Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jsh357]

I ranked Stonemason #7.  It's certainly a great card, but I feel like often it isn't 'good' so much as it makes games end really quickly.  Can be a double edged sword too.  That said, depending on how one is interpreting ratings, I can certainly see it being in the top 3.

[Beyond Awesome]

I'm most curious to see where Stonemason gets ranked. I put it very high. It can be a super powerful cards in some kingdoms.

Me too, I had it as the #1 $2 card.

I ranked it #2. I don't think it is better than Chapel. But, you can do some amazing pile stuff with that card.

[Powerman]

Pawn not being in the bottom 10 is ridiculous.  It is really bad.  Really bad.

You're wrong about Pawn. Non-terminal +buy is good. Most engines need +buy, and many don't have a lot of terminal actions to spare. And the fact that you can just cycle it if you don't need the buy this turn makes it low risk, high reward. It's only borderline top 10, but it's definitely not "really bad".

Pawn is IMO the fourth best (potential) non-terminal +buy of the $2 cards, WAY after hamlet and candlestick maker, and after squire (yes it can't be +buy and non-terminal, but bleh).  +Buy isn't as rare as it was in intrigue.  +1 action / +1 buy is weak.  If that's the best use of a card, count me out.

[Awaclus]

Pawn not being in the bottom 10 is ridiculous.  It is really bad.  Really bad.

You're wrong about Pawn. Non-terminal +buy is good. Most engines need +buy, and many don't have a lot of terminal actions to spare. And the fact that you can just cycle it if you don't need the buy this turn makes it low risk, high reward. It's only borderline top 10, but it's definitely not "really bad".

Pawn is IMO the fourth best (potential) non-terminal +buy of the $2 cards, WAY after hamlet and candlestick maker, and after squire (yes it can't be +buy and non-terminal, but bleh).  +Buy isn't as rare as it was in intrigue.  +1 action / +1 buy is weak.  If that's the best use of a card, count me out.

I agree that it's the fourth best (Squire is better than CM, though), but it's not at all weak.

[markusin]

Pawn not being in the bottom 10 is ridiculous.  It is really bad.  Really bad.

You're wrong about Pawn. Non-terminal +buy is good. Most engines need +buy, and many don't have a lot of terminal actions to spare. And the fact that you can just cycle it if you don't need the buy this turn makes it low risk, high reward. It's only borderline top 10, but it's definitely not "really bad".

Pawn is IMO the fourth best (potential) non-terminal +buy of the $2 cards, WAY after hamlet and candlestick maker, and after squire (yes it can't be +buy and non-terminal, but bleh).  +Buy isn't as rare as it was in intrigue.  +1 action / +1 buy is weak.  If that's the best use of a card, count me out.

But it does other things. Don't forget about the +1 card/+1coin option. That one is pretty good when it works out. And it can turn that +action into coin or draw if you want the buy and don't need the extra action.

It's just a nice card all around.

[flies]

i'm really surprised by vagrant being so low.  It's pretty boring, but it's very nice in lots of decks, most notably vineyards and dual type victory cards, and slogs in general.  I'd say it helps way more often than haven. 

I think haven has taken a real hit with coin tokens, which make the money smoothing haven offers more readily available.

[markusin]

I see Haven as being a sort of trap card. If you get too many, you end up transferring cards from one hand into another hand full of Havens. It's a mini-mini Tactician.

Sure, you can argue that you can transfer excess villages to your next hand after you've drawn your deck, but how often are you going to draw your deck while still having extra villages? And are you really going to transfer a Village to your next hand instead of drawing with it on the current turn? Maybe, but it hurts a hand might have been awesome depending on what the village drew.

[Mic Qsenoch]

Haven isn't for money smoothing, it's for action smoothing.

As to markusin's objection that you rarely have an unplayed action to put back, I'd say that there are a number of scenarios where that isn't uncommon.

