hypothetically if only one player had access to the Peddler pile: that player would have a HUGE advantage on many boards, often pile-driving the Peddlers without much deviation from normal strategy.
I agree that Peddler may often not feel like a super strong card, but that's because both players have access to them.
There are only a few cards where I worry about losing the split 4/6:When you lose the Duchy split 4/6, you know your opponent is cheating.
- Peddler
- Minion
- Fools Gold
- Grand Markets
- sometimes Wharf
- sometimes Lab or Alchemist
- VP cards (Duchies in Duke games, Gardens, sometimes Silk Roads)
There are only a few cards where I worry about losing the split 4/6:See, I wouldn't care much about losing the Peddler split 4-6. So what, you have $2 more in your deck. Usually not that big a deal. But Peddler is the second-most spammable card in the game provided you have +buys, so it's not unusual to lose the split, say, 2-8 even if we're both trying to buy them.
There are only a few cards where I worry about losing the split 4/6:
And blocking attacks is not great. If Moat didn't have the top half of the card (if it were just a dead card that blocks attacks), you would almost never buy it. If you manage to draw it at the right time against a discarding attack, it saves you a card. If you manage to draw it at the right time against a junker, then it's a junk card that saved you from taking in a junk card
There are only a few cards where I worry about losing the split 4/6:I actually think it's only VP cards and Highway, maybe Wharf. The other cards are okay to lose the split 6-4. 7-3 is when you really get into problems.
- Peddler
- Minion
- Fools Gold
- Grand Markets
- sometimes Wharf
- sometimes Lab or Alchemist
- VP cards (Duchies in Duke games, Gardens, sometimes Silk Roads)
I still believe coin tokens, other than in ridiculously large quantities (i.e., your whole economy isn't just coin tokens...) are better than VP tokens. I mean, you can just play an otherwise-identical strategy, only using coin tokens to improve the VP you are already buying, on the condition that you get more than 1 VP per token; at $7 each token is 3VP, 1.5VP each at $6, 2VP each at $4. In Colony games, each token is 4VP at $10, or 2VP at $9, or 1.333VP at $8 if you don't think you can get a better deal for them later.This, and they are also so much more flexible.
In most games, if your plan is to spend 8 coin tokens on each Province, you're doing it wrong. There are Scrying Pool/Candlestick Maker engines, and Merchant Guild megaturns, but otherwise you don't want more coin tokens than you can spend at >=1VP each.
Stonemason's ability to gain 2 cheaper cards is generally less helpful than Develop's gaining ability, though, unless you are gaining 2 Victory cards at once.It's also more useful when you're turning Gold into $5 actions, which usually isn't a good idea if you have a Develop, but usually is a good idea if you have a Stonemason. In the case of the most popular $5s (I mean cards that usually run out and the split matters a lot, such as Minion), you'd probably have bought them over Gold anyway, but maybe there's a Gold gainer or you aren't in a hurry to get the available $5s.
It's also more useful when you're turning Gold into $5 actions, which usually isn't a good idea if you have a Develop, but usually is a good idea if you have a Stonemason. In the case of the most popular $5s (I mean cards that usually run out and the split matters a lot, such as Minion), you'd probably have bought them over Gold anyway, but maybe there's a Gold gainer or you aren't in a hurry to get the available $5s.
Stonemason's ability to gain 2 cheaper cards is generally less helpful than Develop's gaining ability, though, unless you are gaining 2 Victory cards at once.
I still believe coin tokens, other than in ridiculously large quantities (i.e., your whole economy isn't just coin tokens...) are better than VP tokens. I mean, you can just play an otherwise-identical strategy, only using coin tokens to improve the VP you are already buying, on the condition that you get more than 1 VP per token; at $7 each token is 3VP, 1.5VP each at $6, 2VP each at $4. In Colony games, each token is 4VP at $10, or 2VP at $9, or 1.333VP at $8 if you don't think you can get a better deal for them later.
In most games, if your plan is to spend 8 coin tokens on each Province, you're doing it wrong. There are Scrying Pool/Candlestick Maker engines, and Merchant Guild megaturns, but otherwise you don't want more coin tokens than you can spend at >=1VP each.
I still believe coin tokens, other than in ridiculously large quantities (i.e., your whole economy isn't just coin tokens...) are better than VP tokens. I mean, you can just play an otherwise-identical strategy, only using coin tokens to improve the VP you are already buying, on the condition that you get more than 1 VP per token; at $7 each token is 3VP, 1.5VP each at $6, 2VP each at $4. In Colony games, each token is 4VP at $10, or 2VP at $9, or 1.333VP at $8 if you don't think you can get a better deal for them later.
In most games, if your plan is to spend 8 coin tokens on each Province, you're doing it wrong. There are Scrying Pool/Candlestick Maker engines, and Merchant Guild megaturns, but otherwise you don't want more coin tokens than you can spend at >=1VP each.
Coins decrease in value when there is no +Buy on the board.
I don't think ridiculously large quantities are the only case [...] Say you have 30 tokens -- you're very unlikely to get >= 1VP for each of 30 coin tokens.30 is a ridiculously large quantity of coin tokens; it is also quite a lot of VP chips too, you would be playing a Golden Deck or multi-Goons to get that many. Taking (and spending) 3-6 coin tokens per shuffle seems appropriate; it's unusual that you would get more than three Monuments, and about par with a midgame Bishop or two, or a few single-Goons turns.
Coin tokens are better than VP tokens, unless you have ridiculously large quantities of coin tokens?Yes. I apologise for my unnecessarily elaborate phrasing.
Does "each" refer to each time you draw the hand with that $ amount, not each token you spend? So you're talking about maximizing your VP-for-coin-token return by supplementing your sub-$8 hands with the appropriate amount of coin tokens?Yes. More precisely, each token spent on supplementing such a hand. By counting the number of times you're expecting to hit $6 or $7 (or $4) per shuffle, you can get a reasonable upper bound for how many coin token producers you should have in your deck. (It's an upper bound because those cards could be other cards which instead produce more money, so that you have fewer sub-$8 hands).
I am surprised Moat is so close to Lighthouse, I think given the need for protection and presented with options of Moat and Lighthouse, Lighthouse would be the proper choice probably ~80% of the time. Moat is maybe slightly better without the protection aspect, but in that regard they are both garbage and that represents such a miniscule part of their value it shouldn't allow Moat to be so high.I think the thing is that, at least in WW's eyes (though I'm inclined to agree), +2 Cards is better enough of a bonus. In the absence of other draw, Village/Moat isn't so bad.
WW, you need a Candlestick Maker intervention! It's fine, but not nearly as great as you make it out to be, and you buy it too much in your video games, and it doesn't serve you well.
I think Lighthouse is clearly superior to it. The fact that you get a coin to use whenever is of course great, but it takes up a space in your hand to do that and nothing else.
Moat is maybe slightly better without the protection aspect, but in that regard they are both garbage
I don't think ridiculously large quantities are the only case [...] Say you have 30 tokens -- you're very unlikely to get >= 1VP for each of 30 coin tokens.30 is a ridiculously large quantity of coin tokens; it is also quite a lot of VP chips too, you would be playing a Golden Deck or multi-Goons to get that many. Taking (and spending) 3-6 coin tokens per shuffle seems appropriate; it's unusual that you would get more than three Monuments, and about par with a midgame Bishop or two, or a few single-Goons turns.
Doctor is in your top 10????????????If it's not courtyard, I can't think of what else it would be. I suspect that talking about that part of the list will be very entertaining.
63. BazaarI am kinda surprised by this. Don't get me wrong, I think Bazaar is an outstanding card and generally underrated. But is it really better than Fishing Village or Wandering Minstrel for engines?
I believe that this is the best village for engines which you can buy, at least to have (trusty steed, powered-up cities, madman being potentially better overall). But it does cost 5.
I think by the weird wording "the best village for engines which you can buy, at least to have" he means independent of cost. Which I think is relatively uncontroversial.This is what I mean, yes. Obviously I think WM is a better card - it hasn't shown up yet....
I think by the weird wording "the best village for engines which you can buy, at least to have" he means independent of cost. Which I think is relatively uncontroversial.This is what I mean, yes. Obviously I think WM is a better card - it hasn't shown up yet....
As for top 10 Doctor: You have to remember I made this list very shortly after Guilds came out, and there will be a revision as soon as I get through everything.....
My first guess was Doctor. I'll have to stick with that guess until the end.I totally called it.
I think by the weird wording "the best village for engines which you can buy, at least to have" he means independent of cost. Which I think is relatively uncontroversial.This is what I mean, yes. Obviously I think WM is a better card - it hasn't shown up yet....
Multi-Goons gets way more than 30 VP tokens.It can, if your opponent doesn't know what you're doing, or the game is so close that you don't have time to three-pile. Multi-Goons in general gives ridiculously many VP tokens. 15 isn't unreasonable over the whole game, but you shouldn't have 15 coin tokens in your pile at any time. I did in fact give a baseline for how many I think is sensible.
Regarding how many tokens you get per shuffle, that's not really a fair comparison, unless comparing the strength of the official cards rather than just the tokens. All of the VP token cards are terminal, most of the coin token cards are not.It's a much better comparison than how many you have at a particular time, or how many you collect throughout the game; it directly tells you how many coin token producers you want in your deck. It is also much easier to estimate how many you would need, because on average, you're going to see each of your cards once per shuffle.
Same with BV.I think by the weird wording "the best village for engines which you can buy, at least to have" he means independent of cost. Which I think is relatively uncontroversial.This is what I mean, yes. Obviously I think WM is a better card - it hasn't shown up yet....
What about Border Village? Or do you mean strictly what the village does once it's in your deck?
Multi-Goons gets way more than 30 VP tokens.It can, if your opponent doesn't know what you're doing, or the game is so close that you don't have time to three-pile. Multi-Goons in general gives ridiculously many VP tokens. 15 isn't unreasonable over the whole game, but you shouldn't have 15 coin tokens in your pile at any time. I did in fact give a baseline for how many I think is sensible.
Sometimes multi-Goons is possible; sometimes multi-Merchant Guild is. Sometimes a Golden Deck is fast enough, sometimes Scrying Pool/Candlestick Maker is. Of course there are some games where you can win on VP chips alone, and then there are games where it is sensible to build your entire economy out of coin tokens. But you see Baker and Chapel and think, I'm going to Chapel down and just play a lot of Bakers every turn and buy all the Provinces in one go - but then once you have all those coin tokens you can't buy Provinces because your opponent already has four and you'd end the game with a loss. Normally it's a bad plan, even if it's an exciting one - it's about equivalent to "hey, Bishop is on the board, that means I don't have to buy Victory cards!"
If the phrase "ridiculously many" conjures up for you images of Scrooge McDuck swimming amongst the gold coins in his vault, or you're allergic to hyperbole/flowery language, read "ridiculously many" as "too many", or "more than you should have". It's just a tautology, coin tokens are better than VP chips unless you have more coin tokens than you can sustainably spend at >=1VP per token. But it's not a vacuous truth, as in the next section I demonstrated that the quantities of VP chips produced in a typical game are also sensible quantities of coin tokens in a typical game.Regarding how many tokens you get per shuffle, that's not really a fair comparison, unless comparing the strength of the official cards rather than just the tokens. All of the VP token cards are terminal, most of the coin token cards are not.It's a much better comparison than how many you have at a particular time, or how many you collect throughout the game; it directly tells you how many coin token producers you want in your deck. It is also much easier to estimate how many you would need, because on average, you're going to see each of your cards once per shuffle.
Just because something is non-terminal doesn't mean playing five of them is five times as good as playing one. You can spam Market Squares too, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Yes, it's easier to get coin tokens en masse than VP tokens, because there are non-terminal coin token producers - but that isn't a reason to do it, you have to decide how many coin tokens you will want before more stop being useful to you, and add the appropriate number of coin token producers to your deck, not just blindly buy as many of them as possible.
If the phrase "ridiculously many" conjures up for you images of Scrooge McDuck swimming amongst the gold coins in his vault, or you're allergic to hyperbole/flowery language, read "ridiculously many" as "too many", or "more than you should have". It's just a tautology, coin tokens are better than VP chips unless you have more coin tokens than you can sustainably spend at >=1VP per token. But it's not a vacuous truth, as in the next section I demonstrated that the quantities of VP chips produced in a typical game are also sensible quantities of coin tokens in a typical game.
You can't really suggest that there is a "too many" here. It's disingenuous to say "coin tokens are definitely better than VP tokens unless you have too many of them", where "too many" is the point at which VP tokens have a greater impact. Like you said, that's just tautology.What do you mean I can't? I did. Obviously there is such a thing as "too many": it's when you have more coin tokens than are worth getting. That's not disingenuous, it's genuine strategy advice: collect coin tokens in quantities at which you can sustainably spend them at >=1VP per token. If you have a bunch left at the end of the game that you didn't spend, then you weren't good enough at predicting the end of the game - you can spend your last few below parity, while still averaging >=1VP per token over the whole game.
I think that at 3-6 per shuffle, coin tokens and VP tokens are pretty close with coin tokens edging out slightly. But as you produce more per shuffle, VP tokens are better. And yeah, you usually wouldn't try to do that with coin tokens because you don't need to, but it is not ridiculous to do that with VP tokens.It's not always ridiculous to do that with VP tokens, but neither for coin tokens, there's an exact correlation between multi-Goons and multi-Merchant Guild, and when either is possible, it's a strong strategy. Goons is better obviously, because Merchant Guild needs to spend those tokens on later turns, but Goons costs more and your opponents will attack you with it. Sometimes you can do Bishop/Market Square, sometimes you can play 7 Candlestick Makers per turn, but most boards don't support strategies like that. Anyway, if you produce the first $2 by other means, even these decks are buying Provinces at parity.
You can't really suggest that there is a "too many" here. It's disingenuous to say "coin tokens are definitely better than VP tokens unless you have too many of them", where "too many" is the point at which VP tokens have a greater impact. Like you said, that's just tautology.What do you mean I can't? I did. Obviously there is such a thing as "too many": it's when you have more coin tokens than are worth getting. That's not disingenuous, it's genuine strategy advice: collect coin tokens in quantities at which you can sustainably spend them at >=1VP per token. If you have a bunch left at the end of the game that you didn't spend, then you weren't good enough at predicting the end of the game - you can spend your last few below parity, while still averaging >=1VP per token over the whole game.
I think that at 3-6 per shuffle, coin tokens and VP tokens are pretty close with coin tokens edging out slightly. But as you produce more per shuffle, VP tokens are better. And yeah, you usually wouldn't try to do that with coin tokens because you don't need to, but it is not ridiculous to do that with VP tokens.It's not always ridiculous to do that with VP tokens, but neither for coin tokens, there's an exact correlation between multi-Goons and multi-Merchant Guild, and when either is possible, it's a strong strategy. Goons is better obviously, because Merchant Guild needs to spend those tokens on later turns, but Goons costs more and your opponents will attack you with it. Sometimes you can do Bishop/Market Square, sometimes you can play 7 Candlestick Makers per turn, but most boards don't support strategies like that. Anyway, if you produce the first $2 by other means, even these decks are buying Provinces at parity.
