Print

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

[brokoli]

For me, Rogue is dead last. The attack is bad and without a lot of help you are often grabbing junk from the trash. Too often it's an expensive terminal Silver. And games where it's good, like grabbing certain Knights out of the trash, are the games that are the least enjoyable to play.

it's mostly good to get good cards out of the trash. it's good in knight games, really good in rebuild games and often good in pillage games. that alone makes it better than lots of other $5's.

You haven't mentionned the most important : Rogue against Duke.

[brokoli]

Oh, and I guess I won't complain about Harvest again. It's absurd to say it's worse than counting house : when you want money, you definitely prefer something that produce $3 or $4 on each play, rather than something that produce 7$ or $0 (and more often $0).

But overall, I feel like all $5 bottom-card are better than people think, and buying harvest, Cache or Tribute in 1 out of 500 games (or even 100 games) where they are present is clearly wrong. I mean, it's hard to see where they are useful but they are all useful more often than that.

[silverspawn]

the thing about harvest is that it's just a really stupid card. it doesn't give you anything if you draw your whole deck, that's just dumb and frustrating, and it's a big drawback for engines. i remember exactly one game in which harvest was really strong, it was a semi-engine board with tunnels and villages but without draw. triggering tunnels with it worked really well.

but i agree, its not last in terms of powerlevel

[Jean-Michel]

Can someone explain why Stash isn't worst? Counting House, Cache and Harvest at least have some utility in slogs and Contraband is often excellent in engines with trash-for-benefit, but Stash is very much just an expensive Silver. Yes, it has the Chancellor and Scavenger combos, but those are very rare and not a reason to put it higher than those 4 or any other $5 cards.

[jsh357]

Can someone explain why Stash isn't worst? Counting House, Cache and Harvest at least have some utility in slogs and Contraband is often excellent in engines with trash-for-benefit, but Stash is very much just an expensive Silver. Yes, it has the Chancellor and Scavenger combos, but those are very rare and not a reason to put it higher than those 4 or any other $5 cards.

 

Well, for one, Stash is sometimes useful in slogs when you want to consistently afford a Duchy or Province every now and then.  It's also pretty good with terminal draw when reshuffles are triggered (controlling the result a little).  I put it in the bottom 5, though.  I think it's worse than some of the ones below it here.

[HiveMindEmulator]

A few comments about the text:

"Harvest is very swingy". No it's not. It's pretty consistently bad. King's Court is swingy. At best you get triple a good card and at worst it does nothing. Harvest usually gives $2-$4, which is not a huge range of things compared to a lot of other expensive cards.

To me, the biggest problem with Sab is something you don't mention: The attack does not really lengthen the game. On the contrary, the gaining allows your opponent to deplete piles. If you have a purely destructive attack, you want to drag the game out so you can get to the point where you repeated play the attack, and then build up economy and then get VPs.

For Outpost, you don't mention the most important thing for Outpost, imo: trashing. If you have a well-trashed, deck, 3-card hands can be pretty good. Sure it's less reliable than a 5-card hand, but if you have very few "stop cards", there's a pretty good chance of getting something pretty good out of the extra turn.

Oh, and I guess I won't complain about Harvest again. It's absurd to say it's worse than counting house : when you want money, you definitely prefer something that produce $3 or $4 on each play, rather than something that produce 7$ or $0 (and more often $0).

I don't think this is "definitely" true. It's true most of the time, but most of the time you don't really want either, so it doesn't matter all that much. There are so many $5 cards that can get you something like $3 reliably, so Harvest doesn't get you anything you couldn't get elsewhere. But the $0 or $7 can have situations where you actually want it, because it's a uniquely powerful effect.

[DG]

Can someone explain why Stash isn't worst? Counting House, Cache and Harvest at least have some utility in slogs

Why would it be the worst? It's a balanced card that only suffers because 5 cost treasures are unpopular. Stash has perfectly good utility in slogs for lining up one good hand after each shuffle.

[brokoli]

the thing about harvest is that it's just a really stupid card. it doesn't give you anything if you draw your whole deck, that's just dumb and frustrating, and it's a big drawback for engines.

True, but how often do you draw your whole deck ? Actually, when you do draw it, you have often used some kind of sifters and still have 4 cards or more in the discard pile. And it's nice when you can control that.

[Jean-Michel]

Can someone explain why Stash isn't worst? Counting House, Cache and Harvest at least have some utility in slogs

Why would it be the worst? It's a balanced card that only suffers because 5 cost treasures are unpopular. Stash has perfectly good utility in slogs for lining up one good hand after each shuffle.

Usually you cycle very slowly in slogs so you don't shuffle often. And it produces only $2.

[Awaclus]

Can someone explain why Stash isn't worst? Counting House, Cache and Harvest at least have some utility in slogs

Why would it be the worst? It's a balanced card that only suffers because 5 cost treasures are unpopular. Stash has perfectly good utility in slogs for lining up one good hand after each shuffle.

Usually you cycle very slowly in slogs so you don't shuffle often. And it produces only $2.

