Print

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

[Burning Skull]

I imagine how frustrating may be Heralding into Storyteller after Kinged Grand Market chain

[LastFootnote]

Edit: I see why you would decide to not add the additional sifting. But i really feel it's counterintuitive.

I like that it's a small reminder that all your Coins get converted into +Cards, not just the ones from the Treasures you played.

It might be a reminder, but it's also misleading. Which weights more?

Also, for those arguing the $1 was needed to avoid sifting, you could have the card draw after playing Treasures, similar to how Oracle does it.

Well, think about it this way. If Storyteller had ended up with +1 Card instead of +$1, it likely would have only let you play two Treasure cards. That's the other version that was being considered. Since the thrust of the card was converting Treasures into drawing power, I vastly prefer the version which lets you do as much of that conversion as possible.

Now since you personally don't like Storyteller's concept, I don't expect that line of reasoning to sway you. But for me it's pretty compelling.

[Awaclus]

I imagine how frustrating may be Heralding into Storyteller after Kinged Grand Market chain

That deck sounds like it's totally overkill in multiple ways.

[Witherweaver]

I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!

They are not the same at all.

Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.

Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.

When N is bigger than 1, N squared is bigger than N. Consider the case where a typical card in your deck is a treasure worth $100.

I don't know what your math is about, but it's still a 1-card sifting difference, treating the next card as if it were already available to use with Storyteller's effect (should the player wish to use the treasure that way). A plus, but most of the time it won't make any difference.

You don't find it neat to have a card that gives a coin you can never use?

"Wow, +1 $? Cool, just what i need! What, why am i broke now?"
I guess that's why she's a storyteller. I really don't like it.

And hey, now we "pay" coins. We didn't need that before, but i guess if you allready play Treasures in your action phase (instead of, dunno, setting them aside, or making it a $4 dependant on virtual money) and have a cantrip disguise itself as a Copper, why stop?

I know you all love crazy. Dark Ages was the craziest expansion until now, and you guys love it. I'm just actually worried whether the (admittedly) few of us that actually prefer simple will have much to look forward to

And yes, i realize i'm pretty much alone on this.

Edit: I see why you would decide to not add the additional sifting. But i really feel it's counterintuitive.

I think you're setting it up as more convoluted than it is.  Really, it's a simple idea: Spend money, draw cards.  It's just the mechanics of the game that make explaining how it works a bit more complicated. 

Edit: And another reason for the +$1; the card gives you the thing you need to use it's other part.  It's effect is turning $->Cards, so it gives you some $ for the fuel.

[liopoil]

I don't understand why this is such a great engine card. Sure, you discard your big treasures or use your virtual cash to draw your deck, I get that this can work. But now all your cards that give you money for a giant payload are in play. Suppose you want to hit 16. Then your deck not only needs to have $16 in it, but also enough extra money for your storyteller(s) to draw your deck. And generally cards that give you money don't contribute to drawing your deck, so I think the giant engine must take quite a long time to build. Maybe it is for decks that can do lots of gaining and playing mid-turn with a drawn deck?

Also, none of the cards previewed today let us empty the supply in 3-turns in single player . It really doesn't take much help to make it possible, just one new card that makes it possible to do just one more thing would probably be enough. I'm really hoping that this card exists.

[Gherald]

Speaking as someone who has played with both cards, I disagree.

Well it might be more of a plus than I imagine, but I cannot see it being "very, very different".

For a direct analog, imagine if Stables also gave you the option to look at the top card of your deck and if it is a treasure, discard it for +2 cards.  Stables would be a little bit better with that additional 1-card sift, but the difference would be small.

(Stables benefits a little more because it could be a dead card without that sift, whereas Storyteller is never dead)

That is not a good analogy.  For Stables vs. your variant, you ultimately draw 3 cards in total either way.  With Storyteller, the +1 Card version can draw more than the +$1 version.

If you already had 3 copies of the highest treasures available in hand, the Storyteller with +1 sifting also cannot draw more.  The analogy holds as far as the sifting aspect, which is all it was intended to hold for.  In the case of Stables it's a simple binary outcome, discard a treasure and get a net of +2 cards or don't.  And that simplicity is what makes it a useful analogy, the cards aren't directly comparable beyond whether sifting helps them hit something and I was not saying that they were.

Look everyone, sifting is a good thing and that's why cards like warehouse and cellar exist. But doing so for 1 card to check whether it is a treasure -- and if it is a treasure, may or may not be one you want to play as part of the 3 that you get to play with Storyteller -- is a small effect.  Offhand, I'm not even sure if the effect is greater than adding a Pearl Diver to your deck.  Probably smaller.

[popsofctown]

Compared side by side to Stables, Storyteller draws you one less free, guaranteed draw, but gives you two more slots for converting treasures to draws.

[werothegreat]

Compared side by side to Stables, Storyteller draws you one less free, guaranteed card, but gives you two more slots for converting treasures to draws.