It's hard for me to read these objections as other than "I failed to use coin tokens effectively, and wouldn't it be nice if they were VP chips instead". Yeah, I've made those decks too, and I lost, but I didn't blame the coin tokens.
I appreciate you taking the time to fill in your rankings, WW, but don't you think a numbered list from 1 - 200+ is a bit silly?
I mean, how do we compare #154 to #166? If I were to do a ranking like this - and I might at some point if I'm really bored - I think I would just create 5 groups maximum and maybe do a top 10 of the first group only.
Top Tier: Cards that absolutely dominate most of the kingdoms they're in (King's Court, Goons, Mountebank, etc...)
Second Tier: Cards that are very useful on a high number of kingdoms (probably some good Villages, trashers, etc)
Third Tier: Cards that you could take or leave most of the time (think Great Hall or something)
Fourth Tier: Cards that are generally bad and need a rare and specific kingdom to shine (Counting House)
Fifth Tier: Scout
I appreciate you taking the time to fill in your rankings, WW, but don't you think a numbered list from 1 - 200+ is a bit silly?
I mean, how do we compare #154 to #166? If I were to do a ranking like this - and I might at some point if I'm really bored - I think I would just create 5 groups maximum and maybe do a top 10 of the first group only.
Top Tier: Cards that absolutely dominate most of the kingdoms they're in (King's Court, Goons, Mountebank, etc...)
Second Tier: Cards that are very useful on a high number of kingdoms (probably some good Villages, trashers, etc)
Third Tier: Cards that you could take or leave most of the time (think Great Hall or something)
Fourth Tier: Cards that are generally bad and need a rare and specific kingdom to shine (Counting House)
Fifth Tier: Scout
Disagree. Each card is better or worse than every other card! Let's rank them accordingly.
If you are examining how good coin tokens are compared to VP tokens, then it is wrong to arbitrarily define "too much" in favour of coin tokens.Disingenuous, huh? I said it would be too many coin tokens, when did I refer to 'too many tokens which could either be coin tokens or VP chips'? Obviously it's not wrong to define "too many coin tokens" as being more coin tokens than it is strategically sound to collect. Please, how can you even have too many VP chips. That is some real garbage argumentation there.
When you cannot get an abundance of tokens, coin tokens will usually be more useful. When you can, VP tokens will often be better. Do you disagree with this? This was my point. Coin tokens are not always better. Suggesting that VP tokens are only better in "ridiculous" quantities is wrong because you ARE able to achieve those values a fair amount of the time.Yes, I said that. If you are doing multi-Goons or a Golden Deck then in those quantities you'd rather have VP chips. I said that. But that's a small proportion of games, normally it's not sensible to have more than 6 Monuments in your deck, normally you don't have a free source of fuel for Bishop, so in every other game you're going to get VP chips in quantities at which coin tokens are better. If all you want to do is argue about how many games that is, have that argument with a brick wall, I don't care about it.
It's genuinely useless strategy advice. Slightly above "try to score more points than your opponent."In the Baker preview thread, the consensus was that you want to spend coin tokens very soon after you get them, so that you have more of the game left during which you can benefit from your improved deck. On the other hand, I'm advocating spending tokens primarily on improving VP purchases in the later game. Even then, it is easier to get coin tokens than VP tokens, so it would make sense if you chose some other cutoff, say, 0.8VP each. So, I'm advocating a particular use for coin tokens, and then a particular parameter for that use, and then saying build a deck that produces that many coin tokens and not more. It's not even definitely good advice - we could argue about that instead of some garbage like how often you can Bishop a Gold every turn - so I struggle to see why you'd compare it to advice like "try to win".
I mean, you can just play an otherwise-identical strategy, only using coin tokens to improve the VP you are already buying, on the condition that you get more than 1 VP per token
"better" means you're getting more than 1VP of value out of them in the long-run
I appreciate you taking the time to fill in your rankings, WW, but don't you think a numbered list from 1 - 200+ is a bit silly?A plausible argument. Please feel free to ignore them.
I mean, how do we compare #154 to #166? If I were to do a ranking like this - and I might at some point if I'm really bored - I think I would just create 5 groups maximum and maybe do a top 10 of the first group only.
Top Tier: Cards that absolutely dominate most of the kingdoms they're in (King's Court, Goons, Mountebank, etc...)
Second Tier: Cards that are very useful on a high number of kingdoms (probably some good Villages, trashers, etc)
Third Tier: Cards that you could take or leave most of the time (think Great Hall or something)
Fourth Tier: Cards that are generally bad and need a rare and specific kingdom to shine (Counting House)
Fifth Tier: Scout
I appreciate you taking the time to fill in your rankings, WW, but don't you think a numbered list from 1 - 200+ is a bit silly?
I mean, how do we compare #154 to #166? If I were to do a ranking like this - and I might at some point if I'm really bored - I think I would just create 5 groups maximum and maybe do a top 10 of the first group only.
Top Tier: Cards that absolutely dominate most of the kingdoms they're in (King's Court, Goons, Mountebank, etc...)
Second Tier: Cards that are very useful on a high number of kingdoms (probably some good Villages, trashers, etc)
Third Tier: Cards that you could take or leave most of the time (think Great Hall or something)
Fourth Tier: Cards that are generally bad and need a rare and specific kingdom to shine (Counting House)
Fifth Tier: Scout
...
Plus I think people here just like making lists.
...
Plus I think people here just like making lists.
We should make a list of all the lists.
...
Plus I think people here just like making lists.
We should make a list of all the lists.
It's going to be hard to put that list on the list.
We can just make a list of "list of all list"...
Plus I think people here just like making lists.
We should make a list of all the lists.
It's going to be hard to put that list on the list.
Well, that's fine, then; just make it a list of all lists that do not list themselves.
...
Plus I think people here just like making lists.
We should make a list of all the lists.
It's going to be hard to put that list on the list.
Well, that's fine, then; just make it a list of all lists that do not list themselves.
...
Plus I think people here just like making lists.
We should make a list of all the lists.
It's going to be hard to put that list on the list.
(http://i.qkme.me/3va533.jpg)Little known fact: Bertrand Russell was actually a dinosaur.
This is probably somewhere in the 16 pages, but how DO you actually compare them?
Do you generate random kingdoms and look at which cards would be decent?
Yikes. In a draft, I guess I'd pick chapel first, and if the other guy picked chapel I'd probably go masquerade. Then again, maybe both of us could lose to a Rebuild guy. That's an interesting way to think about things.
Although, I do think it skews things somewhat. A board of guaranteed power cards really benefits King's Court, which more than anything else seems to get stronger the more power cards are present on the board.
So actually, I guess the guy who picked King's Court would be in best shape. Even if his opponent gets some absurdly strong cards, just a couple of the top 20-top 10 in a kingdom with King's Court probably makes all the difference.
Goons is even more frightening than usual. Because only one person can go for it, the other player must find some way to severely impair the opponent via strong attacks or win the game before the Goons guy gets a lead. Once the Goons player is, say, 100 points up, there's nothing the other guy can do to catch up. Maybe Monument or Bishop, but those aren't as fast.
I actually think cursing is less intimidating here. The opponent can strike back with either Masquerade or Ambassador, both of which counter curses quite neatly.
Any other thoughts? Frankly, I suspect that some sort of nightmarish combo would emerge in a format like this.
This is not supposed to be the be-all-end all of this discussion, but I think that this suggests that coin tokens are better than chips.
My 2 cents on chips vs. tokens:
Imagine the following (likely boring) card:
Alt-Monument
$? Action
+$2
Take a coin token.
Now, how do we price this card? It's been discussed elsewhere that a terminal Gold would probably cost $5. This is a terminal Gold with a bonus. So, it could probably fit in at $5 or $6.
This is not supposed to be the be-all-end all of this discussion, but I think that this suggests that coin tokens are better than chips.
My 2 cents on chips vs. tokens:
Imagine the following (likely boring) card:
Alt-Monument
$? Action
+$2
Take a coin token.
Now, how do we price this card? It's been discussed elsewhere that a terminal Gold would probably cost $5. This is a terminal Gold with a bonus. So, it could probably fit in at $5 or $6.
This is not supposed to be the be-all-end all of this discussion, but I think that this suggests that coin tokens are better than chips.
I think if I were to rank the cards, it would simply be based on this one question:
We're playing a Dominion variant (one that's been somewhat discussed around here before), in which we "draft" cards that we are going to use.. that is, only the player who drafted that Kingdom card ever gets to buy or gain it.
...
Plus I think people here just like making lists.
We should make a list of all the lists.
It's going to be hard to put that list on the list.
Actually, it won't be:
1. This list.
2. ...whatever else.
Bam. Done.
I think if I were to rank the cards, it would simply be based on this one question:
We're playing a Dominion variant (one that's been somewhat discussed around here before), in which we "draft" cards that we are going to use.. that is, only the player who drafted that Kingdom card ever gets to buy or gain it.
Smugglers comes in last in this ranking, I take it?
Comparing coin tokens and victory tokens is like comparing +cards with +coin. Sure, in the most general sense, you can probably say that coin tokens are a little "better" than victory tokens, just like +cards are generally "better" than +coin. Eventually, you turn your coin tokens into victory points, kind of like how you eventually you turn the cards you draw into coin that you spend. But your ability to do that (in both comparisons) varies hugely depending on the situation, so it's difficult (if not impossible) to decide how much better one is than the other. Furthermore, there will be games in which you can't manage to get 1 victory point per coin token, just like how there are games where you can't manage to get 1 coin per card you draw, so just leaving it at "coin tokens are better" is not helpful. What you need to consider are the cases in which coin tokens are better, and then how does that synergize with the rest of the text on the card?
I believe someone else pointed out earlier in the discussion: Monument with a coin token instead of a victory token would be too strong for $4; but Baker with a victory token instead of a coin token would be too strong for $5.
Comparing coin tokens and victory tokens is like comparing +cards with +coin. Sure, in the most general sense, you can probably say that coin tokens are a little "better" than victory tokens, just like +cards are generally "better" than +coin. Eventually, you turn your coin tokens into victory points, kind of like how you eventually you turn the cards you draw into coin that you spend. But your ability to do that (in both comparisons) varies hugely depending on the situation, so it's difficult (if not impossible) to decide how much better one is than the other. Furthermore, there will be games in which you can't manage to get 1 victory point per coin token, just like how there are games where you can't manage to get 1 coin per card you draw, so just leaving it at "coin tokens are better" is not helpful. What you need to consider are the cases in which coin tokens are better, and then how does that synergize with the rest of the text on the card?
I believe someone else pointed out earlier in the discussion: Monument with a coin token instead of a victory token would be too strong for $4; but Baker with a victory token instead of a coin token would be too strong for $5.
Yup, I made that comparison.
What is the hold up?
I'm ready for the next instalment already....
What is the hold up?
I'm ready for the next instalment already....
Many people, including presumably WW, have this thing called "life" that sometimes gets in the way of internet forum stuff. It's all right, I'm sure he'll come back to what's *really* important to all the forum-goers.
What is the hold up?
I'm ready for the next instalment already....
Many people, including presumably WW, have this thing called "life" that sometimes gets in the way of internet forum stuff. It's all right, I'm sure he'll come back to what's *really* important to all the forum-goers.
53. StonemasonOn 4? Well, depends on how spammable the 2's you're getting are. But you know, those 5's can also be turned into the 2's you want to run out later. The 5's will probably be doing good work for you before then. You don't get a very large stonemason trashing tree with 2's. On the other hand, buying stonemason for 4 seems quite reasonable compared to buying it for 5 or 6, where the opportunity cost starts getting really large.
This may be the hardest card to rank. The play effect is probably down around Secret Chamber - often slightly useful but not worth a terminal, occasionally quite good. But the overpay is pretty tremendous. You would think it would best for 7 (i.e. overpaying by 5), and it does seem pretty good there, but the real power is... on 4, I think. The big point about this card is that it enables crazy 3-pile endings, almost from out of nowhere sometimes. And both effects work together on that.
59. Masterpiece
This card is just really strong for basically any kind of BM and most slogs. It's just a better card to get than gold, and great on 7 for BM decks - importantly, it lets you get more terminals.
53. StonemasonOn 4? Well, depends on how spammable the 2's you're getting are. But you know, those 5's can also be turned into the 2's you want to run out later. The 5's will probably be doing good work for you before then. You don't get a very large stonemason trashing tree with 2's. On the other hand, buying stonemason for 4 seems quite reasonable compared to buying it for 5 or 6, where the opportunity cost starts getting really large.
This may be the hardest card to rank. The play effect is probably down around Secret Chamber - often slightly useful but not worth a terminal, occasionally quite good. But the overpay is pretty tremendous. You would think it would best for 7 (i.e. overpaying by 5), and it does seem pretty good there, but the real power is... on 4, I think. The big point about this card is that it enables crazy 3-pile endings, almost from out of nowhere sometimes. And both effects work together on that.
I find the on play and the on-buy effect play into each other to some extent. You get an early gold, buy a stonemason with 7 to get two 5's, then use stonemason to turn the gold into two more 5's. It's a card I like seeing way up here.
Well, I shouldn't make it so much sound like a plus, because it's generally about a wash. So long as you are planning this from the start, it's not such a problem to play things with the same frequency as before. It's not really a detriment either. I guess my point is that you should take this into account, and not sit around wondering why you aren't doing well with 1 smithy and 12 silvers.59. Masterpiece
This card is just really strong for basically any kind of BM and most slogs. It's just a better card to get than gold, and great on 7 for BM decks - importantly, it lets you get more terminals.
If you mean that because it increases your decksize, your deck can support more terminals, then that's a bug, not a feature, as you now need more copies of a card to play it with the same frequency as before.
51. Familiar
Yeah, not the highest potion-cost. I mean, it's a curser, that's good. But you miss it sometimes and are dead, and you can just get outraced or dealt with by trashers. Okay, it's still a cantrip curser, that's going to be very strong.
You miss and reasonably often and are dead not only to someone who gets it, but also to someone who didn't go for it at all.51. Familiar
Yeah, not the highest potion-cost. I mean, it's a curser, that's good. But you miss it sometimes and are dead, and you can just get outraced or dealt with by trashers. Okay, it's still a cantrip curser, that's going to be very strong.
You are docking this card points because not getting it can mean you're dead? Or is this just another way of saying that it's a touch too expensive?
