The way I see it is this. When I was new, I was told strategies, and I was cool with it. And then there were always strings attached, inconsistencies and edge cases. Nothing was definite, everything had a sort of Descartes and nihilist feel to it. I didn't really know anything and nothing I was taught mattered at all. [...] It's better to just say general truths, and say everything generally works, but has edge cases than to bring up all of the scenarios. Save that for more experienced players, is what I propose.
This is a really important observation. When someone is new and/or stuck in a suboptimal habit, they need simple directions to a new playground, not elaborate minutiae. It's similar to someone struggling with basic high school math asking whether x*y equals y*x. The unequivocally correct answer is "yes, it does!". If someone would interferes by mumbling something about quaternions or matrix algebra, he doesn't deserve applause for being technically correct, he deserves to get kicked out of class.
Advice needs to be tailored to the specific needs of your audience, and in the case of Urchins I saw a lot of players from all levels making gross blunders that my simple prescription would mostly correct. It's silly to presume that this somehow holds people back. Teaching Newtonian gravity in highschool doesn't prevent students from learning General Relativity later; it's actually smuggling in advanced nuances too early that messes up learning the most.
Yes, because clearly I was suggesting we change the Wharf article to literally "Wharf is good". Of course it's pretty useless if that's all you say about it. But I think statements like the one you said can be pretty harmful. I'd much rather read about WHEN it's important to win the Wharf split. What needs to be true about the board for winning the Wharf split to be less essential? And if you don't have time to get into that, then at least qualify your statement with a "usually" or something along those lines so beginners don't read it and start playing robotically by that guideline. Sure, expert players won't take it that way, but then again expert players probably aren't the ones who need to be told that winning the Wharf split is generally important.
I'm probably guilty of adding the "usually" way too often myself.
The thing is, all strategy advice about Dominion depends on the kingdom. Everyone knows that. If I say that you should always try to win the Wharf split, everyone knows that it's not always true. Even if someone memorizes that exact piece of advice, when they come across a kingdom where they don't want to win the Wharf split, they can probably see it themselves, and if not, then they'll just lose that one game and learn a lot. When there's no particular reason why it wouldn't be true, people will follow the advice the way it's supposed to be followed, and win.
If I say that you should usually try to win the Wharf split, and then someone memorizes that, the advice is not as efficient because there are two layers of uncertainty here: the "everything depends on the kingdom" that the person already knows, and my "usually". That adds up, and then there is more of it than necessary, and while it will help them avoid Wharf when they should, it will help them actually go for the Wharves a lot less, and that's the more important part.
If you're writing an article about a card, then you should be knowledgeable and bothered enough to actually explain some useful edge cases for the advice you're giving. There's no need to mention obscure stuff that requires, like, 2 or more cards or a very specific situation, but it's good to mention that being able to play a lot of discard attacks can seriously slow Hermit/Market Square down. But it's not reasonable to demand that every piece of advice given on the Game Reports forum or something like that must be a mini-article covering all the edge cases. It takes time to write, it takes time to read, and it's probably not what the OP (or whoever it is) is looking for. There's also the issue that not every high-level player is perfect. For example, I don't have Governor on Goko or IRL, which is why I'm experienced enough to tell you that you should always buy lots of Governors, but not experienced enough to be able to come up with some relatively common counterexample scenarios on the spot. I don't think that means I'm not allowed to tell people they should buy lots of Governors.
Actually, I would rather say that all high-level Dominion advice necessarily has to be either vague enough that it's entirely useless or "wrong".
Well then that's a pretty sad state of strategic discussion. There's plenty of middle ground between "It depends on the board" and blanket statements. We can say "Wharf is good" and still acknowledge that it's not always the best card and discuss when those exceptions might occur.
"It depends on the board" is a blanket statement.
Sure, we can say "Wharf is good", but that's entirely useless. Saying that Wharf is good doesn't tell anyone how to play games with Wharf in them. "Whenever Wharf is on the board, you want to win the Wharf split" is not always true, but it's much more useful.
Actually, I would rather say that all high-level Dominion advice necessarily has to be either vague enough that it's entirely useless or "wrong".
That's the one with the douchebag creator who ripped off a Dominion fan's artwork, right?
