Print

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

[Lekkit]

Inspired by the Possession attack thread, I wanted to make a list of how strong I think the attacks in the game are. Not the attack cards, but the attack itself.

There were some issues with making the list of attacks. I had to reword some of the cards to better reflect the attack only aspect. And then there were cards like Margrave that got the draw a card, then discard, and Soothsayer that didn't get the draw a card. If you make your own list, feel free to include or exclude those.

Anyway, here's my list of the attacks. From worst to most powerful.

Each other player reveals the top card of his deck and either discards it or puts it back, your choice.

Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck. If they revealed any Treasure cards, they trash one of them that you choose. They discard the other revealed cards.

Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.

Each other player reveals a Victory card from his hand and puts it on his deck (or reveals a hand with no Victory cards).

Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, and you choose one: either he discards them or he puts them back on top in an order he chooses.

Each other player discards a Copper card (or reveals a hand with no Copper).

Reveal a card from your hand. Each other player gains a copy of it.

Each other player discards the top card of his deck. If it's a Victory card he gains a Curse. Otherwise you may have him gain a copy of the discarded card.

Each other player reveals the top 3 cards of his deck, discards the revealed Actions and Treasures, and puts the rest back on top in any order he chooses.

Each other player trashes the top card of his deck and gains a card with the same cost that you choose.

Each other player reveals cards from the top of his deck until he reveals a Victory or Curse card. He puts it on top and discards the other revealed cards.

Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards his hand and draws 4 cards.

Each other player chooses one: he discards 2 cards; or he gains a Curse card, putting it in his hand.

You may reveal a Treasure from your hand. Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a copy of it (or reveals a hand without it).

Each other player draws a card, then discards down to 3 cards in hand.

Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one of them costing from 3 to 6, and discards the rest.

Each other player reveals cards from the top of his deck until revealing one costing 3 or more. He trashes that card and may gain a card costing at most 2 less than it. He discards the other revealed cards.

Each other player gains a Ruins.

Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Silver or Gold you choose, and discards the rest. If he didn't reveal a Treasure, he gains a copper.

Each other player discards down to 3 cards in his hand.

Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand puts cards from his hand on top of his deck until he has 3 cards in his hand.

Each other player may discard a Curse. If he doesn’t, he gains a Curse and a Copper.

Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals his hand and discards a card that you choose.

Each other player may reveal a Bane card from his hand. If he doesn't, he gains a Curse.

Each other player gains a Curse.

Each other player discards the top card of his deck, then gains a Curse, putting it on top of his deck.

Each other player gains a Curse and discards down to 3 cards in hand.

[florrat]

Hmm... Interesting. Although the use is probably mostly academic (i.e. you gain nothing from memorizing this list), it might lead to some interesting discussion about - for example - the strength of mucking (making top of deck worse) vs discarding. One thing which is hard to judge is the importance of stackability. For example, Torturer vs Militia. If the vanilla bonus is +3 cards, I prefer Torturers attack (because it stacks) (*), while if the vanilla bonus is +$2 I prefer Militia's effect (small chance to play such a card twice a turn). And hey, that's exactly the vanilla bonuses these cards have.

Some disagreements I have (I'll give each attack a name, namely the name of a card on which it appears. I'm still only talking about the attack, not any other effect of that card). Let's bring on the discussion :-)

Spy > Urchin
Jester quite a bit lower (chance of doing anything is not too high)
Margrave must be lower, below Minion
Noble Brigand is too high. It's either sub-Knight or very rarely copper junking. I think it fails about as often as Knights (if you reveal a copper) and is not as strong, trashing only treasure.
Militia is too high. It's just above Torturer (see above comment), and way weaker than Ghost Ship. I'd put it at the position you have Margave. Consider this: do you prefer Militia or Dame Sylvia?
Mountebank > Witch (but Witch vanilla effect is stronger)
Young Witch is quite a bit lower
Pillage is stronger, IMO comparable with Followers

Soothsayer would actually be a pretty interesting and hard card to rank (and should be included IMO: if you Moat Soothsayer, you don't draw, so it's part of the attack). Definitely below Torturer, maybe all the way back to Ambassador?