I think Familiar is overrated here. Yeah, if there's no other curser and no trashing, it's generally a must-buy, but if there is another curser, it's a must-skip. Against a good engine with good trashing, it's inessential at best. It can also be weak in situations where other cursers would be not so hot, such as vs a super-fast rush.
Also, Menagerie feels underrated, but I don't know what I'd put it ahead of apart from Familiar. (Edit: The special aspect of Menagerie is that's it's spammable and self-combos, because 2 Menageries plus 3 uniques gives an activation. That makes it feel more like a $5 than a $3. It's also capable of single-handedly providing the draw for a village-less engine, which is rare among sub-$5 cards.)
You miss and reasonably often and are dead not only to someone who gets it, but also to someone who didn't go for it at all.51. Familiar
Yeah, not the highest potion-cost. I mean, it's a curser, that's good. But you miss it sometimes and are dead, and you can just get outraced or dealt with by trashers. Okay, it's still a cantrip curser, that's going to be very strong.
You are docking this card points because not getting it can mean you're dead? Or is this just another way of saying that it's a touch too expensive?
I think WW means you miss as in you buy the potion, don't get to 3p and go to turn 5 with a deck of silver 7 coppers 3 estates and a potion. You went for the familiar, but missed, and have a slim chance of winning for it.You miss and reasonably often and are dead not only to someone who gets it, but also to someone who didn't go for it at all.51. Familiar
Yeah, not the highest potion-cost. I mean, it's a curser, that's good. But you miss it sometimes and are dead, and you can just get outraced or dealt with by trashers. Okay, it's still a cantrip curser, that's going to be very strong.
You are docking this card points because not getting it can mean you're dead? Or is this just another way of saying that it's a touch too expensive?
Yeah, you miss. Your deck is worse off for not having the card. Again, doesn't this mean that the card is good?
You miss and reasonably often and are dead not only to someone who gets it, but also to someone who didn't go for it at all.51. Familiar
Yeah, not the highest potion-cost. I mean, it's a curser, that's good. But you miss it sometimes and are dead, and you can just get outraced or dealt with by trashers. Okay, it's still a cantrip curser, that's going to be very strong.
You are docking this card points because not getting it can mean you're dead? Or is this just another way of saying that it's a touch too expensive?
Yeah, you miss. Your deck is worse off for not having the card. Again, doesn't this mean that the card is good?
What is the hold up?
I'm ready for the next instalment already....
Many people, including presumably WW, have this thing called "life" that sometimes gets in the way of internet forum stuff. It's all right, I'm sure he'll come back to what's *really* important to all the forum-goers.
...
Plus I think people here just like making lists.
We should make a list of all the lists.
...
Plus I think people here just like making lists.
We should make a list of all the lists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists
That is the single most awesome wikipedia page ever!
...
Plus I think people here just like making lists.
We should make a list of all the lists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists
That article doesn't list itself!
??? ...but... that article is a list of lists of lists, not a list of lists of lists of lists?...
Plus I think people here just like making lists.
We should make a list of all the lists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists
That article doesn't list itself!
Because that article is a list of lists of lists of lists not a list of lists of lists itself.
??? ...but... that article is a list of lists of lists, not a list of lists of lists of lists?...
Plus I think people here just like making lists.
We should make a list of all the lists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists
That article doesn't list itself!
Because that article is a list of lists of lists of lists not a list of lists of lists itself.
??? ...but... that article is a list of lists of lists, not a list of lists of lists of lists?...
Plus I think people here just like making lists.
We should make a list of all the lists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists
That article doesn't list itself!
Because that article is a list of lists of lists of lists not a list of lists of lists itself.
You're both wrong- it should be a list it lists that lists lists listing all other lists in the list of lists.??? ...but... that article is a list of lists of lists, not a list of lists of lists of lists?...
Plus I think people here just like making lists.
We should make a list of all the lists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists
That article doesn't list itself!
Because that article is a list of lists of lists of lists not a list of lists of lists itself.
Oh right I got carried away. Subtract one list from each side. Though technically a list of a list of a list is still a list of a list or even just a list it would be odd to include all higher order lists when a specific order is given.
You're both wrong- it should be a list it lists that lists lists listing all other lists in the list of lists.??? ...but... that article is a list of lists of lists, not a list of lists of lists of lists?...
Plus I think people here just like making lists.
We should make a list of all the lists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists
That article doesn't list itself!
Because that article is a list of lists of lists of lists not a list of lists of lists itself.
Oh right I got carried away. Subtract one list from each side. Though technically a list of a list of a list is still a list of a list or even just a list it would be odd to include all higher order lists when a specific order is given.
You're both wrong- it should be a list it lists that lists lists listing all other lists in the list of lists.??? ...but... that article is a list of lists of lists, not a list of lists of lists of lists?...
Plus I think people here just like making lists.
We should make a list of all the lists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists
That article doesn't list itself!
Because that article is a list of lists of lists of lists not a list of lists of lists itself.
Oh right I got carried away. Subtract one list from each side. Though technically a list of a list of a list is still a list of a list or even just a list it would be odd to include all higher order lists when a specific order is given.
Is this a quote of quotes or a quote of a quote of quotes of quotes?
??? ...but... that article is a list of lists of lists, not a list of lists of lists of lists?...
Plus I think people here just like making lists.
We should make a list of all the lists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists
That article doesn't list itself!
Because that article is a list of lists of lists of lists not a list of lists of lists itself.
I'd continue arguing about this but I'm feeling rather listless.It's a shame. I would've wanted to continue listening to you!
Does anyone feel like you've derailed the topic slightly?
Does anyone feel like you've derailed the topic slightly?
Does anyone feel like you've derailed the topic slightly?No
Does anyone feel like you've derailed the topic slightly?No
47. Watchtower
This card now has 854 different combos with on-gain, on-trash, and all kinds of other benefits. It's also a pretty nice defense against most of the nastiest attacks in the game, and it can be a pretty nice drawer in many circumstances.
42. Ghost Ship
This attack is hammeringly powerful, completely dominant on many boards, and telling you that with any village at all, you are going engine (okay, maybe combo or rush; this nerfs BM HARD). But there are about 72 counters by now, and engines can reasonably often shrug off the attack without THAT much harm.
They are precisely calculated hyperboles.47. Watchtower
This card now has 854 different combos with on-gain, on-trash, and all kinds of other benefits. It's also a pretty nice defense against most of the nastiest attacks in the game, and it can be a pretty nice drawer in many circumstances.
42. Ghost Ship
This attack is hammeringly powerful, completely dominant on many boards, and telling you that with any village at all, you are going engine (okay, maybe combo or rush; this nerfs BM HARD). But there are about 72 counters by now, and engines can reasonably often shrug off the attack without THAT much harm.
Are these numbers for emphasis? They seem a bit high.
Squire is much worse than Hamlet because you can't buy alot of them without destroying your deck. As such Hamlet is often fine as the only village in an engine, whereas Squire rarely is.Squire can lead to players "over-Squiring" and in my experience, this rarely is a good thing. Even with Watchtower/Library, it's still kind of meh.
Squire obv. has some other uses to compensate, but a hand like double Squire with no drawing terminal is just so dreadful, and it comes up alot. Not to mention that Hamlet has some awesome uses too (with Menagerie it's just bonkers).
48. Hamlet
Possibly you are surprised this is so low, but if anything I think this might be high. Its a cheaper village that can get plus buy, no? Well, you do often have a card to discard at little penalty, except it's often not NO penalty, and it's a lot worse than village for trying to set up an engine - you have one fewer card every time, and these stack poorly. Also, they can make poor cards come back for the shuffle quite annoyingly. Still, it's a good little card and one which can be very nice when used properly.
46. Squire
I have this above hamlet. It's even a tiny bit worse at making a draw engine, I grant you, but silver-flooding makes it good in a whole host of other situations as well, and the buys can be very nice. This thing can really blast piles sometimes. And the trash bonus can occasionally be highly powerful, even if it usually does little to nothing.
It's true, they do. But my hamlet post wasn't meant to compare with squire, but rather my impression of people's evaluation of hamlet. And my squire post was the comparison. Basically, they are very close in my estimation, but squire has a couple extra uses that toss it over (the silver gain, the trash-for-attack). It gives +buy more efficiently than hamlet but is even a little worse for making an engine. Basically you just don't want it as your primary village except maybe in draw-to-X, though this is almost as true for hamlet.48. Hamlet
Possibly you are surprised this is so low, but if anything I think this might be high. Its a cheaper village that can get plus buy, no? Well, you do often have a card to discard at little penalty, except it's often not NO penalty, and it's a lot worse than village for trying to set up an engine - you have one fewer card every time, and these stack poorly. Also, they can make poor cards come back for the shuffle quite annoyingly. Still, it's a good little card and one which can be very nice when used properly.
46. Squire
I have this above hamlet. It's even a tiny bit worse at making a draw engine, I grant you, but silver-flooding makes it good in a whole host of other situations as well, and the buys can be very nice. This thing can really blast piles sometimes. And the trash bonus can occasionally be highly powerful, even if it usually does little to nothing.
While I'm still not sure which one of those is ultimately better, I don't see how the one card less (on average) for Hamlet can be an argument for it to be inferior compared to Squire. It's not like Squire has a tendency to increases your handsize...
Anyway, that's probably not how meant it, but basically every disadvantage you mention for Hamlet also applies for Squire.
Squire is much worse than Hamlet because you can't buy alot of them without destroying your deck. As such Hamlet is often fine as the only village in an engine, whereas Squire rarely is.I don't penalize cards for being bad if you play them poorly.
Squire obv. has some other uses to compensate, but a hand like double Squire with no drawing terminal is just so dreadful, and it comes up alot. Not to mention that Hamlet has some awesome uses too (with Menagerie it's just bonkers).
IMO Hamlet is actually a LOT better than Squire. I'm not sold on Silver flooding being useful all that often. Being able to discard stuff with Hamlet is probably useful just as often
Are you seriously claiming that gaining a Silver—something generally considered to be advantageous—is comparable to discarding a card—something generally regarded as a penalty? Imagine if Oasis gained you a Silver instead of discarding a card.
Squire is much worse than Hamlet because you can't buy alot of them without destroying your deck. As such Hamlet is often fine as the only village in an engine, whereas Squire rarely is.
And if Oasis never drew you a card in the first place while gaining that Silver. Actually, if that were true, I would buy Oasis far less often.This hypothetical variant of Oasis sounds pretty strong in BM:
IMO Hamlet is actually a LOT better than Squire. I'm not sold on Silver flooding being useful all that often. Being able to discard stuff with Hamlet is probably useful just as often
Are you seriously claiming that gaining a Silver—something generally considered to be advantageous—is comparable to discarding a card—something generally regarded as a penalty? Imagine if Oasis gained you a Silver instead of discarding a card.
I just don't follow this logic at all. You would never say Spy is better than Sea Hag because you can buy a lot of Spies without destroying your deck.
IMO Hamlet is actually a LOT better than Squire. I'm not sold on Silver flooding being useful all that often. Being able to discard stuff with Hamlet is probably useful just as often
Are you seriously claiming that gaining a Silver—something generally considered to be advantageous—is comparable to discarding a card—something generally regarded as a penalty? Imagine if Oasis gained you a Silver instead of discarding a card.
Yes. But you have to take things in context. Clearly you wouldn't buy a card that just said "discard a card", but you wouldn't often buy one that just said "gain a Silver" either. If you did, then people would buy Workshops to gain Silver much more often.
My claim is that situations in which I want to buy Squire because of the Silver gain are not more common than situations where I the discard of Hamlet is actually a benefit rather than a penalty.
Except an engine would beat BM like, 85% of the time at least. Normal Oasis is a solid-to-great $3 in engines; Silver Oasis is a card that you might not even want (and you don't want more than one generally).That's fair. BM is a lot weaker on Goko than it was on isotropic.
Squire and Hamlet both want to connect with something. Both of them are such that you would like to have a lot of them, so you can make sure they connect with your terminals (if they're the only village on the board). The problem that SCSN is pointing out is that with Squire, you can't do that without hurting your deck.Squire is much worse than Hamlet because you can't buy alot of them without destroying your deck. As such Hamlet is often fine as the only village in an engine, whereas Squire rarely is.I just don't follow this logic at all. You would never say Spy is better than Sea Hag because you can buy a lot of Spies without destroying your deck.
Agreed. Nitpick though: in games where Spy is good, you do often want to connect them with some other card (Mystic, Jester, Swindler, etc.). In fact it seems pretty rare to me that Spy would be good yet you wouldn't want a ton of them.Squire and Hamlet both want to connect with something. Both of them are such that you would like to have a lot of them, so you can make sure they connect with your terminals (if they're the only village on the board). The problem that SCSN is pointing out is that with Squire, you can't do that without hurting your deck.Squire is much worse than Hamlet because you can't buy alot of them without destroying your deck. As such Hamlet is often fine as the only village in an engine, whereas Squire rarely is.I just don't follow this logic at all. You would never say Spy is better than Sea Hag because you can buy a lot of Spies without destroying your deck.
Spy and Sea Hag aren't trying to connect with anything, so you don't necessarily want lots of either of them anyway.
IMO Hamlet is actually a LOT better than Squire. I'm not sold on Silver flooding being useful all that often. Being able to discard stuff with Hamlet is probably useful just as often
Are you seriously claiming that gaining a Silver—something generally considered to be advantageous—is comparable to discarding a card—something generally regarded as a penalty? Imagine if Oasis gained you a Silver instead of discarding a card.
Yes. But you have to take things in context. Clearly you wouldn't buy a card that just said "discard a card", but you wouldn't often buy one that just said "gain a Silver" either. If you did, then people would buy Workshops to gain Silver much more often.
My claim is that situations in which I want to buy Squire because of the Silver gain are not more common than situations where I the discard of Hamlet is actually a benefit rather than a penalty.
I understand that. I still disagree with your claim. The discard is really only a bonus with draw-to-X or Menagerie. The Silver gaining is useful with most alt-VP and in other types of slogs. Those seem much more common to me.
In case people overlooked it, WW never said that Squire is better for engines than Hamlet. He said it was a little worse, actually. I think that's accurate. Yeah the Hamlet draw can make a difference. The Silver gain on Squire can be useful too, even in engines. And don't forget that Squire also give +$1. I think in most engines that do well with Hamlet, using Squire instead won't cripple it. Most engines that work with Squire will improve with Hamlet, but not all that drastically.I think many of us are arguing that it's more than just a little worse. Sifting 1 card can often be a lot better than +$1, and whole thing about being a cantrip makes it actually good to flood your deck with Hamlets. Hamlet can be a village in an untrashed or lightly trashed engine. Squire flat-out can't unless you have some other source of sifting. This is not a small difference.
