Print

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

[AdamH]

I find:

STOP DOING THAT!!!

on it's own kind of confusing, because it's hard for me to figure out what "that" is.  Based on your previous sentence, it sounds like "that" is trying to use Jacks in engines.  Based on the subsequent paragraph, it sounds like "that" is thinking of Jack as a big-money only card.

That could just be me not reading carefully enough, but you're talking about two opposing things and giving some reasons that both of them have validity, so I think it makes the antecedent of "that" a little ambiguous.

I like the delivery, but if it's getting in the way of my point then I should just get rid of it and re-word.

+1 that post if you agree, if it has any significant number of +1s then I'll change it. Thanks for your feedback! 

[Witherweaver]

I find:

STOP DOING THAT!!!

on it's own kind of confusing, because it's hard for me to figure out what "that" is.  Based on your previous sentence, it sounds like "that" is trying to use Jacks in engines.  Based on the subsequent paragraph, it sounds like "that" is thinking of Jack as a big-money only card.

That could just be me not reading carefully enough, but you're talking about two opposing things and giving some reasons that both of them have validity, so I think it makes the antecedent of "that" a little ambiguous.

I like the delivery, but if it's getting in the way of my point then I should just get rid of it and re-word.

+1 that post if you agree, if it has any significant number of +1s then I'll change it. Thanks for your feedback! 

I just think you should spell out what "that" is in the sentence.  Since it's bolded on its own line, the eyes are drawn to it, which discourages reading stuff around it.  So my suggestion would be to make the sentence self contained.

[soulnet]

I think people vastly overestimate the number of situations where Silver is a bad card for your deck. I also think that people are less inclined to use Silvers as an additional payload for their engine when there is another viable payload available -- why not both?

Usually, playing the terminal Attack every turn is priority number one of an engine for a long time, and Silver does not help. Getting to play Sea Hag, Knights or Saboteur is more important than the extra $2 most often than not, and of course playing the terminal Silvers or drawing Attacks is even better for the engine. If you gained a card that is no better than Silver for your engine, you are probably doing the wrong thing. If all your cards are better than Silver, then each Silver in your hand is there instead of a better card. You only want Silvers if you are overdrawing your deck anyway, or you are getting Silvers to replace something worse or to be replaced for something better in the future.

Of course, the number of times you can overdraw your deck is not that small. If you can alternate a Fishing Village and a Wharf gain every turn, a Silver per turn will be fine and add to your buying power. I guess FV+Wharf would be a good engine to add JoaT to.

[Polk5440]

I think people vastly overestimate the number of situations where Silver is a bad card for your deck. I also think that people are less inclined to use Silvers as an additional payload for their engine when there is another viable payload available -- why not both?

Usually, playing the terminal Attack every turn is priority number one of an engine for a long time, and Silver does not help. Getting to play Sea Hag, Knights or Saboteur is more important than the extra $2 most often than not...

I would argue this list of attacks (along with Rogue) are at THE TOP of the list of attacks in which you should strongly consider adding Jack to your deck at the start of the game. Rogue, Knights, and Sab because they are trashing stuff from your deck (hit that free Silver!) and Sea Hag because it reduces handsize (when you play it) and puts the curse on your deck for Jack to draw when your opponent plays it.

[popsofctown]

Unless you already have a dead card in your hand for Jack to hit, so then you discard the curse.

[flies]

There are many decks where you don't even want gold, where you wish that bandit camp were just a village.  "Silver's a really good card" and all, but sometimes it's basically junk.  Weak trashing is going to create this situation quite often, and of course there are decks that want no treasure at all, like minion. 

[AdamH]

I was under the impression that with only weak trashing available, decks that are so fragile that Silver gets in the way are much less viable. But even if you're going for that deck, Jack still helps you get there because whatever is trashing your Copper is almost certainly going to trash Silvers (and your Jack) when you don't need them anymore, while the Silvers have helped you buy your cool stuff.

I'm not trying to say that Jack is amazing in every engine; if you want to stop gaining Silvers then stop playing Jack, just like if you want to stop trashing cards you stop playing your trasher.

Minion+Jack is better than just Minion and just Jack. The game you linked seems to me like a Highway+MS+Minion deck which definitely doesn't want treasures.

