Second, I'm not sure whether I would get a second Marauder over a third silver.
Almost in any scenario, you should. Falling back in the junking race voluntarily sounds very weak.
Even if the Hag player archieves 2 attacks per shuffle, he needs 5 shuffles (plus two initial ones to get hte hags) to deal all the curses. That's 7 shuffles. Without trashing or sifting that is quite impossible. Assuming an average of 25 cards (10 starting cards, 4-5 junks, 2 sea hags, rest silver and other bought cards) that would be 7*25/5=35 turns.
So, I'm pointing out, that without any kind of sifting or trashing, you would need to much time, to deal all the curses. The difference between dealing 4 curses and dealing 7 curses is not that amazing, I think, especially, since your not dealing them more quickly with 3 hags than with 2 and only slightly more quickly with 2 than with only 1.
I've played many games, where I found myself buying one junk card, but not the second. Even if I lose the split 7-3, it might be worth it not haven a dead card in your deck.
This said, I might be tempted to get a hag after the Marauder, just in order to not get all the curses, if that is possible in the first place (say, there is sifting by Cellar).
So strictly saying, both players get 2 attack cards and two silvers is surely not the best idea.
Well, I just picked the most common example...
OK. It's most common, but it might not always be correct play.
the Hag player really needs to buy at least two silver in order to get his economy running. The Marauder player doesn't necessarily have to do so. So, if there is cool stuff at a level of $3 or $2, the Marauder player might be favorised. If there is no easy card, I want to get, hitting $5 is still easier for the Marauder because then he buys only one Marauder and 3 silvers netting him roughly 90% chance to hit $5 at least once before turn 8.
Almost any of the 203 other cards changes smth in favor of marauder or hag, but where's the significant relevance?
You do not play a 2-card-kingdom. You play with 10 (or 11) kingdom cards and I believe, it's hard to find a combination of cards, where both, Hag and Marauder are present and I would not prefer Marauder over Hag.
My point here is: Marauder is more flexible and allows more combination with other kingdom cards than hag does - in general. This is because a Sea Hag doesn't provide any benefit, espacially no economy.
Third, why is the Hag player going first?
He does so in every second game. If the Marauder player goes first, there is just no difference in the chance of hitting 5$, I said so (see a)).
Ok, I got this wrong.
Still, if the second player opened Hag instead of Marauder, there would be no better chance for him to hit $5, but a worse!
If you're trying to explain: "As P1 I would rather get Sea Hag than Marauder because it hurts P2 so much.", I'm pretty fine with that. I believe
by now that P1 has kind of an equally well choice - or nearly as good as Marauder at least. Thank you for making this clear.
As shark bait pointed out, there is still the comparison of high variance vs. low variance.
Yeah, but I am almost sure, that doesn't change a lot ... maybe I'll explain that later.
I don't want to calculate the exact chance of hitting 5 neither for marauder nor the hag, that's way too complicated. Though, I am persuaded that variance won't help the marauder player much, let me try to construct some kind of upper bound:
i) The overall chance to hit $5 is very similar
I guess that before T8 the odds...
for the marauder player to get $5 (at least once) are close to 85%, at most 90%.
for the hag player to get $5 (at least once) are close to 80%.
I am almost sure that the difference is lower than 10%.
"At least once" is not the same as "on average". By the way, to counter this:
- Whenever you have a Hag in your hand, you need either two Silvers and at least one Copper or one Silver and three Coppers to hit $5. So, chances are pretty high, that these hands don't provide $5.
- You could also look it at that way: Whenever I have a Spoils in my hand, my chance of hitting $5 is roughly 90-95%. Without a Spoils, my chances are as good as those from the Hag player if I was not attacked the turn before and slightly lower if I have been attacked.
- Getting a good card early can really change anything. I'd say those cards will be important: Laboratory, Library, Witch, Adventurer (Spoils are treasures!), Minion, Trading Post, Upgrade, Ghost Ship, Merchant Ship. Tactician, Wharf, Mountebank, Rabble, Vault, Venture, Goons, Hoard, Hunting Party, Carthographer, Embassy, IGG, Inn, Margrave, Stables, Border Village, Farmland (for trashing and province spiking), Catacombs, Count, Counterfeit, Cultist, Junk Dealer, Rebuild, Altar, some Knights, Baker, Butcher, Journeyman, Merchant Guild and Governor. And these are only those cards, that obviously change things.
ii) If you agree with my argumentation that the average economy is pretty similar before T8, a huge variance would mean both more strong and more weak hands
Even if the difference wasn't 10% but 15%, it would have a reason, namely some other bad moves the marauder player has to expect. This includes the disastrous 1/12 chance that the marauder gets discarded before the first play, but the most common accident will be a $2-hand. Thus, for every time the marauder player gets a $5 instead of a silver, he will often get a weak card instead of a silver in another hand.
While a Cellar is not such a strong card for the Hag, it's awesome for the Maurader. Marauder/Embargo embargoing silver seems nice. Marauder/Duchess is a soft counter for this hag stuff. A few Candlestick Makers don't hurt. Squire, Beggar, even Poor House all seem fine. There's hardly any $2 card I wouldn't get if I missed $3 with a Marauder.
iii) If so: in a slog, two silvers is a brilliant thing
Now, let's stick to the expected difference of 15%, and let's say that in these cases, the Marauder player gets 5-2, while the hag player gets 4-3. Will that change the game? Usually, it won't:
4-3 provides at least two silvers, which is great in a slog; to get advantages from bigger variance,
there has to be strong 2's and 5's, but no strong 4's and 3's.
If so, you will probably use that advantage only up to three times;
That's wrong. Just assume Stables, Carthographer or Adventurer.
And also, 15% is wrong. You'll get both, $5 cards earlier and more of them.
compound interest is virtually negligeable in a slog.
Now multiply these advantages by an optimistic three and an exaggerated 0.15, and even then, the resulting advantage won't be impressive:
0.45 * (strength of two cards costing 5$/2$ - strength of two cards costing 4$/$3).
That's either negative or almost nothing.
I don't think so. You're doing this wrong.
PS: There's also a kind of meta-argument that makes me so certain about the hag's strength in this scenario. Thinking about good game design, comparing two 4$-cards, there has to be some moments where the one outshines the other and vice versa. Now, whenever the junk can be trashed, marauder is better than the hag; example given, in the presence of forager, upgrade, junk dealer ...
So, there has to be some other moments where the hag outperforms marauder - and i really wonder:
Where do you expect the hag to be stronger than marauder, if not in a game without trashing?
When is Scout better than Sea Hag? When is Thief better than Marauder? When is Thief better than Noble Brigand?
It was really cool, if these arguments held, but I fear, some cards shine only very rarely.
The answer is:
I expect Sea Hag to be almost anytime minor to Marauder. That's just what I try to explain the whole time.
btw: I do have changed my mind a bit: If there is no junking and no other cursing I might pick up a Sea Hag on the second shuffle. Maybe.