That's true; I guess the bigger point is just that Spy and Sea Hag aren't comparable at all. Squire and Hamlet are clearly similar cards (both potentially providing +actions or +buy). Obviously, SCSN was not saying that every spammable card is better than every non-spammable card; just that, in the context of a certain kind of card, being spammable is an advantage.Agreed. Nitpick though: in games where Spy is good, you do often want to connect them with some other card (Mystic, Jester, Swindler, etc.). In fact it seems pretty rare to me that Spy would be good yet you wouldn't want a ton of them.Squire and Hamlet both want to connect with something. Both of them are such that you would like to have a lot of them, so you can make sure they connect with your terminals (if they're the only village on the board). The problem that SCSN is pointing out is that with Squire, you can't do that without hurting your deck.Squire is much worse than Hamlet because you can't buy alot of them without destroying your deck. As such Hamlet is often fine as the only village in an engine, whereas Squire rarely is.I just don't follow this logic at all. You would never say Spy is better than Sea Hag because you can buy a lot of Spies without destroying your deck.
Spy and Sea Hag aren't trying to connect with anything, so you don't necessarily want lots of either of them anyway.
Goko's interface makes Hamlet weaker than it was on Isotropic, too.Except an engine would beat BM like, 85% of the time at least. Normal Oasis is a solid-to-great $3 in engines; Silver Oasis is a card that you might not even want (and you don't want more than one generally).That's fair. BM is a lot weaker on Goko than it was on isotropic.
In either case, you aren't going to use these as primary villages all that often.
In either case, you aren't going to use these as primary villages all that often.
This is almost certainly not true.
A difference of two ranks sounds like "roughly equal" to me, for all intents and purposes.But that's mostly because you've already got a Sea Hag.
I would open Sea Hag over Monument on most boards but later in the game I'd definitely rather get Monument.
Nobody thinks that monument above seahag is... absurd?
A difference of two ranks sounds like "roughly equal" to me, for all intents and purposes. ...
We all know that that comparison doesn't mean anything, anyway.
[Sudden clarity Clarence]
Monument is a curser that never runs out, but doesn't clog opponents' decks.
[Sudden clarity Clarence]MIFY
Monument is a curser that never runs out, but doesn't clog opponents' decks.
We all know that that comparison doesn't mean anything, anyway.
Not sure I'm totally understanding you -- are you saying that my post was meaningless?
Short answer: yes.
I like to think of Monument as a $4 terminal action that gives $2 and +1 VP token. It really helps me wrap my head around what the card does.
Gosh, dondon -- by that logic, I'd also then say that "we all know" that you're an awesome guy. lol
Nobody thinks that monument above seahag is... absurd?
Nobody thinks that monument above seahag is... absurd?
I don't think it's absurd, but I do think it's wrong. Both are important cards because they can have a major effect on game pace. Sea Hag can do so by slowing down the game with junking, and Monument can extend it by offering an unlimited supply of points. The question is which of these effects is more valuable.
The problem with Sea Hag is that good trashing makes it pointless, since you give up a lot of tempo to get it by sacrificing a lot of early economy. The problem with Monument is that to actually get a lot of points out of it, you need a lot of spare terminal actions and a way of drawing all the villages and Monuments. Otherwise it's just a decently good terminal, giving you some score.
If you ignore Sea Hag without a good counter, you'll die, as your deck turns to junk. If you ignore Monument, you mgiht be okay a fair amount of the time, since if they can build something to reliably play Monuments, you can probably also build something to reliably buy Provinces.
I think overall Monument is useful less often, and less critical when it is useful, so all signs point to it being worse than Sea Hag overall. But I know WW absolutely loves Monument, so there's that... I guess when it's good, it's the centerpiece of your deck. Sea Hag is "just" an early-game thing (though I think early game is the most important part).
...
But I am an awesome guy.
Sea Hag: Usually a bit more powerful than Monument
In either case, you aren't going to use these as primary villages all that often.
This is almost certainly not true.
Sea Hag: Usually a bit more powerful than Monument
Quite the understatement.
Edit: To be fair, I'm basically as guilty of this. So I will try to give some reasonings here.
Primary village: You are just giving yourself straight up fewer cards. So it's like making a village-moat engine. This is certainly possible, of course, but it's got to have some strong support.
Sea Hag vs monument: it's the junk card which runs out vs the money and the points that don't. Okay, well, the clog over the course of a game is going to be worth enough to be worth it for... the first copy, and by a certain amount, BUT there's sort of an inflection point - very short term, Monument is better, because it gives you money, shortish to medium-term, sea hag is better, because that clog comes through; long term, the monument comes back, because the chips don't run out. Also, Hag is a junk card for itself. So, I mean, Sea Hag is clearly better than Monument for the first copy in the absence of trashing, but I don't think it's even completely crushingly-dominant here, and almost any trashing or engine helps bring this back toward monument. Also, 'a bit' is purposefully somewhat vague.
Monument is hardly ignorable, but that's because its opportunity cost is so innocuous. It's a terminal $4, and a whole bunch of terminal $4s give +$2 as a vanilla bonus. It's not super spammable like Caravan or Ironmonger, but everyone picks it up because well why not. But Caravan and Ironmonger don't get brownie points for being spammable.
I also think Lab and particularly Ironmonger are too high for their vanilla-ness. Ironmonger is particularly not high impact. And while Lab is usually good, it's not as important as quite a few of the cards below it. The same argument you make about Monument > Sea Hag can similarly be made about most of the next 10 below Lab > Lab.
Having a low opportunity cost is a really good indication of card strength. If there's rarely a reason not to pick up the card then it's probably a very good card. And I think Caravan/Ironmonger should get brownie points for being spammable.
I would rank Ironmonger higher than lab.
Unless you have some discard-for-benefit or some card that directly interacts with copper, Ironmonger is a lab when revealing copper, and is better than lab when revealing a victory card. True in a slim engine deck it then may become a village, but village with some weak filtering at 4 is not that bad either.
I would rank Ironmonger higher than lab.
Unless you have some discard-for-benefit or some card that directly interacts with copper, Ironmonger is a lab when revealing copper, and is better than lab when revealing a victory card. True in a slim engine deck it then may become a village, but village with some weak filtering at 4 is not that bad either.
So Ironmonger is as good as Lab in decks where Lab is meh (when you still have a bunch of Copper), but worse in decks where Lab is good (when you'd be drawing action cards).
That seems like an overgeneralization, because often the action density may come partly from non-drawing actions (perhaps terminal too), in which case Lab will be critical. Goons-plus-villages is the most extreme example that comes to mind. Even if the actions are all cantrips, handsize increasing is still really important to avoid choking hard on green.I would rank Ironmonger higher than lab.
Unless you have some discard-for-benefit or some card that directly interacts with copper, Ironmonger is a lab when revealing copper, and is better than lab when revealing a victory card. True in a slim engine deck it then may become a village, but village with some weak filtering at 4 is not that bad either.
So Ironmonger is as good as Lab in decks where Lab is meh (when you still have a bunch of Copper), but worse in decks where Lab is good (when you'd be drawing action cards).
But Ironmonger is a lot cheaper. Also I think if the action density is really really high lab is also not that good... your 5's probably will be spent mostly elsewhere.
We haven't seen Junk Dealer yet, I had a feeling that it would be above Upgrade (which is of course great in its own right) as it's much much better for clearing out Coppers and that, and probably Estates too unless there's some really great $3 card out there.
31. Young Witch
If you have to play BM-X with nothing else, this is the best card which exists. This is of course an artifact of opponent not buying bane, which is a huge thing. But being able to force them to buy a bane isn't nothing, and there's just generally great utility.
In Geronimoo's simulator, unoptimized YW beats Jack.
But the times [Stables is] drawn without treasure or with a silver (or a platinum!) is often enough that I would take Lab if they were both available almost every timeIn my experience this is actually pretty uncommon, unless you've trashed maybe three or more of your starting Coppers. So I think in general Lab is only better than Stables when you have strong trashing.
YW does do something for you, it filters/cycles. And you can always open with it. I don't know if Jack beats Witch off the top of my head, but if that's true it's probably because YW gets to Cursing that much faster.In Geronimoo's simulator, unoptimized YW beats Jack.
Thanks. I'm just really surprised by this... Jack or double Jack? I mean YW does very little for you; and I wouldn't think the Curses would slow down Jack much at all... I mean, Jack beats Witch, right?
But the times [Stables is] drawn without treasure or with a silver (or a platinum!) is often enough that I would take Lab if they were both available almost every timeIn my experience this is actually pretty uncommon, unless you've trashed a few of your starting Coppers. So I think in general Lab is only better than Stables when you have strong trashing.
EDIT:YW does do something for you, it filters/cycles. And you can open with it. I don't know if Jack beats Witch off the top of my head, but if that's true it's probably because YW gets to Cursing that much faster.In Geronimoo's simulator, unoptimized YW beats Jack.
Thanks. I'm just really surprised by this... Jack or double Jack? I mean YW does very little for you; and I wouldn't think the Curses would slow down Jack much at all... I mean, Jack beats Witch, right?
In Geronimoo's simulator, unoptimized YW beats Jack.
In Geronimoo's simulator, unoptimized YW beats Jack.
Not if a card like Oasis, Fishing Village, Forager, Hamlet or Warehouse is the bane, they are all pretty well with jack and some nice against curses
Witch costs $5.In Geronimoo's simulator, unoptimized YW beats Jack.
Thanks. I'm just really surprised by this... Jack or double Jack? I mean YW does very little for you; and I wouldn't think the Curses would slow down Jack much at all... I mean, Jack beats Witch, right?
Junk Dealer vs Upgrade I think Upgrade is better since you can get multiple Upgrades to quickly churn away your starting cards, then turn the excess ones into Gold or start "upgrading" your actual card. With Junk Dealer, you have to be wary of getting a second or third one since they can quickly turn into bad cards.
Stables vs Lab, well even though they net the same number of cards, they work well in completely different scenarios. Stables is good in untrashed decks where the sifting is big. Lab is better when you've trashed since you don't have Coppers to discard. I think Stables comes out better overall because there's a lot of stuff that's good in trashed decks, while there is not much as good as Stables in untrashed ones.Witch costs $5.In Geronimoo's simulator, unoptimized YW beats Jack.
Thanks. I'm just really surprised by this... Jack or double Jack? I mean YW does very little for you; and I wouldn't think the Curses would slow down Jack much at all... I mean, Jack beats Witch, right?
Junk Dealer vs Upgrade I think Upgrade is better since you can get multiple Upgrades to quickly churn away your starting cards, then turn the excess ones into Gold or start "upgrading" your actual card. With Junk Dealer, you have to be wary of getting a second or third one since they can quickly turn into bad cards.
Stables vs Lab, well even though they net the same number of cards, they work well in completely different scenarios. Stables is good in untrashed decks where the sifting is big. Lab is better when you've trashed since you don't have Coppers to discard. I think Stables comes out better overall because there's a lot of stuff that's good in trashed decks, while there is not much as good as Stables in untrashed ones.Witch costs $5.In Geronimoo's simulator, unoptimized YW beats Jack.
Thanks. I'm just really surprised by this... Jack or double Jack? I mean YW does very little for you; and I wouldn't think the Curses would slow down Jack much at all... I mean, Jack beats Witch, right?
What if Witch player starts on 5/2. Does it then beat double jack?
Junk Dealer vs Upgrade I think Upgrade is better since you can get multiple Upgrades to quickly churn away your starting cards, then turn the excess ones into Gold or start "upgrading" your actual card. With Junk Dealer, you have to be wary of getting a second or third one since they can quickly turn into bad cards.
Stables vs Lab, well even though they net the same number of cards, they work well in completely different scenarios. Stables is good in untrashed decks where the sifting is big. Lab is better when you've trashed since you don't have Coppers to discard. I think Stables comes out better overall because there's a lot of stuff that's good in trashed decks, while there is not much as good as Stables in untrashed ones.Witch costs $5.In Geronimoo's simulator, unoptimized YW beats Jack.
Thanks. I'm just really surprised by this... Jack or double Jack? I mean YW does very little for you; and I wouldn't think the Curses would slow down Jack much at all... I mean, Jack beats Witch, right?
What if Witch player starts on 5/2. Does it then beat double jack?
According to Geronimoo's simulator, witch beats double jack with a random start (60% to 37%). YW wins as well, though with a smaller margin (52% to 44%).
I think Junk Dealer is nearly always better in games with Shelters, which Junk Dealer helps to bring about.Well, pretty much all TfB cards are worse in Shelter games, because your deck begins with $3 of total coin-value, instead of $6 total.
We know that Junk Dealer is better than Upgrade at trashing coppers.
Whoops, forgot about that edge case.We know that Junk Dealer is better than Upgrade at trashing coppers.
I want to upgrade all of my Coppers into Poor Houses.
I want to upgrade all of my Coppers into Poor Houses.
Heh, you say all the top cards trash or junk when Rebuild does neither...I say many of them do.
Rob, I wonder how the lists would change if multiplayer were taken into account. I suspect Masquerade and ambassador would change the most.
[I may have a chronic inability to rate Masq fairly though, since I played a lot of 3 and 4 player with friends IRL, and Intrigue is the first set I owned, meaning lots of multiplayer Masq, and Masq is really, really essential in 3 and 4 player, unless you want all 9 or 12 Estates for some reason.
[I may have a chronic inability to rate Masq fairly though, since I played a lot of 3 and 4 player with friends IRL, and Intrigue is the first set I owned, meaning lots of multiplayer Masq, and Masq is really, really essential in 3 and 4 player, unless you want all 9 or 12 Estates for some reason.
That really isn't true at all. Masq isn't a junking card, it's a trashing card. If you're not playing with it and your opponents are, then for every trash card you gain you get to give one away as well. In fact it's highly likely you would end up with less than your starting 3 Estates because the other players would all be trashing them and would eventually start passing you Copper instead.
Not saying Masq isn't great, of course, but you seem to have a very strange idea as to why.
[I may have a chronic inability to rate Masq fairly though, since I played a lot of 3 and 4 player with friends IRL, and Intrigue is the first set I owned, meaning lots of multiplayer Masq, and Masq is really, really essential in 3 and 4 player, unless you want all 9 or 12 Estates for some reason.
That really isn't true at all. Masq isn't a junking card, it's a trashing card. If you're not playing with it and your opponents are, then for every trash card you gain you get to give one away as well. In fact it's highly likely you would end up with less than your starting 3 Estates because the other players would all be trashing them and would eventually start passing you Copper instead.
Not saying Masq isn't great, of course, but you seem to have a very strange idea as to why.
The reason is, they are always initiating a chain of passing stuff to you, and you aren't. So while a lot of the junk does get trashed, whatever doesn't get trashed pools in your deck. I have watched this happen multiple times.