I feel like I'm trying to say "the decks where you don't have any use at all for Jack in your engine are really rare, and much rarer than people think right now" and people are telling me "But what about the decks that don't have any use at all for Jack?"

Yeah they're there, but that's not my point. Am I not communicating this effectively?

[soulnet]

I think people vastly overestimate the number of situations where Silver is a bad card for your deck. I also think that people are less inclined to use Silvers as an additional payload for their engine when there is another viable payload available -- why not both?

Usually, playing the terminal Attack every turn is priority number one of an engine for a long time, and Silver does not help. Getting to play Sea Hag, Knights or Saboteur is more important than the extra $2 most often than not...

I would argue this list of attacks (along with Rogue) are at THE TOP of the list of attacks in which you should strongly consider adding Jack to your deck at the start of the game. Rogue, Knights, and Sab because they are trashing stuff from your deck (hit that free Silver!) and Sea Hag because it reduces handsize (when you play it) and puts the curse on your deck for Jack to draw when your opponent plays it.

I was arguing against how often Silver can hurt your deck. I agree with your previous point, if you are losing cards, it is good to have Silvers to defend, but you are assuming a mirror and I was just saying if MY deck is such and such, then Silver is bad to have around. If you are gaining Silvers to trash them to opponents Attacks or to TfB or fodder to Forager or Mercenary or any other thing, then its perfectly fine, because you are not really bloating your deck with it, just mantaining your deck.

[soulnet]

I feel like I'm trying to say "the decks where you don't have any use at all for Jack in your engine are really rare, and much rarer than people think right now" and people are telling me "But what about the decks that don't have any use at all for Jack?"

Maybe because in the article there is no mention to "stop playing Jack" or "when not to Buy jack" and it feels a bit like a praise to JoaT. I think you make very good points, so I am not trying to tear down your article, just think you are overselling a bit and defending the Silver gaining as something more useful in the long run than it actually is in many cases.

Let me put it this way: If Silver gaining was optional, Jack would be a LOT better for engines that cannot trash Silver effectively.

[theright555J]

I just watched the two linked videos. Both were very well played games!

But both also featured Spice Merchant, which was HUGE for copper and eventually silver trashing. How well do you think Jack works in the engine if SM is Moneylender instead, especially without shelters?

[AdamH]

I feel like I'm trying to say "the decks where you don't have any use at all for Jack in your engine are really rare, and much rarer than people think right now" and people are telling me "But what about the decks that don't have any use at all for Jack?"

Maybe because in the article there is no mention to "stop playing Jack" or "when not to Buy jack" and it feels a bit like a praise to JoaT. I think you make very good points, so I am not trying to tear down your article, just think you are overselling a bit and defending the Silver gaining as something more useful in the long run than it actually is in many cases.

Let me put it this way: If Silver gaining was optional, Jack would be a LOT better for engines that cannot trash Silver effectively.

Point taken. I should put something in the article about not playing Jack anymore.

But part of what I want to do is defend silver gaining as a good thing -- most people see Jack and say "I don't want Silver in my engine" a lot where either 1. Silver is actually good for them or 2. the benefits of having Jack to set up outweigh the costs of Silver being in the deck or having to trash it later.

I just watched the two linked videos. Both were very well played games!

But both also featured Spice Merchant, which was HUGE for copper and eventually silver trashing. How well do you think Jack works in the engine if SM is Moneylender instead, especially without shelters?

In the Wharf/Conspirator engine game, I never needed to trash Silvers and could have easily Jack-trashed whatever Copper trasher I used. No problems.

In the Minion game it would have been more complicated for sure, but in that game the fact that Moneylender is terminal would have really affected the way I built that deck, more so than the fact that it couldn't trash Coppers. It would have weakened the Minion stack a lot and made me want to go for Scrying Pool for draw, which means I probably still want Jack but I want to stop playing it much sooner.