So in conclusion, in my opinion discard attacks (where the attacked player chooses what to discard) are weaker than in your opinion. Interesting. My motivation is that you can still start most engine turns with 3 cards in hand, and very often you just lost $1 for that turn. Sometimes it can even help (Menagerie, Shanty Town, draw-to-X)

(*) EDIT: Okay, I still prefer "+3 Cards, every other player discards to 3" (Margrave-ish) over Torturer, but it is at least much closer than with a +$2 vanilla bonus

[SCSN]

Spy > Urchin

I disagree with this one. Spy is just always meh while Urchin can be extremely vexing in engines with strong trashing but weak to no draw.

While this game had strong draw in the form of Council Room, I never felt there was time to buy it, and the single Urchin my opponent played each turn from T6 onward felt extremely disruptive during the build-up. Yes, I ended up winning, but that's because you just can't expect a random quint-Province turn to win the game when your opponent has just bought... a Graverobber

[Lekkit]

I really disagree that Spy > Urchin. There are two possible outcomes of Spy.

1. You put a bad card back making his next hand essentially -1 card.
2. You make him discard a good card, making it miss a reshuffle. But speeds up cycling.

Neither of these are very powerful. Urchin is a guaranteed -1 card. And that's why I think it's better. But still pretty bad.

Jester is very low. The other attacks down there are worse, though.

I rated Margrave above Minion because I think discarding cards really hurt. Against engines with much trashing, Minion is better since they cannot shape their hand. But against not so trashed decks a three out of six card hand is less likely to actually acomplish game winning stuff. Like buying VP.

Noble Brigand is good against engines, since they don't want their or others copper. And treasure based decks lose their source of money. I still think it's pretty good. Also, it lacks the drawback of Thief/Pirate Ship, helping the opponent to clear his deck.

From the hurtness of the attacks, I'd pick Militia over Sylvia any day. Sylvia is better in Knights games since she's fodder for some of the better Knights. Like Michael.

The fact that you can defend yourself againts Mountebank, with the cards you gain from Mountebank makes it less powerful, IMO. But it also hands out coppers. Witch is additional junking. But in games without trashing, it actually kind of helps some.

Young Witch is like Mountebank, except that the more curses you get, the less likely you are to have your bane card in hand. That's why I think it's stronger than Mountebank.

Pillage is very good. But I don't think it's as strong as the top cursers.

[Donald X.]

I really disagree that Spy > Urchin. There are two possible outcomes of Spy.

1. You put a bad card back making his next hand essentially -1 card.
2. You make him discard a good card, making it miss a reshuffle. But speeds up cycling.

1. You put a bad card back, doing nothing, it was already there.

Pillage is very good. But I don't think it's as strong as the top cursers.

It's hard to compare because the actual card is a one-shot. If a non-one-shot version gave +2 cards and cost $5, it would be a nightmare.

[Davio]

For me, it's basically like this:

Junk 2 cards > discard down to 3 > junk 1 > rest

[dominator 123]

For me, it's basically like this:

Junk 2 cards > discard down to 3 > junk 1 > rest

In other words, you'll take Militia over Witch?

[terminalCopper]

Sometimes, the context of the whole card is important. Example given, let me state two seemingly contradictory propositions:

1) If Sea Hag was "Gain a curse, discard down to three", it would be weaker.
2) If Followers had "put the curse on top of deck" instead of "discard down to three", it would be weaker.

[Lekkit]

Sometimes, the context of the whole card is important. Example given, let me state two seemingly contradictory propositions:

1) If Sea Hag was "Gain a curse, discard down to three", it would be weaker.
2) If Followers had "put the curse on top of deck" instead of "discard down to three", it would be weaker.

I'm not sure I follow here.

[SirPeebles]

Urchin is not just -1 card.  Discarding down to four is more powerful when combo with Governor/Council Room.  On the other hand, Urchin is much weaker when you are playing a Ghost Ship or Margrave deck.