They can rely on their own Masqs to pass and trash junk. You can only rely on their Masqs to pass junk. It doesn't end well.
12. Cultist
It's like a cross between lab and witch. The on-trash benefit, I don't know, I am probably underrating. Ruins are quite a bit worse to give out than curses, which is why in general this just loses out to:
11. Witch
You, like most players, criminally underestimate Cultist. Not just based on this list, but also based on a recent game we played where you opted to ignore it in favor of Familiar, a choice which I think reduces your win % to less than 20 right there.
You, like most players, criminally underestimate Cultist. Not just based on this list, but also based on a recent game we played where you opted to ignore it in favor of Familiar, a choice which I think reduces your win % to less than 20 right there.
You mean that game where you got cultist on a 5/2 and I went for familiar on a 4/3?
It's tough to call what #1 will be here. I'm guessing either Rebuild or Ambassador will be #1. It takes a disproportionate amount of effort to beat the Rebuild rush, and Ambassador is good for so many decks, though it takes a hit when shelters are in the game.
Goons needs extra actions to really be worth it, although it's still a very strong card when played every turn. KC needs other actions, but can usually do something neat. Can't say for sure if Mountebank and Witch will make the top 10.
It's tough to call what #1 will be here. I'm guessing either Rebuild or Ambassador will be #1. It takes a disproportionate amount of effort to beat the Rebuild rush, and Ambassador is good for so many decks, though it takes a hit when shelters are in the game.
Goons needs extra actions to really be worth it, although it's still a very strong card when played every turn. KC needs other actions, but can usually do something neat. Can't say for sure if Mountebank and Witch will make the top 10.
Rebuild and Ambassador ended up being the top 2 cards. Oracle power.
For its cost it is by far the most powerful card in dominion. You could make a case for it costing 5 buy I think 4 would be reasonable. You can almost never win if you fall behind in the ambassador fight. For this reason two ambassadors is essential and the amb/amb open is so strong. It should be the supreme priority on almost all boards it appears. Figuring out when you amb two coppers isntead of a single estate to catch up with an amb of two estates later is very substantial when it works.You play way too many colony games.
Ambassador is my highest %+ card at 98.5 and my winrate when ambassador is available is higher than any other card with 1.48 ± 0.09 over 400 games.
I simply cannot see Steward at #6. Ahead of Goons, Witch, King's Court, and Cultist.
I still think Cultist is overrated (not by WW but by people saying it's better than Witch/MBank).
Swindler/Swindler opening is decent fairly often.Indeed, but I think it's strength depends largely on what your opponent does and what cards can be turned into what. I've also been burned really badly by Ambassador/Ambassador openings.
Swindler/Swindler opening is decent fairly often.Indeed, but I think it's strength depends largely on what your opponent does and what cards can be turned into what. I've also been burned really badly by Ambassador/Ambassador openings.
I'm really happy to see Steward so high. Once you've used it to help set up an engine, the +2 cards option is not nothing. And there's even the +2 coins option once you've drawn your deck. Those extra options make me prefer it over Chapel when I'm going for a BM-ish deck.
Tier 1
Chapel - I'm still a believer, I guess.
So, I wasn't intending to be snarky (and it certainly isn't sarcastic) - I genuinely wanted to know if that was the game you were referring to. And had not much time to get actual explanation down before heading to work. So I apologize for any snark in the above post.You, like most players, criminally underestimate Cultist. Not just based on this list, but also based on a recent game we played where you opted to ignore it in favor of Familiar, a choice which I think reduces your win % to less than 20 right there.
You mean that game where you got cultist on a 5/2 and I went for familiar on a 4/3?
Yes, that one. Being a bit behind in the mirror (having a Cultist in stead of two Silvers is great, but hardly game-deciding: more likely than not I can't get a 2nd Cultist during the next shuffle, which puts you just 1 Ruin behind at the start of the 3rd shuffle, while either having 3 Silvers vs. my 2, or 2 Cultists vs. my 1) is no reason to pursue an inferior strategy.
And I'm not sure why you think my well-reasoned post deserved such a snarky/sarcastic response. I thought you liked people citing evidence for their claims and supplying the logic behind their beliefs.
I agree with Witch being narrowly--narrowly, mind you--better than Cultist. Yeah, those Ruins are bad, and they come flying in so fast. It's not pretty.
But, in addition to the negative points from Curses being significantly worse, there are just a bunch of cards that handle Ruins better than Curses. Vineyards actually wants Ruins. They are Death Cart fuel. Library can set them aside. Procession can kill them off. Scrying Pool can draw them all up. There may be other examples I'm not thinking of...
Which leads me to believe that, despite the snowball effect being so much worse, and the nice (although not super useful, usually) on-trash effect, Witch still edges out Cultist.
Also, I'm finding it hard to justify Witch over cultist. I remember reading that, in the simulator, Witch against Cultist wins a bit more often. Still, in most games the speed at which Cultist junks is more devastating, because it forces you to get your act together really quickly. And then if you don't retaliate with a junker of your own, powerful Cultist chains are very likely to go off.
This is really not terribly true. I mean, yes, you can engineer a board where you want to go cultist over witch and they're on the same board, you can engineer lots. But as a fraction of boards with both on them, they are few. Why? Well, because with both, Mr. Cultist is getting junked, which means he has pretty bad chances of connecting to chain very often, so it's largely just curses vs ruins, big advantage witch, and the important point is that two piles are running very fast, and it's thus not hard to hit the third one. Of course, maybe you are saying the trashing is so good, you can just deal and chain anyway. Okay, fine, but now, there will usually be something better to do than either one - if the trashing is THAT good, the junking has pretty low relevance. Okay, yes, these are some of the boards cultist has advantage, it's true, but I don't think these are so common as ones where witch gets the upper hand.
Also, I'm finding it hard to justify Witch over cultist. I remember reading that, in the simulator, Witch against Cultist wins a bit more often. Still, in most games the speed at which Cultist junks is more devastating, because it forces you to get your act together really quickly. And then if you don't retaliate with a junker of your own, powerful Cultist chains are very likely to go off.
The simulator was just Witch BM vs. Cultist BM. Obviously, if any engine is possible, Cultist will just wipe that potential away if your opponent goes for Witch instead.
Or, you buy at least one witch, some villages, and a bunch of cultists.
It was meant to be sarcastic.Or, you buy at least one witch, some villages, and a bunch of cultists.
This still isn't an argument that Cultist is better though. And what if there are no villages?
This is really not terribly true. I mean, yes, you can engineer a board where you want to go cultist over witch and they're on the same board, you can engineer lots. But as a fraction of boards with both on them, they are few. Why? Well, because with both, Mr. Cultist is getting junked, which means he has pretty bad chances of connecting to chain very often, so it's largely just curses vs ruins, big advantage witch, and the important point is that two piles are running very fast, and it's thus not hard to hit the third one. Of course, maybe you are saying the trashing is so good, you can just deal and chain anyway. Okay, fine, but now, there will usually be something better to do than either one - if the trashing is THAT good, the junking has pretty low relevance. Okay, yes, these are some of the boards cultist has advantage, it's true, but I don't think these are so common as ones where witch gets the upper hand.
Also, I'm finding it hard to justify Witch over cultist. I remember reading that, in the simulator, Witch against Cultist wins a bit more often. Still, in most games the speed at which Cultist junks is more devastating, because it forces you to get your act together really quickly. And then if you don't retaliate with a junker of your own, powerful Cultist chains are very likely to go off.
The simulator was just Witch BM vs. Cultist BM. Obviously, if any engine is possible, Cultist will just wipe that potential away if your opponent goes for Witch instead.
grand scheme
grand scheme
+1 Card, +1 Action
At the start of Clean-up this turn, you may choose two Action cards you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, put it on your deck.
grand scheme
+1 Card, +1 Action
At the start of Clean-up this turn, you may choose two Action cards you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, put it on your deck.
You may not buy this if you have any Actions in play.
This is really not terribly true. I mean, yes, you can engineer a board where you want to go cultist over witch and they're on the same board, you can engineer lots. But as a fraction of boards with both on them, they are few. Why? Well, because with both, Mr. Cultist is getting junked, which means he has pretty bad chances of connecting to chain very often, so it's largely just curses vs ruins, big advantage witch, and the important point is that two piles are running very fast, and it's thus not hard to hit the third one. Of course, maybe you are saying the trashing is so good, you can just deal and chain anyway. Okay, fine, but now, there will usually be something better to do than either one - if the trashing is THAT good, the junking has pretty low relevance. Okay, yes, these are some of the boards cultist has advantage, it's true, but I don't think these are so common as ones where witch gets the upper hand.
Also, I'm finding it hard to justify Witch over cultist. I remember reading that, in the simulator, Witch against Cultist wins a bit more often. Still, in most games the speed at which Cultist junks is more devastating, because it forces you to get your act together really quickly. And then if you don't retaliate with a junker of your own, powerful Cultist chains are very likely to go off.
The simulator was just Witch BM vs. Cultist BM. Obviously, if any engine is possible, Cultist will just wipe that potential away if your opponent goes for Witch instead.
Assuming it's been tuned to the proper number of Cultists/Witches (where the Cultist deck will buy more Cultists), that's a fair argument. You've now shown that Witch is better than Cultist on boards where there are competing junkers. Is that relevant?
I suppose the question is, is this ranking a question of "On a board with A and B, would you rather have A or B [relative to their price points]?", or "In the grand scheme of Dominion, which card are you more likely to want [relative to its price point], A or B?" I think we're looking for the latter here, in which case your example of Cultist vs. Witch is of only minor relevance.
I'm fine with either ordering of Witch/Cultist, but what I don't get is how they're so far below Mountebank. There aren't *that* many cases where you can ignore Cultist but not Mountebank...To be honest though, there aren't many cases where you can ignore any of the top ten cards in the first place.
So, I'm not actually looking at the case where both are on the board, which happens like 4.5% or so of the time that at least one of them is. I am looking at the case where one of them is on the board. So, most games you won't have either one available, but these games don't affect their relative rankings. Then there's a whole bunch of games where one or the other is available - in this case, the comparison to make is "How often do I win buying card X where I would have lost buying card Y" and vice versa, keeping in mind that the not-bought card doesn't translate to nothing, but rather to the next best thing on the board. Then there's the cases where both are there, and you want one over the other.This is really not terribly true. I mean, yes, you can engineer a board where you want to go cultist over witch and they're on the same board, you can engineer lots. But as a fraction of boards with both on them, they are few. Why? Well, because with both, Mr. Cultist is getting junked, which means he has pretty bad chances of connecting to chain very often, so it's largely just curses vs ruins, big advantage witch, and the important point is that two piles are running very fast, and it's thus not hard to hit the third one. Of course, maybe you are saying the trashing is so good, you can just deal and chain anyway. Okay, fine, but now, there will usually be something better to do than either one - if the trashing is THAT good, the junking has pretty low relevance. Okay, yes, these are some of the boards cultist has advantage, it's true, but I don't think these are so common as ones where witch gets the upper hand.
Also, I'm finding it hard to justify Witch over cultist. I remember reading that, in the simulator, Witch against Cultist wins a bit more often. Still, in most games the speed at which Cultist junks is more devastating, because it forces you to get your act together really quickly. And then if you don't retaliate with a junker of your own, powerful Cultist chains are very likely to go off.
The simulator was just Witch BM vs. Cultist BM. Obviously, if any engine is possible, Cultist will just wipe that potential away if your opponent goes for Witch instead.
Assuming it's been tuned to the proper number of Cultists/Witches (where the Cultist deck will buy more Cultists), that's a fair argument. You've now shown that Witch is better than Cultist on boards where there are competing junkers. Is that relevant?
I suppose the question is, is this ranking a question of "On a board with A and B, would you rather have A or B [relative to their price points]?", or "In the grand scheme of Dominion, which card are you more likely to want [relative to its price point], A or B?" I think we're looking for the latter here, in which case your example of Cultist vs. Witch is of only minor relevance.
I liked following this thread a lot, both to read WW's list and comments but also to follow the discussion that followed. Thanks for taking the time WW!
So who wants to play a series of games with the top 10 cards then?
Or even one here we go through the sets of ten in order.
I predict a lot of really, really bad kingdoms.
So who wants to play a series of games with the top 10 cards then?
Or even one here we go through the sets of ten in order.
I predict a lot of really, really bad kingdoms.
...There are no Villages... That would be an interesting game. Which power cards to go for...
Final board is clear. It's got King's Court, Goons, and Masquerade.
q.e.d.
Final board is clear. It's got King's Court, Goons, and Masquerade.
q.e.d.
:O
Final board is clear. It's got King's Court, Goons, and Masquerade.
q.e.d.
:O
Maybe Rebuild(+Goons?) is able to end the game before the pin sets off?
(Not that likely with some nice trashers around here, or am I wrong?
Well, I've figured out that you can setup the pin in a solitaire game about the same time it takes BM to get four provinces. I don't know if Rebuild could be that fast.
I doubt rebuild can get 8 provinces before KC-goons-masq goes off, especially since there are tons of trashers in that kingdom.
Your link to part XV is down to 27 and then XVI is the top 15. You are missing a link to 26-16.This should be fixed now, thanks.
Further, could you make the list itself a linked one where each one links to the post where it is described?I am not sure what you mean here - best guess is you mean to make every card in the list link to the post with descriptions like all of them before it, and I suppose it is possible to do that, but I'm not really planning on taking that much time - sorry.
Thanks for an awesome list, it was really fun to read.You are welcome - thanks for reading!
If your Province and Rebuilds never collide, you need 9 Rebuild plays to end the game (1x Estate -> Duchy, 1x Duchy -> Province, 7x Province -> Province). If you keep buying Rebuilds with your 5s, you should be able to end it in about 15-16 turns I think.There's a couple problems with this. First, I think this would just be too slow...?
If your Province and Rebuilds never collide, you need 9 Rebuild plays to end the game (1x Estate -> Duchy, 1x Duchy -> Province, 7x Province -> Province). If you keep buying Rebuilds with your 5s, you should be able to end it in about 15-16 turns I think.There's a couple problems with this. First, I think this would just be too slow...?
Second, are you taking into account that you will be hit reasonably often with goons attacks and lots of masq pulls?
Third and by far the most important, they aren't absolutely forced and locked to go for the pin, the pin, and only the pin. If you play like this, all they need is KC-goons-any way at all to make $2 to buy a province and a few copper and have more points than you do in a conventional sense. Which means you basically need to rebuild other stuff up. Which means you will be slower in ending the game.