Yes.
For those who aren't aware:
Fan-made Dominion chip set (first):
Puzzle Strike (second):
On last turn you don't care about junking and you could buy extra market squaresIts clear goons board. Points from bishop are completely irrelevant. If you want to use him then to trash coppers.
I would open governor-sage to quickly get two golds for initial economy. Then on 4 procession/fortress 5 governor, 6 goons, 7 kc.
This game would end by turn ten on piles so it would be complicated. Probably a first player to kc-governor to change fortress into three goons will win.
If you avoid Bishop it's so your opponent doesn't get the free trashing, but Bishops in your deck would be extremely useful. The Goons will run fast on a board like this, and with the draw potential on this board a Bishop or two to trash Fortresses isn't a bad idea at all. You can even KC Bishop to trash one Fortress 3 times for 9 VP. The Golds from Governor also make great Bishop fodder, as they net 4 VP each and you don't want too many in your deck, anyway. Goons is certainly the key card here, but I don't at all agree that Bishop is irrelevant.
As I said its goons game. There first player that could three-pile 99% of times simply wins. Trying to bishop fortress will harm you as it doesn't help with being first player to three-pile and opponent would win instead.
Only exception would be if you had 80+ point lead from bishoping fortress, that what archetype got last turn and opponent couldn't end game with win. Also you would be better pointwise to kc a market square/goons with at least three goons in play.
So yes, bishop is completely irrelevant here unless you could trash with it more than opponent.
It's not about racing to empty 3 piles, it's about being the one who actually empties the 3rd pile. In this scenario it's often smart to ease back on emptying piles. In such a situation I think Bishop is really useful. Goons are great and all, but KC doesn't multiply the VP gain. Also I'm not sure what you're saying about Market Square, Goons provides plenty of Buys. Any more and you can't really take advantage of them without junking yourself.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Bishop is a must-buy, but it's got its uses here.
You contradict yourself. Yes, you shouldn't race three piles but build deck that will empty three piles. Getting vp from bishop,monument, colony is mistake as it slows down deck and you couldn't empty three piles while opponent could. As archetype played if he didn't made mistakes like buying platinum instead kings court he could win with same vp at turn 12. If you waste time with bishop you would get perhaps 30 points before game ends.
In this kingdom bishop is mistake. If you bought procession instead then you wouldn't get 9 points probably instantly win. You would kc-procession-fortress to get three governors. On same turn you would remodel governor with governor to kc, then you would kc governor to remodel fortress into three goons. That probably empties goons and governor piles, and with 16 coin and 8 buys empty estates as third pile, game over.
Its clear goons board. Points from bishop are completely irrelevant. If you want to use him then to trash coppers.
I would open governor-sage to quickly get two golds for initial economy. Then on 4 procession/fortress 5 governor, 6 goons, 7 kc.
This game would end by turn ten on piles so it would be complicated. Probably a first player to kc-governor to change fortress into three goons will win.
If you avoid Bishop it's so your opponent doesn't get the free trashing, but Bishops in your deck would be extremely useful. The Goons will run fast on a board like this, and with the draw potential on this board a Bishop or two to trash Fortresses isn't a bad idea at all. You can even KC Bishop to trash one Fortress 3 times for 9 VP. The Golds from Governor also make great Bishop fodder, as they net 4 VP each and you don't want too many in your deck, anyway. Goons is certainly the key card here, but I don't at all agree that Bishop is irrelevant.
As I said its goons game. There first player that could three-pile 99% of times simply wins. Trying to bishop fortress will harm you as it doesn't help with being first player to three-pile and opponent would win instead.
Only exception would be if you had 80+ point lead from bishoping fortress, that what archetype got last turn and opponent couldn't end game with win. Also you would be better pointwise to kc a market square/goons with at least three goons in play.
So yes, bishop is completely irrelevant here unless you could trash with it more than opponent.
I think that ranking cards by cost has become less and less significant.Stonemason is not really Tier 1 if you're actually paying $2 for it though. It almost should be compared more to $6+ cards
Stonemason is a $2 card. For $2, you get the Stonemason card along with a sweet deal on other Action cards. That sweet deal is part of the Stonemason card. The extra money you're paying isn't for Stonemason, it's just money spent in conjunction with what is essentially an on-buy effect to gain cards more easily than you otherwise could. True, it doesn't directly compete with $2 cards, but it doesn't really directly compete with anything given its unique gaining ability, so we might as well rank it with the $2's.