Maybe you won't shuffle often, but the game also takes much longer. And producing $2 is pretty common for $5 Treasures.

[Jean-Michel]

Maybe you won't shuffle often, but the game also takes much longer. And producing $2 is pretty common for $5 Treasures.

That's why $5 Treasures are bad.

[SCSN]

Venture and Trading Post surely deserve to be on this list, while Outpost must desperately go.

[KingZog3]

Venture and Trading Post surely deserve to be on this list, while Outpost must desperately go.

I think Venture and Trading Post will be at the bottom of the next section. Its harder to rank these cards because their power levels are all fairly weak. Only 10 cards can be the bottom 10.

[shark_bait]

Venture and Trading Post surely deserve to be on this list, while Outpost must desperately go.

Trading post is good*

*when you open 5/2

Venture certainly deserves to be above the other $5-cost treasure at any rate.  Venture is at least $2 and allows for BMish decks to overcome greening better with just a little bit of light trashing.  That is absolutely better than the mediocre bonuses of the other $5-cost treasure.

I agree with Outpost but it's just one of those cards where it's hard to rank effectively.  When it's good, it's a game winner.  When it's not good, you just ignore it.  Do you rank based on how often it is game-changing or how what percentage of games its useful?  A lot of discrepancy can be boiled down to different styles of card ranking.  I would guess most people who did the ratings had the first priority on how often a card was used with a secondary priority on how useful it is. 

[SCSN]

The conflict between those two rating styles is elegantly resolved by the concept of a weighted contribution.

And I'd like to argue with its detractors that Outpost is far more often useful than they tempt us into believing.

[markusin]

The conflict between those two rating styles is elegantly resolved by the concept of a weighted contribution.

And I'd like to argue with its detractors that Outpost is far more often useful than they tempt us into believing.

I just don't see Outpost being in the bottom 10, even though it's kinda like a cycling Workshop at worst.

Edit: and apparently I put it there anyway. What was I thinking?

And I have Harvest dead last too.

[eHalcyon]

Maybe you won't shuffle often, but the game also takes much longer. And producing $2 is pretty common for $5 Treasures.

That's why $5 Treasures are bad.

Counterfeit is great.  Horn of Plenty can be really awesome.  IGG can be deadly.  Nothing wrong with $5 Treasures.

[AJD]

Maybe you won't shuffle often, but the game also takes much longer. And producing $2 is pretty common for $5 Treasures.

That's why $5 Treasures are bad.

Counterfeit is great.  Horn of Plenty can be really awesome.  IGG can be deadly.  Nothing wrong with $5 Treasures.

None of those ones produce $2 though.

[markusin]

Maybe you won't shuffle often, but the game also takes much longer. And producing $2 is pretty common for $5 Treasures.

That's why $5 Treasures are bad.

Counterfeit is great.  Horn of Plenty can be really awesome.  IGG can be deadly.  Nothing wrong with $5 Treasures.

None of those ones produce $2 though.

Counterfeit does when it trashes Copper, and IGG produces less than $2 on average.

[Holger]

#61 ▲4 Saboteur (Intrigue)

Saboteur is now better than all the treasure cards, [...]

#60 ▼5 Royal Seal (Prosperity) And there's the fourth treasure card: Stash dropped 5 ranks and 5pp. [...]

I can spot two mistakes here... 

[markusin]

#61 ▲4 Saboteur (Intrigue)

Saboteur is now better than all the treasure cards, [...]

#60 ▼5 Royal Seal (Prosperity) And there's the fourth treasure card: Stash dropped 5 ranks and 5pp. [...]

I can spot two mistakes here... 

Sab is better than the bottom 3 $5 cost treasures. I mean, what about Counterfeit and IGG?

[Beyond Awesome]

The conflict between those two rating styles is elegantly resolved by the concept of a weighted contribution.

And I'd like to argue with its detractors that Outpost is far more often useful than they tempt us into believing.

I agree. Outpost should not be in the bottom 10.

[Jdaki]

Exact ordering aside, I think most of that bottom eleven is right, I might see Rogue down there instead of Saboteur and very possibly Outpost out, perhaps for Mint or something. Rogue is pretty often useless, but Saboteur can be devastating, especially in more than 2-player, essentially similar to Knight-style MAD.

[KingZog3]

Exact ordering aside, I think most of that bottom eleven is right, I might see Rogue down there instead of Saboteur and very possibly Outpost out, perhaps for Mint or something. Rogue is pretty often useless, but Saboteur can be devastating, especially in more than 2-player, essentially similar to Knight-style MAD.

Rogue is better than Saboteur. Sab is only good when played at minimum 2 times a turn, and that's minimum. Mint is decent for the on buy effect, plus Minting Platinum of special treasures is pretty nice a lot of the time.

[Awaclus]

Rogue is better than Saboteur. Sab is only good when played at minimum 2 times a turn, and that's minimum.

It's the other way round, Saboteur is the one that's better than Rogue and Rogue is the one which is only good when played at minimum 2 times a turn.