Rats needs to be so far down because it a nine-card kingdom with no TFBs
Rats needs to be so far down because it a nine-card kingdom with no TFBsI've been wondering recently if Rats can be a viable mid/late game pick-up in slogs with no other trashers (also no Vineyard/Scrying Pool; obviously Rats has potential in those cases). If you have a big enough deck and you time your Rats purchase well, you won't have more than five or six Rats by the end of the game. If you always have a junk card in hand (which is the case in many slogs), then Rats is just a cantrip that clears it out of the way, which is good, and then it gives you another card that does that, which is good. As long as you make sure that only a low percentage of your deck is Rats, they should be good. At worst, if you turn a Curse into a Rats and then never play that gained Rats, it just gave you a victory point. But in many slogs you'll want to play the Rats you are gaining. The only thing I can see really going against it is maybe if it's in competition with victory cards that you would rather be picking up by that point in the game.
Do you have logs of any such combo working out, LastFootnote?
I have never tried that and can't really imagine it working well, but I'll happily be proven otherwise.
Do you have logs of any such combo working out, LastFootnote?
I have never tried that and can't really imagine it working well, but I'll happily be proven otherwise.
I don't have any logs handy. I use Rats with Forager and Junk Dealer very frequently and I win most of those games. But I win most games I play in general and my opponents aren't ever top-tier (I don't play Pro games), so I don't think it would prove anything.
The reason it works is because the +1 Card you get from trashing Rats is worth more in conjunction with the +1 Action you get from these non-terminal trashers. That tends to make up for the fact that you're not benefiting from Rats's $4 cost.
Try it out yourself in a few games.
I would say Junk Dealer and Forager are clearly Trash for Benefit cards though, even if the trashing aspect is stronger.
I don't really buy Lookout/Rats.
I would say Junk Dealer and Forager are clearly Trash for Benefit cards though, even if the trashing aspect is stronger.
Uh, usually when we say "trash-for-benefit", we're referring to trashers that give some benefit commensurate with the cost of the trashed card(s). Examples include Salvager, Remodel, and Apprentice. Chapel is not a trash-for-benefit card, even though the trashing benefits your deck. Junk Dealer and Forager fall into the same category of deck thinner; they don't care what's being trashed. They are not trash-for-benefit cards.
I would say Junk Dealer and Forager are clearly Trash for Benefit cards though, even if the trashing aspect is stronger.
Uh, usually when we say "trash-for-benefit", we're referring to trashers that give some benefit commensurate with the cost of the trashed card(s). Examples include Salvager, Remodel, and Apprentice. Chapel is not a trash-for-benefit card, even though the trashing benefits your deck. Junk Dealer and Forager fall into the same category of deck thinner; they don't care what's being trashed. They are not trash-for-benefit cards.
Surely Altar is a Trash for Benefit card? I can't imagine why the term "Trash for Benefit" doesn't include Forager, Trade Route, Junk Dealer and Altar. I always thought people said "scaling TfB" whenever they talked about the cards that cared specifically about cost (Apprentice, Salvager). Although I suppose the Remodel variants care a lot about cost but don't "scale" necessarily. In the end I guess it's just down to community usage. I didn't get a sense that the cards I mentioned wouldn't be TfB, but I could be wrong.
I would call Death Cart a TfB - trashing a card gives you the benefit of keeping your Death Cart.
I would also consider Altar a TfB, as Bishop is also a TfB with the edge case of getting points without trashing anything.
I would say Junk Dealer and Forager are clearly Trash for Benefit cards though, even if the trashing aspect is stronger.
Uh, usually when we say "trash-for-benefit", we're referring to trashers that give some benefit commensurate with the cost of the trashed card(s). Examples include Salvager, Remodel, and Apprentice. Chapel is not a trash-for-benefit card, even though the trashing benefits your deck. Junk Dealer and Forager fall into the same category of deck thinner; they don't care what's being trashed. They are not trash-for-benefit cards.
Surely Altar is a Trash for Benefit card? I can't imagine why the term "Trash for Benefit" doesn't include Forager, Trade Route, Junk Dealer and Altar. I always thought people said "scaling TfB" whenever they talked about the cards that cared specifically about cost (Apprentice, Salvager). Although I suppose the Remodel variants care a lot about cost but don't "scale" necessarily. In the end I guess it's just down to community usage. I didn't get a sense that the cards I mentioned wouldn't be TfB, but I could be wrong.
EDIT: Also, I have never once heard the term "Scaling Trash For Benefit". By your definition, which trashers aren't TfB cards?
EDIT: Also, I have never once heard the term "Scaling Trash For Benefit". By your definition, which trashers aren't TfB cards?
I don't know why the term TFB even exists in the first place, but I've been told that Moneylender is the most important TFB card in the base set.
Oh man it's the "City Level" discussion all over again!
The +1 card when trashing a Rats is just compensation for the -1 card from trashing when you gained it (unless it's a Rats that you bought). To be fair, that +1 card may be more useful than the -1 card, because your deck should be stronger at that point. I'd still need some convincing that there's a worthwhile combo there, because buying the first Rats takes a valuable early $4 buy, and if the Rats start eating Coppers then they're less useful than the cards they're replacing.Rats needs to be so far down because it a nine-card kingdom with no TFBs
This isn't quite true. Rats creates its own benefit when trashed. I wouldn't call Lookout, Forager, or Junk Dealer trash-for-benefit cards, but they still combo with Rats.
Cornucopia 75.3
Hinterlands 88.8
Dark Ages 99.2
Guilds 99.2
Prosperity 103.1
Intrigue 104.0
Seaside 107.5
Alchemy 117.7
Base 121.1
Promo 131.2
Best top 5 - Using WW ranking I calculated the average position of the best 5 cards of a expansion. Useful if you want to find out and maybe buy a expansion that just contains the cards that have the most influence on the game.
Base 33
Intrigue 15
Seaside 21
Alchemy 59
Prosperity 16
Cornucopia 26
Hinterlands 37
Dark Ages 12
Guilds 53
This list is sorted from old to new, so you can see that cards did not simply became stronger over time, the same can be concluded when looking at the average position of all the cards in a set, altough base and alchemy score both score quite weak - that might be a reason why people also don't tend to like them.
Best top 5 - Using WW ranking I calculated the average position of the best 5 cards of a expansion. Useful if you want to find out and maybe buy a expansion that just contains the cards that have the most influence on the game.
Base 33
Intrigue 15
Seaside 21
Alchemy 59
Prosperity 16
Cornucopia 26
Hinterlands 37
Dark Ages 12
Guilds 53
This list is sorted from old to new, so you can see that cards did not simply became stronger over time, the same can be concluded when looking at the average position of all the cards in a set, altough base and alchemy score both score quite weak - that might be a reason why people also don't tend to like them.
I was going to say something along these lines. Then I noticed that Cornucopia *still* beat out Base :oBest top 5 - Using WW ranking I calculated the average position of the best 5 cards of a expansion. Useful if you want to find out and maybe buy a expansion that just contains the cards that have the most influence on the game.
Base 33
Intrigue 15
Seaside 21
Alchemy 59
Prosperity 16
Cornucopia 26
Hinterlands 37
Dark Ages 12
Guilds 53
This list is sorted from old to new, so you can see that cards did not simply became stronger over time, the same can be concluded when looking at the average position of all the cards in a set, altough base and alchemy score both score quite weak - that might be a reason why people also don't tend to like them.
Best top 5 is a bit silly, since it's obviously likely to favour bigger expansions over smaller ones, because well what do you expect to be better, the best 5 out of a choice of 35, or the best 5 out of a choice of 12? Comparing the average of the best 20% would probably be a more sensible comparison - that'd be the top 3 out of Cornucopia/Guilds/Alchemy, top 7 for Dark Ages and top 5 for the rest.
I was going to say something along these lines. Then I noticed that Cornucopia *still* beat out Base :oBest top 5 - Using WW ranking I calculated the average position of the best 5 cards of a expansion. Useful if you want to find out and maybe buy a expansion that just contains the cards that have the most influence on the game.
Base 33
Intrigue 15
Seaside 21
Alchemy 59
Prosperity 16
Cornucopia 26
Hinterlands 37
Dark Ages 12
Guilds 53
This list is sorted from old to new, so you can see that cards did not simply became stronger over time, the same can be concluded when looking at the average position of all the cards in a set, altough base and alchemy score both score quite weak - that might be a reason why people also don't tend to like them.
Best top 5 is a bit silly, since it's obviously likely to favour bigger expansions over smaller ones, because well what do you expect to be better, the best 5 out of a choice of 35, or the best 5 out of a choice of 12? Comparing the average of the best 20% would probably be a more sensible comparison - that'd be the top 3 out of Cornucopia/Guilds/Alchemy, top 7 for Dark Ages and top 5 for the rest.
The middle-of-the-road-ishness of guilds may be because it's so new still. There's a tendency to play it safe with unfamiliar cards so I expect some of them will drift more towards the higher or lower end as time goes on.
Seeing this list (and all the people disagreeing with parts) makes me wonder what it would be like if we did a Qvist-type ranking this way. I would volunteer to run it, but I don't know much about statistics so I would only be able to order them all and that would be it...
Seeing this list (and all the people disagreeing with parts) makes me wonder what it would be like if we did a Qvist-type ranking this way. I would volunteer to run it, but I don't know much about statistics so I would only be able to order them all and that would be it...
And by Qvist-type, I mean everybody sends in their list and then they all get sorted.
Seeing this list (and all the people disagreeing with parts) makes me wonder what it would be like if we did a Qvist-type ranking this way. I would volunteer to run it, but I don't know much about statistics so I would only be able to order them all and that would be it...
And by Qvist-type, I mean everybody sends in their list and then they all get sorted.
It would probably be easier to have a site where you just compare two cards at a time (and then another 2 and another 2, etc.). With a large enough sample size, you'd get meaningful results. Making an entire 200+ card list can be daunting.
Of course, technically Dark Ages was designed after Guilds, and Rebuild in particular was one of the last cards added in all Dominion...The middle-of-the-road-ishness of guilds may be because it's so new still. There's a tendency to play it safe with unfamiliar cards so I expect some of them will drift more towards the higher or lower end as time goes on.
Or it could be that Donald has got better at creating cards so that there are less really weak or really overpowering ones?
Ed
(The again it wasn't that long ago we got Rebuild...)
The last time this came up, somebody mentioned a choosing scheme along the lines of: you're presented with 4 (or 5?) cards and asked to pick the strongest and weakest of that group. It had a name but I can't remember what it was called.Seeing this list (and all the people disagreeing with parts) makes me wonder what it would be like if we did a Qvist-type ranking this way. I would volunteer to run it, but I don't know much about statistics so I would only be able to order them all and that would be it...
And by Qvist-type, I mean everybody sends in their list and then they all get sorted.
It would probably be easier to have a site where you just compare two cards at a time (and then another 2 and another 2, etc.). With a large enough sample size, you'd get meaningful results. Making an entire 200+ card list can be daunting.
I would volunteer to run it, but I don't know much about statistics so I would only be able to order them all and that would be it...
The last time this came up, somebody mentioned a choosing scheme along the lines of: you're presented with 4 (or 5?) cards and asked to pick the strongest and weakest of that group. It had a name but I can't remember what it was called.Seeing this list (and all the people disagreeing with parts) makes me wonder what it would be like if we did a Qvist-type ranking this way. I would volunteer to run it, but I don't know much about statistics so I would only be able to order them all and that would be it...
And by Qvist-type, I mean everybody sends in their list and then they all get sorted.
It would probably be easier to have a site where you just compare two cards at a time (and then another 2 and another 2, etc.). With a large enough sample size, you'd get meaningful results. Making an entire 200+ card list can be daunting.
(Of course, this doesn't solve the problem of the overwhelming task to try to create a full rank of all the cards.)
This? The Dominion Card Sorter
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9221.0
This? The Dominion Card Sorter
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9221.0
I don't think it counts if you have to be running python from the command line.
Something I recently considered that could be done next time a community card ratings comes around - either in addition, or instead of it - is having a ratings list made by a group of the top Dominion players on the site only, making a single collaborative list. This would likely be done in a separate private subforum. The biggest advantage is that those involved could work together, suggesting things that might be missed by a single person, and keep each other in check from over or underrating particular cards. Compared to just doing it in public, the advantage is that small numbers keep it easy to track what's going on, and means making decisions is considerably easier.
I dunno if it's really a great idea, but I think it could work, and produce something similar to WW's list, but with more ideas and knowledge being put in by the other top minds on the forum. People like theory, Qvist (if he returns), WW, Stef and quite a few others.
FYI, this is something that the Smash community does with the Smash Back Room (http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/Smash_Back_Room).
What I would like to see is everyone submit the one card they consider the most powerful and then to make a list of whatever the top 10 results came in to be and then vote on those to see what we consider the best card.
39. Sea HagThis strikes me like saying moat neutralizes witch.
Pretty low, you think. Well, it's one of the more ignorable cursers, I find. It does nothing for you. And trash one cad at a time would neutralize it
34. SoothsayerFor them it's a lab, for me it's a 5ish plus familiar.
A curse-giver which gains gold. This card gives great longevity, but... well, gaining gold is a 5ish value, giving a curse is a 4ish value, labbing opponent a 5 value to them...
39. Sea Hag
Pretty low, you think. Well, it's one of the more ignorable cursers, I find. It does nothing for you. And trash one cad at a time would neutralize it
Quote from: WanderingWinder39. Sea Hag
Pretty low, you think. Well, it's one of the more ignorable cursers, I find. It does nothing for you. And trash one cad at a time would neutralize it
Well, trash one card at a time doesn't completely neutralize it of course.
The player with Sea Hag uses one card slot to dish out the Curses, while the player with the one-card-trasher needs 2 card slots (one for the Curse and one for the trasher) to deal with the Curses. Lookout is a bit different of course, since it uses one card slot to trash something and is pretty good defense against Sea Hag, but a $0 Trade Route, maybe not so much.
What's worse is that a hand of Trade Route-Curse-3 Coppers would yield $5 if the Trade Route was a Silver, which might be important.
So either use a decent trasher (Steward with its trash-2 would probably suffice) or skip the trasher altogether, I think Trade Route and Remodel don't cut it to battle Sea Hag.
Quote from: WanderingWinder39. Sea Hag
Pretty low, you think. Well, it's one of the more ignorable cursers, I find. It does nothing for you. And trash one cad at a time would neutralize it
Well, trash one card at a time doesn't completely neutralize it of course.
The player with Sea Hag uses one card slot to dish out the Curses, while the player with the one-card-trasher needs 2 card slots (one for the Curse and one for the trasher) to deal with the Curses. Lookout is a bit different of course, since it uses one card slot to trash something and is pretty good defense against Sea Hag, but a $0 Trade Route, maybe not so much.
What's worse is that a hand of Trade Route-Curse-3 Coppers would yield $5 if the Trade Route was a Silver, which might be important.
So either use a decent trasher (Steward with its trash-2 would probably suffice) or skip the trasher altogether, I think Trade Route and Remodel don't cut it to battle Sea Hag.