You're not telling me anything I don't know--my point was that for its on-play ability alone I consider it far from Tier 1.
So why are you only considering its on-play ability? Every other card is ranked based on its on-gain, on-buy, on-trash, etc. abilities. Inn would be a lot worse if not for its on-gain ability; Farmland would be strictly worse than a Duchy if not for its on-buy effect. These cards are priced to include those effects, you should consider them in the rankings.
Because you pay $5 for Inn together with its on-gain ability. You pay $6 for Farmland, and perhaps more relevantly for Border Village, with its on-gain ability. You most often pay $7 for Stonemason with its on-gain ability.
I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, but I think it's an interesting question. If you're going to rank it against the other $2s, you maybe should only be considering the part that you can actually get for $2, which is not an elite ability.
Someone better than I am can maybe argue that I'm underestimating Stonemason's on-play effect, which is possible, but for me it often becomes a dead card.
Stonemason's on-play ability is extremely useful. I agree that it would be a pretty weak card if that were all there was to it, but it's not. I just think it's misleading to rank only the overpay cards based on their on-play effects alone when we take on-gain and on-buy effects into account for everything else. I agree that they present a bit of a conundrum for ranking purposes since you pay so many different amounts for the same card, but at the end of the day it's still essentially an on-buy effect, and as such should be factored into the rankings. I see your issue with ranking it with the $2's, but I don't think it makes any more sense to rank it with other costs, and card rankings will ultimately be flawed no matter what system we use. I just think completely ignoring a component of the card, especially a major component that is usually the card's main purpose, is a bad system.
I'd love to see the result of a collective tierization of the cards from the f.ds for. This would be regardless of cost, and mostly based on how deeply their presence affects your strategy.
Tiers could be something like:
F: you could remove this from the kingdom, I'd play exactly the same 99% of the time (eg: Scout)
C: Weakish card, can be useful and even shine, but rarely. (eg: Pirate Ship)
B: Decent card, can be useful and even shine in the right conditions (eg: Village)
A: Strong card, defines a Kingdom and good players will have to consider seriously whether they really want to pass on this. (eg: Witch)
Ü: Almost always a must but, need an excellent reason to pass on this (eg: Rebuild)
This would also have to take into account how some cards (like Thief and Possession) shape the players' strategies even without ever being bought.
(just a random thought, since OP got answered already and the reign of Off Topic has thus begun)
Stonemason is not really Tier 1 if you're actually paying $2 for it though. It almost should be compared more to $6+ cards
Stonemason is a $2 card. For $2, you get the Stonemason card along with a sweet deal on other Action cards. That sweet deal is part of the Stonemason card. The extra money you're paying isn't for Stonemason, it's just money spent in conjunction with what is essentially an on-buy effect to gain cards more easily than you otherwise could. True, it doesn't directly compete with $2 cards, but it doesn't really directly compete with anything given its unique gaining ability, so we might as well rank it with the $2's.
You're not telling me anything I don't know--my point was that for its on-play ability alone I consider it far from Tier 1.
So why are you only considering its on-play ability? Every other card is ranked based on its on-gain, on-buy, on-trash, etc. abilities. Inn would be a lot worse if not for its on-gain ability; Farmland would be strictly worse than a Duchy if not for its on-buy effect. These cards are priced to include those effects, you should consider them in the rankings.
Because you pay $5 for Inn together with its on-gain ability. You pay $6 for Farmland, and perhaps more relevantly for Border Village, with its on-gain ability. You most often pay $7 for Stonemason with its on-gain ability.
I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, but I think it's an interesting question. If you're going to rank it against the other $2s, you maybe should only be considering the part that you can actually get for $2, which is not an elite ability.
Someone better than I am can maybe argue that I'm underestimating Stonemason's on-play effect, which is possible, but for me it often becomes a dead card.
Thief: Gets pretty big in games with many players.
