I think it might be some sort of a word puzzle, since there are three cards on the list that are four letter words starting with M, and gardens and goons have the same shell G ----> S. But this may be a red herring.
-- There is almost no other situation where Scout is very useful. It's not even a good sifter, really.
Minion, Tactician, Scrying Pool, Vault, Wishing Well, against Ghost Ship and that is just from the top of my head...
Yes, Scout is bad. But still - he is an ugly cousin of Cartographer and Cartographer is pretty good so...
I really like Scout, it is my most favourite card from this list
Scout can also be an effective counter to Fortune Teller and (much more importantly) Rabble - especially late-game multi-Rabble pins. But Farming Village is an even stronger counter, costs the same, and is useful in a much broader set of circumstances. Scout should have been "draw any green from top four cards, then +1 card +1 action."
I am just saying that its main use is to trash things for greens at the end of the game.Actually the end is probably where its more useful.
Am I missing something or did you just corrected me by saying the same thing?Again - maybe in late midgame, but never at the beggining or at the end.I guess I just misunderstood, a little misleading though.
I am just saying that its main use is to trash things for greens at the end of the game.Actually the end is probably where its more useful.
I did this in the past, here it is again:
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/13/game-20111213-014547-4d8690ef.html
This board averages emptying the entire board (while gaining about 1000 VP) in 12 turns (I've done it in 10).
-- There is almost no other situation where Scout is very useful. It's not even a good sifter, really.
Situation: Trashing Estate into a 4$ with Farmland
What you think you've done: Getting rid of Estate and gaining a great card instead.
What you've actually done: Maikng your Estate worth 1 point more and buying a 4$ instead of 5$ or Gold.
I think MANY people don't get this one...
But you've "made your Estate" remodelable (or Farmlandable) into a Province. So it's not as bad as all that.
Exactly!
I think a lot of people actually don't appreciate how much faster Farmlands can make a deck. Suddenly, you need $6 to start on the Province run, rather than $8. Also, marginal VP gains = tiebreaker in a 4-4 province split.
Farmlands is a card that I initially thought weak, but with time am beginning to see as an essential buy whenever it turns up. Unless there really is an incredible power card at $5, or my deck doesn't have a couple of golds yet, I'd almost always advocate getting the Farmland and changing the estate to a useful $4. What has actually happened is:
...+1 VP net total, ok not great, but every point counts.
...the card slot that was dead from being occupied by an estate is now occupied by a useful card for any trash-for-benefit, and we know that there's at least one trash for benefit card in the set: Farmland. If there's other trash for benefits in the Kingdom, then Farmlands becomes even better!
...a $4 card has been bought.
Compare this to buying a $5 card:
...a $5 card has been bought.
And that's it.
Farmland suddenly looks quite appealing, though obviously the real deciding factor is how much better a $5 card in a given kingdom is than a $4 card.
But as a rule of thumb, I think Farmland, a good card gained and a bad card trashed is worth way more than most $5 action cards
Buying a gold, OTOH, is very different. My general observation is most people don't buy enough gold. In the early to mid game Gold is probably better than Farmland + a great trash (i.e. okay $3-> great $5). In the late game, once you have enough gold in deck, I'd strongly advocate the Farmland if it gives even a slightly worthwhile trash.
The game is more of an example of interesting use of Moat.Using Moat to block any non-curse giving attack? Silly. Using Moat to block a cursing attack? Well, let's analyze this:
Until I block the attack, it is a useless +2 cards. But after the first block, I have a +2 cards inestead of -1 VP! That is great! I wouldn't bought it with 3/4 split (I want a Silver to buy that Witch myself) but anytime I would have 2$ Moat is the right choice.
Moat can be also usefull when your opponent locks you with a powerful reapeating attack (Torturer, KC+Masquerade+Goons, ...) like it did for me in this game: http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120124-191101-2fadf9dd.html
I used to be a Moat hater like you...then I took an arrow to the knee...I mean then I tried to use it wisely and found out it is good...
How dare you counter my irrational hatred with your logic and reason!!
But you also seem to say that you only buy it when there is no other option at $2
I looked at that log and in my completely unexpert opinion, I think you would have won that game quicker if there was a better $2, or you opened 4/3.