I agree.
Except that, with Steward and Sea Hag on board, I will presumably get both.
The trashers which make me skip the hag are masq and ambassador, maybe hermit and Jack. These all are rightfully Top20-cards in WW's list.
How well does Hermit work as pure Curse defense? I once tried it against Witch (actually, double Witch) and got completely smoked. I wasn't able to line up Hermits (I got more than one) with the Curses very well
How well does Hermit work as pure Curse defense? I once tried it against Witch (actually, double Witch) and got completely smoked. I wasn't able to line up Hermits (I got more than one) with the Curses very well, and the drawing power of Witch let my opponent grab money and then Provinces pretty easily. Though this doesn't compare to Sea Hag that well, since the Witch player gets a benefit and the Sea Hag player does not.I think Hermit should work pretty well against Witch and other "normal" cursing (except Mountebank), but it doesn't work that well against Sea Hag since the curse goes on the top of your deck and that means you will always get that curse in hand at least once before getting rid of it.
How well does Hermit work as pure Curse defense? I once tried it against Witch (actually, double Witch) and got completely smoked. I wasn't able to line up Hermits (I got more than one) with the Curses very well
I thought the whole point of using Hermit for trashing was that you don't have to line it up with your Curses—Hermit can trash from the discard pile.
Quote from: WanderingWinder39. Sea Hag
Pretty low, you think. Well, it's one of the more ignorable cursers, I find. It does nothing for you. And trash one cad at a time would neutralize it
Well, trash one card at a time doesn't completely neutralize it of course.
The player with Sea Hag uses one card slot to dish out the Curses, while the player with the one-card-trasher needs 2 card slots (one for the Curse and one for the trasher) to deal with the Curses. Lookout is a bit different of course, since it uses one card slot to trash something and is pretty good defense against Sea Hag, but a $0 Trade Route, maybe not so much.
What's worse is that a hand of Trade Route-Curse-3 Coppers would yield $5 if the Trade Route was a Silver, which might be important.
So either use a decent trasher (Steward with its trash-2 would probably suffice) or skip the trasher altogether, I think Trade Route and Remodel don't cut it to battle Sea Hag.
Basically I am thinking upgrade/junk dealer/forager. But hermit/masquerade certainly fit, as do (often) ambassador, steward, chapel..... But it's important on these to not get swamped and try to be playing catchup, especially if they have a way to end the game.Quote from: WanderingWinder39. Sea Hag
Pretty low, you think. Well, it's one of the more ignorable cursers, I find. It does nothing for you. And trash one cad at a time would neutralize it
Well, trash one card at a time doesn't completely neutralize it of course.
The player with Sea Hag uses one card slot to dish out the Curses, while the player with the one-card-trasher needs 2 card slots (one for the Curse and one for the trasher) to deal with the Curses. Lookout is a bit different of course, since it uses one card slot to trash something and is pretty good defense against Sea Hag, but a $0 Trade Route, maybe not so much.
What's worse is that a hand of Trade Route-Curse-3 Coppers would yield $5 if the Trade Route was a Silver, which might be important.
So either use a decent trasher (Steward with its trash-2 would probably suffice) or skip the trasher altogether, I think Trade Route and Remodel don't cut it to battle Sea Hag.
I'm pretty sure he's not talking about just buying Trade Route and Remodel instead of Sea Hag... Clearly if your opponent is giving you Curses and you're just trashing them, you're not getting ahead. The point relates to your broader strategy. For instance, if there is Lookout or Upgrade or something, I know that I can skip Sea Hag in favor of Silver (or terminal Silver) to hit the 5s faster and get ahead on engine-building while the trashing can nearly cancel out the Sea Hag early on. Then, when I'm ahead in cycling ability due to the faster engine build, the trasher actually starts acting faster than the Sea Hag. If there's no engine to build, then the trashing isn't going to cut it, and you have to buy the Hag. But since Sea Hag BM is so slow, the standard for a "good enough" engine are pretty low.
Basically I am thinking upgrade/junk dealer/forager. But hermit/masquerade certainly fit, as do (often) ambassador, steward, chapel..... But it's important on these to not get swamped and try to be playing catchup, especially if they have a way to end the game.And Sea Hag gets you the curse faster than Trade Route gets rid of it, trashers that draw first/trash from your deck get rid of the curse as fast as Sea Hag gives it.
Certainly something like trade route is not a very good remedy, because it has very little advantage over sea hag (both being terminal), and you have to get it to connect with he curse, whereas hag just always 'works', until curses run out.
1. Masquerade
2. Ambassador
3. Cultist
4. Chapel
5. Mountebank
6. Junk Dealer
7. Goons
8. King's Court
9. Upgrade
10. Jack of all Trades
11. Wharf
12. Steward
13. Counterfeit
14. Remake
15. Hermit
16. Rebuild
17. Margrave
18. Hunting Party
19. Tournament
20. Ironmonger
21. Forager
22. Governor
23. Fishing Village
24. Witch
25. Bazaar
26. Butcher
27. Horn of Plenty
28. Wandering Minstrel
29. Vineyard
30. Border Village
31. Stables
32. Peddler
33. Squire
34. Fool's Gold
35. Scrying Pool
36. Swindler
37. Monument
38. Menagerie
39. Knights
40. Minion
41. Torturer
42. Young Witch
43. Hamlet
44. Native Village
45. Grand Market
46. Fairgrounds
47. Marauder
48. Highway
49. Courtyard
50. Herald
51. Catacombs
52. Altar
53. Warehouse
54. Quarry
55. Council Room
56. Baker
57. Throne Room
58. Familiar
59. Soothsayer
60. Pillage
61. Plaza
62. Militia
63. Sea Hag
64. Ill-Gotten Gains
65. Stonemason
66. Smithy
67. Envoy
68. Haggler
69. Crossroads
70. Apothecary
71. Hunting Grounds
72. Smugglers
73. Candlestick Maker
74. Vagrant
75. Bandit Camp
76. Bridge
77. Watchtower
78. Moat
79. Apprentice
80. Conspirator
81. Bishop
82. Village
83. Urchin
84. Laboratory
85. Silk Road
86. Worker's Village
87. Gardens
88. Ironworks
89. Caravan
90. Journeyman
91. Spice Merchant
92. Black Market
93. Oracle
94. Fortress
95. Rabble
96. Duke
97. Cartographer
98. Horse Traders
99. Count
100. Scavenger
101. Possession
102. Ghost Ship
103. Forge
104. City
105. Festival
106. Market
107. Mining Village
108. Farming Village
109. Walled Village
110. Tunnel
111. Lighthouse
112. Inn
113. Tactician
114. Venture
115. Nobles
116. Cutpurse
117. Treasury
118. Hoard
119. Jester
120. Storeroom
121. Salvager
122. Masterpiece
123. Loan
124. Oasis
125. Baron
126. Embassy
127. Market Square
128. Procession
129. Workshop
130. Pawn
131. Cellar
132. Library
133. Fortune Teller
134. Vault
135. Farmland
136. Shanty Town
137. Band of Misfits
138. Poor House
139. Beggar
140. Wishing Well
141. Moneylender
142. Duchess
143. Doctor
144. Embargo
145. Develop
146. Merchant Guild
147. Mint
148. Herbalist
149. Woodcutter
150. Alchemist
151. Lookout
152. Merchant Ship
153. Noble Brigand
154. Harem
155. Scheme
156. Pearl Diver
157. Rats
158. Golem
159. Death Cart
160. Explorer
161. Saboteur
162. Graverobber
163. Mystic
164. Mandarin
165. Contraband
166. Secret Chamber
167. Chancellor
168. Island
169. Rogue
170. Remodel
171. Talisman
172. Advisor
173. Bank
174. Coppersmith
175. Spy
176. Counting House
177. Tribute
178. Taxman
179. Nomad Camp
180. Haven
181. Cache
182. Sage
183. Expand
184. Armory
185. Feodum
186. Trading Post
187. University
188. Outpost
189. Trader
190. Trade Route
191. Feast
192. Great Hall
193. Philosopher's Stone
194. Royal Seal
195. Treasure Map
196. Bureaucrat
197. Stash
198. Navigator
199. Thief
200. Mine
201. Harvest
202. Pirate Ship
203. Transmute
204. Adventurer
205. Scout
I'm fine with Feodum being low.
Feodum is more often a consolation prize (falling $1 short of Duchy) than an actual goal.
An alt-VP card which focuses on treasure is counterproductive, because:
- Gaining treasure often conflicts with building an engine
- When you're gaining treasure you can often afford Provinces anyway
You need 21(!) Silvers for 7pt Feoda, to surpass the points you can get from Provinces.
But let's say you have 15 Silvers for 5pt Feoda, it's not that hard to buy Provinces if you have 15 Silvers in your deck and they're still worth more.
It would have been more fun if Feodum had cared about Coppers instead, since you usually want to get rid of Coppers and they're easy to get. That way, it could have provided more of an actual strategy in more cases than it does now where you want Trader and/or Masterpiece.
It seems to me like you are putting the focus rather on "how often" the card is advantageous than on "how big" the advantage is.
Imho, the strength of a card is defined by the percentage of games I will lose if I never buy it.
According to this, let me pick three ratings which make me believe that you have another understanding of what "strength" means. Your List No.3 ranks
Quarry above Sea Hag,
Cartographer above Ghost Ship,
Junk Dealer above Goons.
You might be right that there are more games where Quarry, Cartographer and Junk Dealer are worth to be bought. But if you're concerned about how devastating the advantage can be, let me state it like this:
If I had to choose between
"never buying Quarry, Junk Dealer and Cartographer" or
"never buying Goons, Sea Hag and Ghost Ships",
I wouldn't hesitate for a second. Would you?
PS: Didn't mention Rebuild yet. Ranking it No. 16 looks waaay underrated to me.
PPS: Despite these things, I come to agree more and more with your updates. My personal Top 5 correspond to 80% with yours.
discussions of card strength are a somewhat futile attempt to compress a multidimensional idea into a single number.It is obviously true, that "strength" can be understood in many different ways. But that doesn't make it futile to provide a definition, quite the contrary: The less a common sense exists, the more it is necessary to clarify what exactly one is talking about to prevent misunderstandings.
That somewhat suprises me. It is mathematically correct that I am not sure about this, but in some degree, I am really convinced. Let me pick the comparison of the highest rated cards:
But I'm not sure your specific examples really make your point. It's not clear to me which of:
"never buying Quarry, Junk Dealer and Cartographer" or
"never buying Goons, Sea Hag and Ghost Ships",
will lead to a lower winning percentage overall.
Certainly Junk Dealer is a huge card on many boards (it is BIG).This far, you have my full agreement. I even wrote my very first article about Junk Dealer, as I felt it was crucially underrated on Qvist's Ranking. But really ...
I am extremely curious about the new position of JoaT! The top I mostly agree in general (disregarding small changes), although Fool's Gold and Chapel seem too high, so reading something about their positions would be interesting as well.Chapel is amazingly good. Fool's Gold is also really good either for Big Money, or for engines (where it is pretty nice as a payload - you get them all together, so it's a good source of non-terminal, non-draw-dead-able economy after you've gotten your engine up).
I'm convinced that Feodum should be way higher than #185. Alt vp cards always need more time to be understood, and I think Feodum is particularly different from the others…Margrave is just very good - particularly the first one - combining a discard attack, a smithy, and a buy is super nice for your engine, also not horrible for BM.
Otherwise I like the list. It's interesting. I don't necessarly agree but at least I can see the arguments. Excepting some cards : Margrave surprises me. So high, really ? Rebuild at #16 is also very surprising. Monument and lighthouse are very low, I think.
It seems to me like you are putting the focus rather on "how often" the card is advantageous than on "how big" the advantage is.I'm doing both.
Imho, the strength of a card is defined by the percentage of games I will lose if I never buy it.This is close to right, and both things above are important.
According to this, let me pick three ratings which make me believe that you have another understanding of what "strength" means. Your List No.3 ranksYeah. Actually probably Sea Hag is good more often than quarry, but there are times where quarry is SUCH a big game... Sea Hag can be too, but there's so many ways to deal with it, it can really often be pretty dead (most any good trashing makes it worthless, or nearly so).
Quarry above Sea Hag,
Cartographer above Ghost Ship,
Junk Dealer above Goons.
And this point: The insane amount of VPs - this is another thing that I think people can overrate. Sure, I might be able to score 300 points off of Goons, but this doesn't almost ever mean you really won crushingly. Well, typically it does, but not because you were able to play so many goons, more that your engine was miles ahead of whatever they can do. If I'm far ahead, in a goons game, it's basically because my engine is going better than yours. Goons gives you a payload, but that the payload can go huge just really doesn't matter THAT much terribly often - it's mostly that it gives you a lot of time against someone who is not building, who is going for green/BM and can't pressure piles on you. Well of course it's quite good anyway, but the insane amount of points is not what is winning you the game, it's the engine-building.discussions of card strength are a somewhat futile attempt to compress a multidimensional idea into a single number.It is obviously true, that "strength" can be understood in many different ways. But that doesn't make it futile to provide a definition, quite the contrary: The less a common sense exists, the more it is necessary to clarify what exactly one is talking about to prevent misunderstandings.
That does, of course, not at all mean that I declare my personal definition of strength to be the one and only objective version. What it is supposed to do, is to set up an objective departing point for interesting discussions about the same thing. And so:That somewhat suprises me. It is mathematically correct that I am not sure about this, but in some degree, I am really convinced. Let me pick the comparison of the highest rated cards:
But I'm not sure your specific examples really make your point. It's not clear to me which of:
"never buying Quarry, Junk Dealer and Cartographer" or
"never buying Goons, Sea Hag and Ghost Ships",
will lead to a lower winning percentage overall.Certainly Junk Dealer is a huge card on many boards (it is BIG).This far, you have my full agreement. I even wrote my very first article about Junk Dealer, as I felt it was crucially underrated on Qvist's Ranking. But really ...
bigger than GOONS ?!?
I can remember way more games where Goons was the one-and-only dominant card. And this not primarily because my attack hurt my soul but rather because of the insane amount of VP's one can achieve with multiple goons.
Doctor took a huge dive. What changed?It's pretty unreliable, and it doesn't do much for you when you draw it with the engine already running - part of why trashing > junking is because you can clean up and stay clean, but this doesn't help you stay clean. It eventually becomes quite dead.
Witch #23...wow. I feel it is much stronger than that. Even with decent trashing, it slows down your opponent while providing not too little of a benefit to yourself.