[jomini]

One of the big things that helps with Jack is how quickly it makes just about any hand a consistent $5 or better. Take something like Lookout. Normally Lookout is utter crap as it nerfs your current hand and also prevents you from buying big cost cards. Jack can draw back the "lost" card, gets a better draw from Lookout's sifting, and adds silvers so you quickly hit $5 and $6 even with a Lookout/money hand. Virtually all non-terminal trashing works exceedingly well with Jack. Or take some of the weakest trashing, like Trade Route. Normally, Trade route is something like a -$1 to -$3 when you play it (e.g. could have been a silver, gives nothing until someone buys a green, and kills a copper), but with Jack and villages, you can trash out draw back up; as a bonus, you can power up your Trade route with a spare estate buy ... and kill the estate with the Jack who otherwise wouldn't trash a card. Jack allows you to mix in a lot of cares that tank the current hand's buying power without spending so long rebuilding your deck.

Weak sifters also get a huge leg up with Jack. Cellar typically costs 1 card in hand size and gives you poor odds of improving your hand. Warehouse gives you much better odds of improving your draw, but still costs a card. Storehouse, with a village, works great with Jack - sift for the Jack, discard for +coin, draw a fresh hand with Jack.


This is absolutely huge in strong mirror engine settings. Normally there is a tension between getting good hands now (say open Silver/Silver) during the big rush on Minions, Hunting Parties, Torturers, Wharves, etc. and having a thinner, better deck later (say using light trashing). Jack makes it a lot more viable to use really weak trashing and sifting and still hit $5. Partly this is because Jack really moves the average card value in the deck near $1.6 really quickly, and partly this is because its nature as an after the fact "Moat" allows it to offset card penalties (like smaller hands thanks to Lookout or top decked coppers thanks to Mandarin).

[Polk5440]

These can be good reasons for why you don't mind extra Silvers, but I think a more important reason (or at least a reason that applies more often) is that Silver is a good card for most engines. I think I mentioned trashing Silvers once (with Forager) in passing and the reason for this is because I wanted to try and get people over their fear of including Silvers in their engine.

If someone is thinking they *need* to have a way to trash a Silver *every turn* in order to even think about using Jack in their engine, they're going to shy away from it.

I mean, sometimes you're better off trashing them with Butcher or something, I suppose I can add something to that effect, but I'm really inclined to understate it; what do you think of that?

I would say that I agree in part and dissent in part. Basically, I agree with soulnet on the "overselling". Jack is so good, you don't need to oversell it.

Some engines do want silver for buying power. I agree. Wharf engines are a good example of where you usually need treasure. And it's better to gain it for free and not have to waste your precious coin on buying a Silver rather than a village or wharf.

But, Silver is usually only good up to a point.

This is how I am thinking about it:
1) If you want a Jack for engines, you usually want it ASAP. It's almost always bad to delay because you are worried about eventual silver bloat.
2) Many times, the game ends before you get too many free Silvers from Jack to worry about playing it.
3) However, if you reach the optimal number of silvers in deck before the game ends, that doesn't mean you should start worrying about them -- Silvers may be leaving your deck at the same rate (e.g. Knights, trash for benefit).
4) If you get too many silvers in your deck, sometimes it's worth playing for the other benefits, anyway.
5) Even if it's dead late and you can't play it, that doesn't mean Jack shouldn't be bought. It's a great early game card. A great comparison is Sea Hag. It's often dead late, but still often worth picking up early.

[AdamH]

All of the article in the OP has been written, with feedback incorporated. More feedback is welcome if desired but I think it's pretty close. The biggest revision is the addition of the Synergies section at the bottom -- if people feel strongly enough that it should be organized differently then I'll change it but I sort of like it this way.

I find:

STOP DOING THAT!!!

on it's own kind of confusing, because it's hard for me to figure out what "that" is.  Based on your previous sentence, it sounds like "that" is trying to use Jacks in engines.  Based on the subsequent paragraph, it sounds like "that" is thinking of Jack as a big-money only card.

That could just be me not reading carefully enough, but you're talking about two opposing things and giving some reasons that both of them have validity, so I think it makes the antecedent of "that" a little ambiguous.

With your post and three upvotes (not including mine  ) that's enough for me to change the wording. Thanks for letting me know.

[soulnet]

I have just read the current version (edited Today at 11:02:46 am). Now I get the idea much better than with the initial draft (was too initial for me).