[SCSN]

Sometimes, the context of the whole card is important. Example given, let me state two seemingly contradictory propositions:

1) If Sea Hag was "Gain a curse, discard down to three", it would be weaker.
2) If Followers had "put the curse on top of deck" instead of "discard down to three", it would be weaker.

I strongly disagree with (1).

[SirPeebles]

The context of the card certainly is important.  Perhaps the biggest factor here is that some of these attacks stack when played multiple times, whereas others don't.  This is important if the card is nonterminal, has strong draw, or is a one-shot.  If you are only hit once per turn, then Militia hurts more than Torturer.  But in practice, Torturer's +3 cards helps you chain them together.  Similarly, Margrave's attack becomes acutely weaker when stacked, which is relevant because of Margrave's +3 cards.  Mountebank is both stronger when played multiple times per round, and weaker when played consistently throughout the game.

[terminalCopper]

Sometimes, the context of the whole card is important. Example given, let me state two seemingly contradictory propositions:

1) If Sea Hag was "Gain a curse, discard down to three", it would be weaker.
2) If Followers had "put the curse on top of deck" instead of "discard down to three", it would be weaker.

I'm not sure I follow here.

Let me explain:

Sea Hag is mostly bought in games with poor trashing, and so the hands usually contain a curse or an estate. If so, "discard down to three" is equivalent to "discard your curse/estate and your second-worst card",  which is less harmful than discarding a random card and replace it by a curse.

On the other hand, Followers are rarely an opener, the decks are probably not filled with curses, and additionally, there was more time left to trash the estates. In summary, Followers are far more likely to make your opponent discard two useful cards than Sea Hag would be if it had the discard attack.

Sometimes, the context of the whole card is important. Example given, let me state two seemingly contradictory propositions:

1) If Sea Hag was "Gain a curse, discard down to three", it would be weaker.
2) If Followers had "put the curse on top of deck" instead of "discard down to three", it would be weaker.

I strongly disagree with (1).

See above. However, I must admit I did not take into account that a discarding hag might be bought in different games than the original hag, example given with CouncilRoom or Governor. Saying this, I am not sure about which Hag variant is better, but the baseline of my posting was supposed to be that discarding is usually stronger in a game with Followers than in a game with Sea Hag.

[Lekkit]

And that's why I wanted to look at the attacks themselves. If we just look at the attack. I think handing out a curse and making your opponent discard down to 3 is worse than handing out a card on top of the opponent's deck. But not by much.

I also disagree that you have to look at the rest of the card to judge the attack. Mostly because I wanted to take a look at how much each attack hurts. Not how much they hurt if they're played once a turn, or twice every second turn.

[ehunt]

Seems like you are saying Fortune Teller > Swindler, given that the non attack portion of those cards is identical.

[SirPeebles]

And that's why I wanted to look at the attacks themselves. If we just look at the attack. I think handing out a curse and making your opponent discard down to 3 is worse than handing out a card on top of the opponent's deck. But not by much.

I also disagree that you have to look at the rest of the card to judge the attack. Mostly because I wanted to take a look at how much each attack hurts. Not how much they hurt if they're played once a turn, or twice every second turn.

But the strength of "discard down to 3" depends very much on how many cards your opponent has in hand.  You must be judging it within some context.

[Lekkit]

Seems like you are saying Fortune Teller > Swindler, given that the non attack portion of those cards is identical.

No. I'm saying that being hit by a Fortune Teller attack generally hurts you more than being hit by a Swindler Attack. The strength of Swindler lies in spamming it.

But the strength of "discard down to 3" depends very much on how many cards your opponent has in hand.  You must be judging it within some context.

Sure, we're judgning it in the context of the game and it's rules.

[markusin]

Seems like you are saying Fortune Teller > Swindler, given that the non attack portion of those cards is identical.

No. I'm saying that being hit by a Fortune Teller attack generally hurts you more than being hit by a Swindler Attack. The strength of Swindler lies in spamming it.

But the strength of "discard down to 3" depends very much on how many cards your opponent has in hand.  You must be judging it within some context.

Sure, we're judgning it in the context of the game and it's rules.