But alas, you were forced into buying a terrible moat and got lucky with it. And the last 2 you bought I still cannot see the reason for, you were so far ahead I didnt think you would get much chance of playing them.
I think its just personally I prefer positive action and making my deck stronger rather than reacting to opponents deck.
But on boards with cursers I would choose it over:Of course there are few issues, I wasn't trying to evaluate the Adventurer, I just put the main reason why I think it doesn't belong between the 2 worst cards in the game. Yes, the difference of 0.09 isn't big. But the difference that it can sometimes give you 5$ is something very good. 1 great hand is better than 2 mediacore. Also coppertrashing, heavycursing and Platinum can boost Adventurer. It is a bad card, of course it is! But Thief is good only as a hope and Transmute is good only very very rarely (another potion card+no other trahsing+spare actions).Adventurer - Without other strong terminals on board, Adventurer is good. When you have e.g. Gold, Gold, Silver, Silver and 7 Coppers - Adventurer is stronger than Gold. That is of course still bad, but not worse!
There are a few issues with this analysis. Firstly, this situation makes Adventurer better than Gold by such a small margin that it's virtually ignorable - an average of $3.09 to $3. Better, but the difference is so small it'll hardly matter. Second, there being no other worthwhile terminal on the board (even assuming costing $5 or less) is unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely. Third, by the time you have 2 Gold and 2 Silver, chances are you're going to want to green. So that $6 is probably a mistake spent on an Adventurer, or a Gold. Actually, 2 Silver 2 Gold is an unlikely situation. Something like 3 Silver 2 Gold or 4 Silver 1 Gold is more likely - in the first case, you're even more likely to be Greening. In the second, a Gold is just as good. Finally, as you're likely greening by the time Adventurer becomes worthwhile, the cycling is actually a detriment, holding it back even more.
In short, the situations it'll be good as a lone terminal are unlikely for various reasons, and when it is, it's barely better than Gold anyway.
I voted for Adventurer, by the way. It's not that I think it's a bad card, but it's the card who is least often worthwhile considering it's cost, and when it is, generally doesn't do much better than other cards at it's cost. Perhaps Platinum games with light trashing are the only case where it is can actually shine.
As for Transmute and Thief - Thief is pretty good in 4 player games, and okay in 3 play, reasonably often. Transmute is often totally worthless but occasionally is a very nice card.
I have gone moat.
Its a waste of a card and I think I have only ever bought it once.
Ithas to hit multiple times for it to have been of use, and even then it has less use than people think because its taking your hand down to 4 cards +moat.
The +2 cards is 'alright' but I wouldnt buy it just for that.
I think of it this way.
You buy a moat, if you never use it, you have wasted a buy
If you use it once then all you have done is nullify the attack part of the card. So you have used one buy and a card from hand to negate the attack part of his buy. If his card also does something else, such as draw or +couns then you are still down.
Multiple uses: unless moat is somehow part of your grand scheme, then everytime you draw it you might as well be playing with 4 card hands. Is that enough justification to buy one to counter the attacks? It would have to be a consistant attacking opponent for it to be worthwhile, and then you would only have it when you draw it so you would need to buy multiples for it to be effective.
I really do hate moat, almost as much as an irrational hatred of Woodcutter.
I don't like playing on Mountebank when opponent has a Silver,
Do you mean "when opponent has a trader" ? Otherwise, I don't understand...
But this is a nice game !
Really? I would be shocked if Alchemist didn't get any first-place votes, and Vineyards, Possession, Scrying Pool, and Golem could all snag a few too.
Familiar is the obvious choice, but I bet someome is going to vote Alchemist, Possession, or Scrying Pool. Alchemist and Possession because they're horribly overrated, Scrying Pool because it is really good and deserves to be in the conversation with Familiar.
) will be coming up soon...will it finally have a perfect score? I think both the first and the last card can have it...Last card probably won't because of Possession haters (I hate it too, but it is not Transmute bad), but I cannot imagine putting anything else than Familiar on the top...
I'd say it probably still should be valued at 6$, especially giving your opponent that bonus.I think it works pretty well at $5, and evidently, so did Donald X. and the other Dominion playtesters/developers
How much would a card like this cost?
+2 Cards, +$X, where X is the number of cards you discard. Each other player may discard two cards to draw one.