- Gainers may cause you to be flooded with Villages, if the terminal draw is at a price point > $4.
- Your deck may be really big, with a sizable amount of junk still left. In these cases you often want more engine pieces than the bare minimum needed to achieve your goal for each turn, just for consistency.
- Your deck composition may be rapidly changing in a way that leads you to have a little extra draw. Two examples: you finally acquire and play a Forge on a big hand, you use Altar to replace junk cards with Stables/Lab/Hunting Party/Whatever. In general, slower trashing can lead to this situation.
- Handsize attacks are a big case, it can be useful to overbuild draw in these cases to fight the attack and, even more importantly, deny draw resources to your opponent.

Anyway, Haven still isn't that great, but it can still be relevant on a decent number of boards.

[shark_bait]

The thing about Vagrant is that it is *conditionally* helpful in your deck.  When you hit that VP card or Curse it's awesome because it's a $2-Cost lab.  Sure you can combo it with cards like Apothecary and Mystic but it's not the kind of card you gain to build your deck around.  Things like Squire, Stonemason and Chapel are exceptionally good in the role they fill, which very often define the course of the game.  Vagrant on the other hand is marginally good at a role that doesn't significantly altar how you would choose to play a given kingdom.

I'm not saying that Vagrant is bad.  I myself think it's a very good card even though I ranked it similarly in my own list.  It's just that when you compare Vagrant directly to other cards it gets ranked worse because it doesn't have as defined a role and only does that role part of the time.

[Powerman]

Pawn not being in the bottom 10 is ridiculous.  It is really bad.  Really bad.

Embargo is definitely better than 14th.  It is one of the few 2's that actually effects the overall strategy of the game (along with Chapel, Fool's Gold and maaayyybee lighthouse).  Anyway, should be top 10.

maybe lighthouse? 

Lighthouse 100% effects the overall strategy if there is a strong attack on the board.  But not if there isn't one.  So it's conditional (although stronger) kind of like Embargo.

[Powerman]

Pawn not being in the bottom 10 is ridiculous.  It is really bad.  Really bad.

You're wrong about Pawn. Non-terminal +buy is good. Most engines need +buy, and many don't have a lot of terminal actions to spare. And the fact that you can just cycle it if you don't need the buy this turn makes it low risk, high reward. It's only borderline top 10, but it's definitely not "really bad".

Pawn is IMO the fourth best (potential) non-terminal +buy of the $2 cards, WAY after hamlet and candlestick maker, and after squire (yes it can't be +buy and non-terminal, but bleh).  +Buy isn't as rare as it was in intrigue.  +1 action / +1 buy is weak.  If that's the best use of a card, count me out.

But it does other things. Don't forget about the +1 card/+1coin option. That one is pretty good when it works out. And it can turn that +action into coin or draw if you want the buy and don't need the extra action.

It's just a nice card all around.

+1 Card / +1 coin still isn't good.  I'd argue that effect is worse than Duchess or Moat's +2 bonus, and those are considered two of the worst $2's and they have other attractions (defense / free with duchy+spying).

So yes, I know it's flexible, but putting together a bunch of options that are all between awful and situationally weak, does not make a strong card.  Pawn is alright to pick up on exactly $2 if there aren't any other $2's, but that's about all it's got going for it.

[Powerman]

Pawn not being in the bottom 10 is ridiculous.  It is really bad.  Really bad.

You're wrong about Pawn. Non-terminal +buy is good. Most engines need +buy, and many don't have a lot of terminal actions to spare. And the fact that you can just cycle it if you don't need the buy this turn makes it low risk, high reward. It's only borderline top 10, but it's definitely not "really bad".

Pawn is IMO the fourth best (potential) non-terminal +buy of the $2 cards, WAY after hamlet and candlestick maker, and after squire (yes it can't be +buy and non-terminal, but bleh).  +Buy isn't as rare as it was in intrigue.  +1 action / +1 buy is weak.  If that's the best use of a card, count me out.

I agree that it's the fourth best (Squire is better than CM, though), but it's not at all weak.