Here are some remarks:

1. Jack is great with Conspirators? I am having a hard time believing that.
2. I think Jack as a counter of Attacks has some caveats worth mentioning, specifically with Copper junkers. I am looking at Mountebank and Ambassador (I don't think Noble Brigand or Jester present any kind of real menace). Jack is pretty lousy to counter Mountebank, because of the Copper junking and because Curse is not THAT bad a card with MB around. For Ambassador, it is not clear to me if Ambassador+Jack is a good opening, and how it may compare with double Amb for instance. I definitely think in most cases Jack will not be able to ignore Ambassador.
3. I think a comparison with Masquerade is worth it. I think Masquerade is the better Jack in many ways: You can trash Coppers and it does not gain Silvers or spy. Trash Coppers is usually more useful, and I can still use it as +2 Cards later without that mandatory Silver gaining. Of course, Silver gaining is good sometimes, but most often than not, it is not terribly good. And with a card that lets you buy stuff while you trash (unlike Chapel), taking care of the economy is not that important. You mention you have a hard time imagining kingdoms where you don't want Jack. I think in most Masquerade games, you want Masquerade and not Jack. On top of that, Masq is somehow a Copper junker, but you can use your opponent's Masqs to get rid of Coppers as well, so it probably evens out.

[AdamH]

1. Jack is great with Conspirators? I am having a hard time believing that.

Well that's why I put it in the article

Being serious, though (well I was being serious, I just wasn't addressing what you actually said) the point of that statement is that Jack is great with other engine payloads; I just chose Conspirator because it seems unlikely at first, plus one of my example games had Conspirator. Is that statement from the article not getting the point across? Should I re-word? Any suggestions on how I can make this clearer?

2. I think Jack as a counter of Attacks has some caveats worth mentioning, specifically with Copper junkers. I am looking at Mountebank and Ambassador (I don't think Noble Brigand or Jester present any kind of real menace). Jack is pretty lousy to counter Mountebank, because of the Copper junking and because Curse is not THAT bad a card with MB around. For Ambassador, it is not clear to me if Ambassador+Jack is a good opening, and how it may compare with double Amb for instance. I definitely think in most cases Jack will not be able to ignore Ambassador.

I agree with what you're saying, and I tried not to say anything in the article that would imply that the attacks are ignorable because of Jack, but rather that usually the best thing is to go for Jack *and* the attack.

Do you think Copper-junkers deserve a special mention? Do you think anything I said was misleading?

3. I think a comparison with Masquerade is worth it. I think Masquerade is the better Jack in many ways: You can trash Coppers and it does not gain Silvers or spy. Trash Coppers is usually more useful, and I can still use it as +2 Cards later without that mandatory Silver gaining. Of course, Silver gaining is good sometimes, but most often than not, it is not terribly good. And with a card that lets you buy stuff while you trash (unlike Chapel), taking care of the economy is not that important. You mention you have a hard time imagining kingdoms where you don't want Jack. I think in most Masquerade games, you want Masquerade and not Jack. On top of that, Masq is somehow a Copper junker, but you can use your opponent's Masqs to get rid of Coppers as well, so it probably evens out.

(emphasis mine)

I mean, I agree with most of what you're saying, except for a couple of key things:

Masq and Jack serve very different purposes in building decks, and you highlight a lot of these differences. It's because of these differences that I *don't* think a comparison is worth it in the article. The only comparison I would really want to make would go something like this:

"Both Masq and Jack are the most powerful cards in Dominion at their price point. To not open with a copy of either one of these cards, when available/possible, requires a very compelling reason."

You might also be able to say that they both counter a lot of attacks (which contributes to their power) but I think that's a little bit of a loose connection.

I think if you're building an engine you probably want both of them, yeah? Of course I can see situations where you want one and not the other but that depends on so many other things that I think it's a little specific to include in an article that's already pretty long.

And that bolded part, man. You make it sound so bad! "Of course, Silver gaining is good a lot of the time, but sometimes it's not what you want." is what I'd be more inclined to say instead. It's the same sentiment but less hyperbolic and Jack just wants us all to open up our hearts to him.