It generally takes awhile before you can start playing Swindler more than once a turn. So I don't see Swindler being much more spammable than Fortune teller. They're both ineffective when revealing an Estate or a Duchy. I'd say turning copper into curse hurts more than a 4 card hand next turn with some cycling. Fortune Teller's attack is also near useless when all VP cards are trashed, but Swindler is not.

If you opened 5$/nothing and the 5$ card gets hit by swindler before the second reshuffle, that's almost game over right there. To be fair, skipping that card over with Fortune Teller hurts a lot too, which is why I think Fortune Teller's attack is around the right place.

[Lekkit]

It generally takes awhile before you can start playing Swindler more than once a turn. So I don't see Swindler being much more spammable than Fortune teller. They're both ineffective when revealing an Estate or a Duchy. I'd say turning copper into curse hurts more than a 4 card hand next turn with some cycling. Fortune Teller's attack is also near useless when all VP cards are trashed, but Swindler is not.

If you opened 5$/nothing and the 5$ card gets hit by swindler before the second reshuffle, that's almost game over right there. To be fair, skipping that card over with Fortune Teller hurts a lot too, which is why I think Fortune Teller's attack is around the right place.

What I meant was that the card has lot of variance. So in order for it to be good you have to play it multiple times. If you look at the attack itself, it's not THAT good. Not saying Fortune Teller is that much better, either.

[markusin]

It generally takes awhile before you can start playing Swindler more than once a turn. So I don't see Swindler being much more spammable than Fortune teller. They're both ineffective when revealing an Estate or a Duchy. I'd say turning copper into curse hurts more than a 4 card hand next turn with some cycling. Fortune Teller's attack is also near useless when all VP cards are trashed, but Swindler is not.

If you opened 5$/nothing and the 5$ card gets hit by swindler before the second reshuffle, that's almost game over right there. To be fair, skipping that card over with Fortune Teller hurts a lot too, which is why I think Fortune Teller's attack is around the right place.

What I meant was that the card has lot of variance. So in order for it to be good you have to play it multiple times. If you look at the attack itself, it's not THAT good. Not saying Fortune Teller is that much better, either.

I won't argue that Swindler has a lot of variance. It's the most annoying thing about that card. The issue is that the upper bound for what Swindler can do is really high, so it can be devastating depending on how much luck a player gets.

It's a tough call given that Fortune Teller doesn't stack when played consecutively on the same turn.

[silverspawn]

well, possession isn't even part of the list. why leave it out? wasn't the whole point of the other thread to discuss how strong it is compared to other attacks?

as for the list itself - well, if i made mine, it would look pretty different. there are too many disagreements to list them all, the biggest ones are probably that a) spy is too low b) fortune teller is too high c) mount is way too low d) pillage is too low e) militia is way too high

my top is probably followers > mount > pillage > sea hag > witch

[Davio]

For me, it's basically like this:

Junk 2 cards > discard down to 3 > junk 1 > rest

In other words, you'll take Militia over Witch?

I'm not comparing them. I'm comparing vanilla curse giver with vanilla discarder and I think the vanilla discarder would be slightly better overall. The discarder is harder to defend against. Junking one card is not that spectacular without a bonus.

But if we believe torturer gaining a curse is roughly equal to discarding 2.

[Awaclus]

But if we believe torturer gaining a curse is roughly equal to discarding 2.

If we believe Nobles, Smithy is roughly equal to Necropolis.

[cayvie]

But if we believe torturer gaining a curse is roughly equal to discarding 2.

If we believe Nobles, Smithy is roughly equal to Necropolis.

If we believe Count, Mandarin is roughly equal to "Gain a copper and a duchy"!

Wait, what are we arguing about, again?

[Robz888]

Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck. If they revealed any Treasure cards, they trash one of them that you choose. They discard the other revealed cards.

I would say this is easily the worst attack of all. The only card that does this and isn't outright unplayable awful is Noble Brigand... and I would say that's because Brigand's attack activates on-buy.

The Spy effect is weak but quite annoying, especially when it comes continuously. I mean, both kinds of attacks are strong against BM (which hardly ever matters), and pathetically weak against engines, although the Spy does a bit more for you against the engines.