Sorry for the triple post, but in terms of a nonterminal buy I think CM is better than squire, just because you need 2 squires to get the nonterminal buy.  Overall card strength, Squire may be better.

[Tables]

You can't tell me that Haven or Poor House is impactful more often than Moat.

Poor House is impactful more often than Moat.

Since it screws up your Remakes

[markusin]

Pawn not being in the bottom 10 is ridiculous.  It is really bad.  Really bad.

You're wrong about Pawn. Non-terminal +buy is good. Most engines need +buy, and many don't have a lot of terminal actions to spare. And the fact that you can just cycle it if you don't need the buy this turn makes it low risk, high reward. It's only borderline top 10, but it's definitely not "really bad".

Pawn is IMO the fourth best (potential) non-terminal +buy of the $2 cards, WAY after hamlet and candlestick maker, and after squire (yes it can't be +buy and non-terminal, but bleh).  +Buy isn't as rare as it was in intrigue.  +1 action / +1 buy is weak.  If that's the best use of a card, count me out.

But it does other things. Don't forget about the +1 card/+1coin option. That one is pretty good when it works out. And it can turn that +action into coin or draw if you want the buy and don't need the extra action.

It's just a nice card all around.

+1 Card / +1 coin still isn't good.  I'd argue that effect is worse than Duchess or Moat's +2 bonus, and those are considered two of the worst $2's and they have other attractions (defense / free with duchy+spying).

So yes, I know it's flexible, but putting together a bunch of options that are all between awful and situationally weak, does not make a strong card.  Pawn is alright to pick up on exactly $2 if there aren't any other $2's, but that's about all it's got going for it.

+1 card +1 coin is still Peddler if you have actions to spare. Worse that Moat that's equivalent to lab, but Pawn isless likely to draw stuff dead. And it can always be a cantrip.

[c4master]

I see Haven as being a sort of trap card. If you get too many, you end up transferring cards from one hand into another hand full of Havens. It's a mini-mini Tactician.

Sure, you can argue that you can transfer excess villages to your next hand after you've drawn your deck, but how often are you going to draw your deck while still having extra villages? And are you really going to transfer a Village to your next hand instead of drawing with it on the current turn? Maybe, but it hurts a hand might have been awesome depending on what the village drew.

Given the choice to either draw 2 hands with 5 cards or one hand with 4 cards and then one hand with 6 cards, I would most likely do the latter.
And that's why I think, haven is good.
Second, it allows you to slightly overbuy action cards, since you could just pass a terminal to your next turn and see, if you can use it there.
I agree, that getting lots of havens won't get you anywhere fast. But I can hardly imagine a situation where I hit $2 and still don't want to buy at least one or two havens.

---

It's also great for trashing, so you can either "rescue" a good card and chapel the rest away or draw one more in a hand, where you want to chapel anyways (like passing a curse).

[markusin]

I see Haven as being a sort of trap card. If you get too many, you end up transferring cards from one hand into another hand full of Havens. It's a mini-mini Tactician.

Sure, you can argue that you can transfer excess villages to your next hand after you've drawn your deck, but how often are you going to draw your deck while still having extra villages? And are you really going to transfer a Village to your next hand instead of drawing with it on the current turn? Maybe, but it hurts a hand might have been awesome depending on what the village drew.

Given the choice to either draw 2 hands with 5 cards or one hand with 4 cards and then one hand with 6 cards, I would most likely do the latter.
And that's why I think, haven is good.
Second, it allows you to slightly overbuy action cards, since you could just pass a terminal to your next turn and see, if you can use it there.
I agree, that getting lots of havens won't get you anywhere fast. But I can hardly imagine a situation where I hit $2 and still don't want to buy at least one or two havens.

A 4 and 6 card hand isn't that great, actually. If you really need a 6 cost card, then maybe. However, if you're looking to get lots of cards at the $4 or $5 price point, you might find yourself just passing an estate or something to your next hand.