[HiveMindEmulator]

- Cantrips (speculative)
   - Jack is dead draw, so putting cantrips in a deck with dead draw isn't the best thing ever. Sometimes it can be the right move, but just be careful and think of your Jack like a Smithy or something in this case.

- Other sources of draw (anti-synergy)
   - Now we've gotten down to the bottom; would you put a Lab in a BM+Smithy deck? I'd prefer a Silver, myself.
   - Terminal Draw? Well Jack itself is terminal draw and this has been simulated pretty well -- just get your second Jack on the second shuffle and that's really all the terminal draw you need. Anything else is just getting in your way.

You have this blurb in Jack + money, and I can't say I agree. Jack isn't really "dead draw". Unless you have some form of hand-size decreasing, you're only drawing 1 card per Jack per time through the deck, which is potentially bloated a bit from Silvers. That's nothing, certainly not comparable to Smithy. The chances of you drawing whatever card dead are really small, so if it provides basically any benefit, it's better than Silver.

And terminal draw is like the BEST thing to go with Jack in a money deck, not the worst. One Jack eliminates the Estates from your deck and adds in Silvers. Then Smithy is going to buy you a Province most of the time. In a deck with only 1-2 VP cards and all Copper/Silver, it's not hard to have $8 in 7 cards. Smithy is better than a second Jack if you're trying to race down Provinces. Now if your opponent is going for something really slow and you want to empty the Provinces yourself, then you might prefer a second Jack so you can have enough Silver to buffer against having 6-7 VP cards in your deck, but not if your goal is just 5 Provinces.

[markusin]

Adding a cantrip to a Jack deck is not like adding a Peddler to a terminal-draw Smithy deck. As HME said, Jack will only draw 1 card without handsize reducers. Not only that, it spies on the top card first. If it's an action you'll draw dead, at least you can skip it for what will likely be a non-action in a primarily money deck. If the top card isn't an action, you can leave it on top if you're worried about drawing one of your actions dead. Deck tracking helps here.

[AdamH]

Hmm, what you're saying makes sense -- that means there really isn't much interaction to note with Jack and Cantrips/other terminal draw. My inclination is to just remove those sections entirely, but maybe I should say something? I'm not sure what I would say regarding that.

[HiveMindEmulator]

You should definitely not remove the sections. It's useful information for the reader if they haven't thought about it.

I think you should say just what we're saying about cantrips: there's no real need to worry about drawing them dead since it's really unlikely: it has to be exactly the top card after you skipped something with your Jack, which isn't going to occur that often in a deck with the extra Silvers.

And about terminal draw, I think you should say what I said: It depends on what your opponent is doing. Double Jack (or more Jacks) is better at getting all 8 Provinces faster than Jack + terminal draw (like 1 Jack into 2 terminal draw cards), but it's worse at getting to 4-5 (+Duchies).

[soulnet]

Being serious, though (well I was being serious, I just wasn't addressing what you actually said) the point of that statement is that Jack is great with other engine payloads; I just chose Conspirator because it seems unlikely at first, plus one of my example games had Conspirator. Is that statement from the article not getting the point across? Should I re-word? Any suggestions on how I can make this clearer?

I still think Jack and Conspirators is mostly an anti-synergy. They can still work together, of course, but I imagine that being due to good enablers of both being available (Hamlet being a primary candidate). Just saying "Jack and Conspirators" in the article I think will subtract credibility without really adding any useful information (I am thinking about someone reading the article on the wiki, for example, and not this thread).

Do you think Copper-junkers deserve a special mention? Do you think anything I said was misleading?

Yes and no, respectively. I would at least mention it in a one-liner, given that you are already talking about Jack's relationship with Attacks.

I mean, I agree with most of what you're saying, except for a couple of key things:

Masq and Jack serve very different purposes in building decks, and you highlight a lot of these differences. It's because of these differences that I *don't* think a comparison is worth it in the article. The only comparison I would really want to make would go something like this:

"Both Masq and Jack are the most powerful cards in Dominion at their price point. To not open with a copy of either one of these cards, when available/possible, requires a very compelling reason."

You might also be able to say that they both counter a lot of attacks (which contributes to their power) but I think that's a little bit of a loose connection.

I think if you're building an engine you probably want both of them, yeah? Of course I can see situations where you want one and not the other but that depends on so many other things that I think it's a little specific to include in an article that's already pretty long.