Coppersmith: Besides draw-your-deck strategies, this enables you to gamble for very early very expensive cards like Prince
Nomad Camp: A buy, and when you need it. Also interesting for openings (again, with a little gambling)
Talisman: Strategies that want a big deck or lots of Silvers. Strategies about cheap cards. Cost reduction.
Spy: Also very useless, but at least it's a cantrip. That and the card reveal make it better than Scout allready, attack is just a useless bonus.
Scout can't compete. I'm not sure it's the worst card in Dominion, because Adventurer is a terrible piece of junk too, but i find it very hard to make up any card as bad, especially a card that costs $4. And i'm out of this discussion now, because i don't think statements are given the proper thought here.
(Is this still on topic?)
Game in which Spy+Thief were paramount:
Code: [Select]Native Village, Doctor, Forager, Masquerade, Warehouse, Ironmonger, Spy, Thief, Border Village, Prince
http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20150530/log.516d4577e4b082c74d7b716e.1432990015835.txt
My point: Scout, Spy, Thief, etc. almost always suck. They sometimes win you the game.
I see how Thief is good, but why is Spy so essential? I suppose it helps with NVs, but I'm pretty confident you could win on this board without a single Spy. Am I missing something?
My opponent had bought 2 Golds throughout the course of the game. I didn't buy any. We each bought a Silver or 2 at some point. Those were basically the only economy once the game matured because everything else was thinned out with either Forager, Doctor, or Mask. We each had 2 Thieves. Eventually, we each had Princed a Thief (we had a total of 5 Princes in play, wow!). I had Spies; he did not (I eventually had 2 Spies Princed in addition to 1 Thief). Basically, my Spies enabled me to hit the Golds and Silvers that were in our decks more often than he could the other way around (he was relying on luck to hit treasures in my deck).
Long story short, the Spies helped me put the only treasures on top of my opponent's deck so I could Thief them, and they were pretty much the only economy in either of our decks.
Stonemason is not really Tier 1 if you're actually paying $2 for it though. It almost should be compared more to $6+ cards
Stonemason is a $2 card. For $2, you get the Stonemason card along with a sweet deal on other Action cards. That sweet deal is part of the Stonemason card. The extra money you're paying isn't for Stonemason, it's just money spent in conjunction with what is essentially an on-buy effect to gain cards more easily than you otherwise could. True, it doesn't directly compete with $2 cards, but it doesn't really directly compete with anything given its unique gaining ability, so we might as well rank it with the $2's.
You're not telling me anything I don't know--my point was that for its on-play ability alone I consider it far from Tier 1.
Thief: Gets pretty big in games with many players.
Coppersmith: Besides draw-your-deck strategies, this enables you to gamble for very early very expensive cards like Prince
Nomad Camp: A buy, and when you need it. Also interesting for openings (again, with a little gambling)
Talisman: Strategies that want a big deck or lots of Silvers. Strategies about cheap cards. Cost reduction.
Spy: Also very useless, but at least it's a cantrip. That and the card reveal make it better than Scout allready, attack is just a useless bonus.
Scout can't compete. I'm not sure it's the worst card in Dominion, because Adventurer is a terrible piece of junk too, but i find it very hard to make up any card as bad, especially a card that costs $4. And i'm out of this discussion now, because i don't think statements are given the proper thought here.
(Is this still on topic?)
Game in which Spy+Thief were paramount:Code: [Select]Native Village, Doctor, Forager, Masquerade, Warehouse, Ironmonger, Spy, Thief, Border Village, Prince
http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20150530/log.516d4577e4b082c74d7b716e.1432990015835.txt
My point: Scout, Spy, Thief, etc. almost always suck. They sometimes win you the game.
Stonemason is not really Tier 1 if you're actually paying $2 for it though. It almost should be compared more to $6+ cards
Its clear goons board. Points from bishop are completely irrelevant. If you want to use him then to trash coppers.
I would open governor-sage to quickly get two golds for initial economy. Then on 4 procession/fortress 5 governor, 6 goons, 7 kc.
This game would end by turn ten on piles so it would be complicated. Probably a first player to kc-governor to change fortress into three goons will win.