How much does it really let you overterminal? You'll just be passing terminal action cards to another hand where they'll collide with terminals if you have too many. Haven is better for mitigating bad luck in an otherwise decent deck.

I've found Haven to be pretty effective when you're trying to spike high Provinces/Colonies or something in an environment that normally makes it difficult to do so (lots of attacks, for example). Then you're more willing to pass over cards like Gold.

[7string]

Reserved

Ahh...no new ratings revealed today 

You really know how to build suspense Qvist!  Oh...is that why its says "Torturer" next to your user name?...Chinese water torture the specialty?  drip....drip....drip....

[GreyICE]

I'm shocked Secret Chamber is at the bottom.  I kind of feel any card that enables me to buy 3 Colonies in a single turn should at least be acknowledged to be situationally good (even if the situation is just one card).

Pearl Diver, on the other hand, is so amazingly bad.  I guess it kinda works with Peddler, maybe...

[Awaclus]

I'm shocked Secret Chamber is at the bottom.  I kind of feel any card that enables me to buy 3 Colonies in a single turn should at least be acknowledged to be situationally good (even if the situation is just one card).

Pearl Diver, on the other hand, is so amazingly bad.  I guess it kinda works with Peddler, maybe...

Pearl Diver is never bad. It's a cantrip with a bonus.

[florrat]

Pearl Diver is never bad. It's a cantrip with a bonus.

Drawing action cards dead, not knowing what to discard to discard attacks, digging cards which should dig for other cards instead (like with Golem, Farming Village, Journeyman, maybe Hunting Party)*, and of course opportunity cost.

There are plenty of reasons why Pearl Diver is not "never bad". Pure cantrips or cantrips with an almost negligible bonus can certainly be bad for some decks, probably the easiest to see is for Terminal Draw Big Money.

*You rather want to draw a good card than a cantrip which draws only an average card

[GreyICE]

So you mean it messes up terminal draw actions and obscures what's actually in your hand when you're discarding, all for the wonderful benefit of... a completely negligible bonus? 

Woah.

(and yes, it's quite often extremely bad)

[Awaclus]

Pearl Diver is never bad. It's a cantrip with a bonus.

Drawing action cards dead, not knowing what to discard to discard attacks, digging cards which should dig for other cards instead (like with Golem, Farming Village, Journeyman, maybe Hunting Party)*, and of course opportunity cost.

There are plenty of reasons why Pearl Diver is not "never bad". Pure cantrips or cantrips with an almost negligible bonus can certainly be bad for some decks, probably the easiest to see is for Terminal Draw Big Money.

Golem and Hunting Party might be reasons to skip Pearl Diver at $2, an opponent's Militia is not. The bonus is not as negligible as you think.

[Jean-Michel]

I think cantrips are generally overrated. Their bonuses are just too small. Pearl Diver, Haven, Pawn and especially Hamlet are too high in this list IMO.

[markusin]

I think cantrips are generally overrated. Their bonuses are just too small. Pearl Diver, Haven, Pawn and especially Hamlet are too high in this list IMO.

At least the opportunity cost of buying a 2 cost card for $2 is generally small.

Great Hall, on the other hand...

[Tables]

I'm shocked Secret Chamber is at the bottom.  I kind of feel any card that enables me to buy 3 Colonies in a single turn should at least be acknowledged to be situationally good (even if the situation is just one card).

Pearl Diver, on the other hand, is so amazingly bad.  I guess it kinda works with Peddler, maybe...

Secret Chamber isn't going to enable 3 colony turns almost ever. The occasional draw and discard engine can make use of it, if your drawing is exceptionally good, but those cases are extremely rare. Meanwhile Pearl Diver gives a generally small but useful ability and as a cantrip, it's often completely non-damaging.

Really this whole argument just comes down to how you evaluate the cards. Pearl Diver worth buying with $2 hands way more often than Secret Chamber is, but Secret Chamber has the potential to be a significant engine component, which Pearl Diver... doesn't.