And that bolded part, man. You make it sound so bad! "Of course, Silver gaining is good a lot of the time, but sometimes it's not what you want." is what I'd be more inclined to say instead. It's the same sentiment but less hyperbolic and Jack just wants us all to open up our hearts to him.

Ok, that makes sense. Maybe it is better left out. But I still think double Masq or Masq/Silver is usually a better opening than Masq/Jack or Silver/Jack. Specifically, being the best $3 card means so much more than being the best $4 card.

Btw, I don't think Jack is the best $4. I do think it is top 5 and maybe even top 3, but I would put at least Tournament and Remake above Jack).

[AdamH]

Being serious, though (well I was being serious, I just wasn't addressing what you actually said) the point of that statement is that Jack is great with other engine payloads; I just chose Conspirator because it seems unlikely at first, plus one of my example games had Conspirator. Is that statement from the article not getting the point across? Should I re-word? Any suggestions on how I can make this clearer?

I still think Jack and Conspirators is mostly an anti-synergy. They can still work together, of course, but I imagine that being due to good enablers of both being available (Hamlet being a primary candidate). Just saying "Jack and Conspirators" in the article I think will subtract credibility without really adding any useful information (I am thinking about someone reading the article on the wiki, for example, and not this thread).

The point I'm trying to get across goes like this:

"Don't be afraid to put Jack and Conspirators in the same deck just because they don't fit perfectly together. There isn't a direct synergy there but including Jack in your deck shouldn't stop you from going for other engine payloads at the same time"

I think saying there's an anti-synergy is a little strong. Sure, you're not going to put them together in a money deck, but if you're building an engine with Jack in it, there's almost certainly a village, which is a great enabler for Conspirators so I don't think Jack is really any worse than a Chapel who has done its job for this purpose (unless you get careless and get so many Silvers that your whole engine falls apart).

It's worded the way it is in the article "...Jack is great with Conspirators..." so that I could throw in a funny one-liner. If I need to change the wording, I'll just have to think of another one-liner to put there instead...

"Jack is OK if he's not the only man in your life; you can go see other people [cards] and he'll still be there for you when you need him"

OK maybe it needs work.

But if people think I'm implying a synergy here then I should reword it to be more clear... Upvote soulnet's last post if you agree?

Btw, I don't think Jack is the best $4. I do think it is top 5 and maybe even top 3, but I would put at least Tournament and Remake above Jack).

Well yeah of couse that's a contentious statement. I personally had Jack as the most powerful $4 card when I did the card rankings and I don't expect everyone else to agree with me (apparently Sea Hag is. Ugh, whatever, I had it 8th and I thought that was pretty generous). FWIW I had Remake second and I didn't rank Tournament (but I certainly wouldn't put it above Jack or Remake; Ironmonger was 3rd for me and I would put Ironmonger above Tournament but again I didn't rank Tournament so don't take that to the Bank; Bank costs $7 so it shouldn't be on this list (see what I did there?))

[Mic Qsenoch]

Your example games need to include links to logs, I don't want to watch a 20 minute video to see an example of what you're discussing in an article.

[AdamH]

Your example games need to include links to logs, I don't want to watch a 20 minute video to see an example of what you're discussing in an article.

Good call. OP updated.

[theblankman]

Good article! 

I'm with soulnet, Polk and others in thinking the Jack-in-an-engine section could maybe say a little more about synergy with trash-for-benefit cards.  You mention Forager several times, but not Bishop, Salvager or Apprentice.  Jack seems especially suited for engines built around tfb, since he does two things you'd otherwise need to do separately, draw up after trashing, and gain more cards to trash. 

Granted, silver isn't the greatest thing to feed your Bishop or Salvager, but maybe you use some of that silver to buy bigger and better trash   And if Jack fills your deck with enough silver that you Apprentice one to draw three more, that's a non-terminal +$4, right?  Maybe not as sweet as Apprentice/Market Square, but speaking of that combo, opening MS/Jack would be a solid road to buying the Apprentices.  And if I saw Jack, Bishop and any village other than Fortress, I'd at least consider plodding to the win at 2VP/silver.