Well, Raze isn't a cantrip trasher when it's trashing Coppers, and that's pretty important. Personally I think it looks really weak, but I haven't played with it and certainly could be wrong. Ratcatcher, on the other hand, looks great simply by virtue of it taking up no space in your deck and removing itself once you're done with it.
To be fair, Raze also removes itself once you're done with it. It can trash itself. As I've said before, I think Raze is sort of a waste of a slot in Adventures because it's so redundant there. I would have preferred to see it in a theoretical later set or as a promo.
I don't like Governor or Minion as their different options self-synergise into a single card strategy.
If you play minions as a single card strategy, you're doing something pretty wrong.
Raze and Ratcatcher in tier 2? But they're not even good!
Both are cantrip one card trashers, but they have other effects too. Both have the ability to remove themselves from your deck once they are not needed. Raze accelerates your deck by sifting, and can trash itself after you have finished trashing. It also has a psuedo-Demonic Tutor effect, where you can look ahead and take a card you want out of a selection of cards. Ratcatcher has the nice effect of being there when you need it, and does not take up space in your hand. It is nice for games with junkers, because you can use it whenever you draw junk in your hand.
My opponent just went Laboratory-BM, with an Altar to gain more Laboratories.
You said nothing about Durations from last turn, which are not set aside. Trivial answer is there are 9 each of Caravan, Wharf and Haunted Woods from last turn in play, as well as 9 Hirelings.
This certainly still wouldn't be enough would it? By my count those durations draw 63 cards at the beginning of your turn, and that's barely enough to draw the 59 Coppers in your deck, let alone everything else.
I'm not sure about the solution. Scrying Pool+Madman occurred to me, but I think actions would make up less than half your deck no matter how you cut it.
The 9 HW's have 9 KC's on them, Wharves have TR's, 5 of the Hirelings have Disciples. There are also 9 Havens from last turn, and 9 RC'd Gears. That's 185 cards right there.
You said nothing about Durations from last turn, which are not set aside. Trivial answer is there are 9 each of Caravan, Wharf and Haunted Woods from last turn in play, as well as 9 Hirelings.
It doesn't really matter what it has relative to cards like Festival and Necropolis.
How does it not matter? If someone asked me what advantages Hamlet has over Festival, I would absolutely mention that Hamlet allows you to switch out the worst of your other 4 cards for the next card on your deck if you want, while still getting either the village or +Buy effect that Festival gives you. That's what sifting is. Why does a word only apply to a card if that's why you buy it? I'm not going to buy Hamlet just for the sifting, but if I'm trying to decide if I should buy a Hamlet or a Festival, then the additional sifting effect that you get with Hamlet that you don't get with Festival very well could influence that decision. Does that make it a "sifter"? Well I would say so, but I don't really care because that's just semantics and not really useful for strategic discussions. But to say it has no sifting properties is just incorrect.
Hamlet has no sifting properties. The fact that other cards are worse than nothing for the purpose of sifting doesn't mean that a card that is exactly as good as nothing is a sifter. Saying that it is, is as good as saying that it produces virtual coin (after all, it does produce more virtual coin than Storyteller and Poor House in the situations where those cards give you negative coins), or that it increases the costs of all cards (after all, it does increase the costs of all cards more than Highway does).
And I would think it worth mentioning that Hamlet leaves you with more virtual coin than cards that spend coins in the event that you were comparing the two. I wouldn't say it gives you "virtual coin" because that actually has a well-established meaning, but then again I'd say Poor House technically gives "virtual coin" even if it nets you $0, so maybe the technical terms have the potential to be misleading. You say Hamlet gives no sifting? Alright, well then Festival gives negative sifting and it's still a comparison worth making.
That doesn't make sense at all. Hamlet does not sift any more than Festival does. Are you just ignoring my posts?How does it not matter? If someone asked me what advantages Hamlet has over Festival, I would absolutely mention that Hamlet allows you to switch out the worst of your other 4 cards for the next card on your deck if you want, while still getting either the village or +Buy effect that Festival gives you. That's what sifting is.
That's what sifting is, but that's not what Hamlet does. You are not switching out the worst of your other 4 cards for the next card. You don't discard for that card; you get it either way. You are discarding that card for either +1 action or +1 buy, which is discard-for-benefit, or not discarding it at all.