More generally, I'm also in fact not quite sure whether your statement "The biggest things I want to mention are that my estimation of trashing, generally, has been going up and up and up, and junking going down - it's ignorable reasonably often!" is even logically reasonable. That certainly sounds provocative, but really, isn't junking pretty much contrary to trashing in the very simple sense that if I give you a junk card and you trash it, everything is as it was before - so how can the value of trashing be rising while your estimation of junking drops? Yeah, there are other aspects to consider (like for example what happens when there is only trashing and no junking in the game), but I still see that as a conflict I'd appreciate you to elaborate on.
Rebuild being low some people will talk about - it is VERY good. But it's really not unbeatable - if you get a strong engine OR good BM, you can definitely overtake it.
More generally, I'm also in fact not quite sure whether your statement "The biggest things I want to mention are that my estimation of trashing, generally, has been going up and up and up, and junking going down - it's ignorable reasonably often!" is even logically reasonable. That certainly sounds provocative, but really, isn't junking pretty much contrary to trashing in the very simple sense that if I give you a junk card and you trash it, everything is as it was before - so how can the value of trashing be rising while your estimation of junking drops? Yeah, there are other aspects to consider (like for example what happens when there is only trashing and no junking in the game), but I still see that as a conflict I'd appreciate you to elaborate on.
Witch #23...wow. I feel it is much stronger than that. Even with decent trashing, it slows down your opponent while providing not too little of a benefit to yourself.
More generally, I'm also in fact not quite sure whether your statement "The biggest things I want to mention are that my estimation of trashing, generally, has been going up and up and up, and junking going down - it's ignorable reasonably often!" is even logically reasonable. That certainly sounds provocative, but really, isn't junking pretty much contrary to trashing in the very simple sense that if I give you a junk card and you trash it, everything is as it was before - so how can the value of trashing be rising while your estimation of junking drops? Yeah, there are other aspects to consider (like for example what happens when there is only trashing and no junking in the game), but I still see that as a conflict I'd appreciate you to elaborate on.
I'm sure WW has his own thoughts on this, but I would say trashing is important for more than just countering junking attacks, since you start the game with 10 often junk cards. If there is an engine to be played, trashing is almost ALWAYS very good to have, and sometimes trashing is necessary to make that engine viable. And in an engine where you have decent trashing anyway, you can often just shrug off junking attacks. Of course, this is an oversimplification and depends on how good the engine/trashing/junking all are, but I think it illustrates the point.
Rebuild being low some people will talk about - it is VERY good. But it's really not unbeatable - if you get a strong engine OR good BM, you can definitely overtake it.
I wonder to what extent this is actually true, and to what extent it's just that people have forgotten how to play Rebuild in the non-mirror. I feel like I've seen a lot of players who continue to play the "grab as many Duchies as quickly as possible, then Rebuild into Provinces" plan even when their opponent is not going for Rebuild, and that's just terrible. The whole point of Rebuild is that it quickly cuts down the total number of VP on the board and gives you a lead, so that it becomes impossible for the opponent to catch up. If you go with the "normal" engine plan of delaying greening so that you can grab multiple green cards per turn later, there's a good chance there won't be enough green cards left for you to grab. So I think there's a rock-paper-scissors thing going on: Rebuild beats (most) engines, engines beat good big money, good big money beats Rebuild. Of course some great engines and possibly some power-combo decks will still beat everything, but I think a board where an engine is the optimal plan rather than Rebuild is rare.
Also, I've been wondering if Rebuild could actually be a good addition to some decks that aren't centered on it. I actually don't think I've ever tried it, because it sounds bad (and I can imagine that it is bad in engines), but maybe the kind of strong BM deck that normally beats Rebuild would be better off picking up a Rebuild of its own? Non-terminal +2 or 3 VP with some end-game control is not bad in a BM deck.
Is there a board that has Masquerade on it where you wouldn't open Masquerade?Rushes and combos such as ironworks-silk road, native village-bridge, herbalist-philosopher's stone and hermit-market square come to mind as obvious examples.
Is there a board that has Masquerade on it where you wouldn't open Masquerade?Rushes and combos such as ironworks-silk road, native village-bridge, herbalist-philosopher's stone and hermit-market square come to mind as obvious examples.
Is there a board that has Masquerade on it where you wouldn't open Masquerade?E.g. a board where Rebuild is dominant (i.e. no strong engine potential) ;). And any 5-2 start with a very strong $5 card, of course.
I think I'd also prefer Chapel and Ambassador over Masquerade on most boards...
Is there a board that has Masquerade on it where you wouldn't open Masquerade?
Is there a board that has Masquerade on it where you wouldn't open Masquerade?
I think I'd also prefer Chapel and Ambassador over Masquerade on most boards...
Do you mean you'd rather that one of those cards be in the Supply instead of Masquerade, or that you'd rather buy one of them than Masquerade if both are out? 'Cause I gotta tell you, if you play a Chapel deck against Masquerade, you should be prepared to pass a lot of nice cards to your opponent.
i'm pretty sure that for every card there exists a board on which you wouldn't buy that card, including treasure and victory cardsThat's every board, if you're trying to play on Goko right now!
Rebuild+X+BM being better than X+BM doesn't count, in my mind, as a win for Rebuild, per se. I'm looking at the "either-or" question (plus some allowances for three-piling). So if Rebuild+Witch>Rebuild>Witch, this shows Rebuild on top, but if Smithy+Rebuild>Smithy>Rebuild, that's a win for smithy (not that I'm actually claiming that that one is true - but I don't think it's as lopsided as you might think).Rebuild being low some people will talk about - it is VERY good. But it's really not unbeatable - if you get a strong engine OR good BM, you can definitely overtake it.
I wonder to what extent this is actually true, and to what extent it's just that people have forgotten how to play Rebuild in the non-mirror. I feel like I've seen a lot of players who continue to play the "grab as many Duchies as quickly as possible, then Rebuild into Provinces" plan even when their opponent is not going for Rebuild, and that's just terrible. The whole point of Rebuild is that it quickly cuts down the total number of VP on the board and gives you a lead, so that it becomes impossible for the opponent to catch up. If you go with the "normal" engine plan of delaying greening so that you can grab multiple green cards per turn later, there's a good chance there won't be enough green cards left for you to grab. So I think there's a rock-paper-scissors thing going on: Rebuild beats (most) engines, engines beat good big money, good big money beats Rebuild. Of course some great engines and possibly some power-combo decks will still beat everything, but I think a board where an engine is the optimal plan rather than Rebuild is rare.
Also, I've been wondering if Rebuild could actually be a good addition to some decks that aren't centered on it. I actually don't think I've ever tried it, because it sounds bad (and I can imagine that it is bad in engines), but maybe the kind of strong BM deck that normally beats Rebuild would be better off picking up a Rebuild of its own? Non-terminal +2 or 3 VP with some end-game control is not bad in a BM deck.
I actually doubt that "good" BM can beat Rebuild reasonably often, at least when playing without Colonies and Shelters - AFAIK the only halfway common BM-X strategy that beats pure Rebuild-BM (and is not beaten by Rebuild-X-BM) is Bank-Wharf, unless you count the combos Beggar-Gardens and Feodum-Masterpiece as BM.
(I don't know if there's simulation data on whether Cultist-BM beats Rebuild-BM, but I doubt it.)
Rebuild is a good addition e.g. to Witch-BM, which beats Rebuild-BM, but is beaten by "Witch-into-Rebuild"-BM. (However, this strategy is arguably still "centered" on Rebuild, since you buy more Rebuilds than Witches.)
Rebuild+X+BM being better than X+BM doesn't count, in my mind, as a win for Rebuild, per se. I'm looking at the "either-or" question (plus some allowances for three-piling). So if Rebuild+Witch>Rebuild>Witch, this shows Rebuild on top, but if Smithy+Rebuild>Smithy>Rebuild, that's a win for smithy (not that I'm actually claiming that that one is true - but I don't think it's as lopsided as you might think).
I'm also not sure how you're coming up with what "beats" what here - I am going off experience-driven-intuitions. I assume that Cultist-BM should win against rebuild, Wharf-FG certainly ought to, and even something as simple as Courtyard/Vault/Embassy/Jack are competitive, to the extent that they don't need much help to overcome (and whilst things can help rebuild, they tend to help these things more). FG with basically any +buy/gain card (eh, maybe not altar) probably gets there. Venture, Masterpiece, and especially Counterfeit are really going to help a lot of these strategies. And yes, you are often going to take Rebuilds as well, but you'll play it significantly differently than a straight Rebuild-BM.
It's also worth noting that you're only playing without colonies and without shelters in about 2/3 of your Rebuild games, assuming the full-random propotional-distribution of rules that I stipulate in the OP.
I would call this a "win" for both cards in both cases - i.e. I wouldn't put one card above the other if both are an integral part of the optimal strategy. (FWIW, Rebuild wins against Smithy in 75% of Province-Estate games, according to Dominiate.)Rebuild+X+BM being better than X+BM doesn't count, in my mind, as a win for Rebuild, per se. I'm looking at the "either-or" question (plus some allowances for three-piling). So if Rebuild+Witch>Rebuild>Witch, this shows Rebuild on top, but if Smithy+Rebuild>Smithy>Rebuild, that's a win for smithy (not that I'm actually claiming that that one is true - but I don't think it's as lopsided as you might think).Rebuild being low some people will talk about - it is VERY good. But it's really not unbeatable - if you get a strong engine OR good BM, you can definitely overtake it.
I wonder to what extent this is actually true, and to what extent it's just that people have forgotten how to play Rebuild in the non-mirror. I feel like I've seen a lot of players who continue to play the "grab as many Duchies as quickly as possible, then Rebuild into Provinces" plan even when their opponent is not going for Rebuild, and that's just terrible. The whole point of Rebuild is that it quickly cuts down the total number of VP on the board and gives you a lead, so that it becomes impossible for the opponent to catch up. If you go with the "normal" engine plan of delaying greening so that you can grab multiple green cards per turn later, there's a good chance there won't be enough green cards left for you to grab. So I think there's a rock-paper-scissors thing going on: Rebuild beats (most) engines, engines beat good big money, good big money beats Rebuild. Of course some great engines and possibly some power-combo decks will still beat everything, but I think a board where an engine is the optimal plan rather than Rebuild is rare.
Also, I've been wondering if Rebuild could actually be a good addition to some decks that aren't centered on it. I actually don't think I've ever tried it, because it sounds bad (and I can imagine that it is bad in engines), but maybe the kind of strong BM deck that normally beats Rebuild would be better off picking up a Rebuild of its own? Non-terminal +2 or 3 VP with some end-game control is not bad in a BM deck.
I actually doubt that "good" BM can beat Rebuild reasonably often, at least when playing without Colonies and Shelters - AFAIK the only halfway common BM-X strategy that beats pure Rebuild-BM (and is not beaten by Rebuild-X-BM) is Bank-Wharf, unless you count the combos Beggar-Gardens and Feodum-Masterpiece as BM.
(I don't know if there's simulation data on whether Cultist-BM beats Rebuild-BM, but I doubt it.)
Rebuild is a good addition e.g. to Witch-BM, which beats Rebuild-BM, but is beaten by "Witch-into-Rebuild"-BM. (However, this strategy is arguably still "centered" on Rebuild, since you buy more Rebuilds than Witches.)
I'm also not sure how you're coming up with what "beats" what here - I am going off experience-driven-intuitions. I assume that Cultist-BM should win against rebuild, Wharf-FG certainly ought to, and even something as simple as Courtyard/Vault/Embassy/Jack are competitive, to the extent that they don't need much help to overcome (and whilst things can help rebuild, they tend to help these things more). FG with basically any +buy/gain card (eh, maybe not altar) probably gets there. Venture, Masterpiece, and especially Counterfeit are really going to help a lot of these strategies. And yes, you are often going to take Rebuilds as well, but you'll play it significantly differently than a straight Rebuild-BM.
It's also worth noting that you're only playing without colonies and without shelters in about 2/3 of your Rebuild games, assuming the full-random propotional-distribution of rules that I stipulate in the OP.
So, based on this Dominate Sim (http://www.andrewiannaccone.com/static/dominiate/play.html#Rebuild/DoubleWitch), DoubleWitch > Rebuild (about 60-40). So I would think Cultist > Rebuild, too.
As for Rebuild vs. Witch: yes, Witch-BM beats pure Rebuild (though not by 60-40)
That has to be a sample-size issue.(http://www.agencynewbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Oh_No_You_Didn__t-300x277.jpg)
- monument THAT high??? that has not exactly been a power card in the games i've played so far, though admittedly this isn't the greatest sample size. it just seems like all too often you don't have a lot of terminal space for your engine and this doesn't offer enough for a non-drawing one, or it's stuck in a platinum/colony game.
apologies if posting in a thread this old isn't kosher around here, but i was wondering some things!
so this thread has been an awesome resource for me as i've been learning the game, but there are some rankings here (from the 3rd list) that puzzle me. off the top of my head:
[...]
Think of Monument as "+$2; gain a Great Hall". For $4.It's like a workshop that gains estates to your island mat while putting silver into your hand but you have to return the silver to the supply when playing it.
QuoteThink of Monument as "+$2; gain a Great Hall". For $4.It's like a workshop that gains estates to your island mat while putting silver into your hand but you have to return the silver to the supply when playing it.
I like to think of Monument as a $4 terminal action that gives $2 and +1 VP token. It really helps me wrap my head around what the card does.
- monument THAT high??? that has not exactly been a power card in the games i've played so far, though admittedly this isn't the greatest sample size. it just seems like all too often you don't have a lot of terminal space for your engine and this doesn't offer enough for a non-drawing one, or it's stuck in a platinum/colony game.
- vagrant as high as it is also surprises me. i get how often it can be a $2 lab in the endgame, but so often it seems worse than pearl diver before that phase.
- another huge "why so high?" for me is squire. i read the big argument in this thread over that one, and at this stage as a player i don't get any argument for having it above hamlet at all.
- one last high ranking i don't get for now is baker. from what i can tell, this seems to be a not unpopular opinion - mic qsenoch sure likes to rag on that card during his streams! "peddler with money smoothing/storing and without the crazy trash-for-benefit potential" seems more on par with market, as far as $5s go.
I'd open Masquerade on a NV/Bridge board. It seems pretty unlikely that Herbalist/Pstone is strong on a board with Masquerade, I'm not even sure it beats Masq BM. It can probably speed up the Ironworks rushes as well, letting you pile out faster in a nonmirror. And it might help you win the Gardens/Silk Road split if it's a mirror.
I'd open Masquerade on a NV/Bridge board. It seems pretty unlikely that Herbalist/Pstone is strong on a board with Masquerade, I'm not even sure it beats Masq BM. It can probably speed up the Ironworks rushes as well, letting you pile out faster in a nonmirror. And it might help you win the Gardens/Silk Road split if it's a mirror.
200 years from now, when the interwebs are being excavated and the dust is swept off of this sentence, the archaeologists will find it untranslatable.