Stables can do more with less, but Storyteller can do something with nothing, and more with more.

[Seprix]

While this card seems strong, I'm going to come out now and say this card isn't that great, and if there is already trashing and card draw, i'd consider ignoring this card altogether.

[Jimmmmm]

While this card seems strong, I'm going to come out now and say this card isn't that great, and if there is already trashing and card draw, i'd consider ignoring this card altogether.

So what you're saying is... depends on the kingdom?

[werothegreat]

What I find most interesting is that three Lab variants were previewed today.

[WanderingWinder]

I don't understand why this is such a great engine card.

Who said it was?

Also, none of the cards previewed today let us empty the supply in 3-turns in single player . It really doesn't take much help to make it possible, just one new card that makes it possible to do just one more thing would probably be enough. I'm really hoping that this card exists.

Does Magpie not help?

[Donald X.]

If you already had 3 copies of the highest treasures available in hand, the Storyteller with +1 sifting also cannot draw more.

And apparently you always do!

[jsh357]

I don't understand why this is such a great engine card.

Who said it was?

Also, none of the cards previewed today let us empty the supply in 3-turns in single player . It really doesn't take much help to make it possible, just one new card that makes it possible to do just one more thing would probably be enough. I'm really hoping that this card exists.

Does Magpie not help?

Don't give up hope, there's always tomorrow.

[Witherweaver]

Does Lost City let Celestial Chameleon empty the supply on Turn 2?

[Gherald]

If you already had 3 copies of the highest treasures available in hand, the Storyteller with +1 sifting also cannot draw more.

And apparently you always do!

No.. but I do sometimes go on to write sentences that explain my point.

[TheOthin]

Compared side by side to Stables, Storyteller draws you one less free, guaranteed card, but gives you two more slots for converting treasures to draws.

Stables can do more with less, but Storyteller can do something with nothing, and more with more.

And your chicks for free.

[eHalcyon]

If you already had 3 copies of the highest treasures available in hand, the Storyteller with +1 sifting also cannot draw more.  The analogy holds as far as the sifting aspect, which is all it was intended to hold for.  In the case of Stables it's a simple binary outcome, discard a treasure and get a net of +2 cards or don't.  And that simplicity is what makes it a useful analogy, the cards aren't directly comparable beyond whether sifting helps them hit something and I was not saying that they were.

Look everyone, sifting is a good thing and that's why cards like warehouse and cellar exist. But doing so for 1 card to check whether it is a treasure -- and if it is a treasure, may or may not be one you want to play as part of the 3 that you get to play with Storyteller -- is a small effect.  Offhand, I'm not even sure if the effect is greater than adding a Pearl Diver to your deck.  Probably smaller.

Hey, I asked if you were only focusing on that 1 card sifting, and pointed out that there is more to consider:

Maybe you mean, it's 1 card sifting difference because you potentially play out 1 extra treasure and no more.  I guess you aren't considering the extra draw that comes out of that treasure play?  I suppose you may ignore that for discussion of "sifting", but the extra draw is an important consideration and it makes the +1 card vs. +$1 very, very different.

And all this is pertinent because it speaks to why having +1 card would change a lot more than just 1 extra card of sifting, as you originally asserted:

I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!

They are not the same at all.

Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.

Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.

Sure, the card isn't going to draw you more if you already had 3 copies of the highest treasure in hand.  It also isn't going to draw you more if that +1 card doesn't draw you another treasure.  The point is that it could draw you more, potentially a lot more.  And it's never going to draw you less.

[liopoil]

I don't understand why this is such a great engine card.

Who said it was?

Mic did:

Storyteller isn't obsoleted by strong trashing, though strong trashing might enable a less finicky draw engine. But Storyteller improves with any sort of trashing, so that you have high value treasures in hand with it.

Depending on the board of course, strong trashing can allow you to build insane engines with Storyteller. Big, big stuff.

Also, none of the cards previewed today let us empty the supply in 3-turns in single player . It really doesn't take much help to make it possible, just one new card that makes it possible to do just one more thing would probably be enough. I'm really hoping that this card exists.

Does Magpie not help?

For the first three turns? No way. For perfect shuffle luck it's pretty much strictly worse than menagerie, and menagerie isn't useful either. If you mean for emptying the pile, that isn't the trouble, because you need to really explode in mid turn gains to empty all the treasure piles anyway. It doesn't help you keep going one you have all the magpies at all.

[popsofctown]

Compared side by side to Stables, Storyteller draws you one less free, guaranteed card, but gives you two more slots for converting treasures to draws.

Stables can do more with less, but Storyteller can do something with nothing, and more with more.

Storyteller just replaces itself with nothing else to work with.  That's not really doing anything.  Stables will do less than nothing on the rarest of occasions...  Storyteller is definitely the more high maintenance card of the two.

[Donald X.]

If you already had 3 copies of the highest treasures available in hand, the Storyteller with +1 sifting also cannot draw more.

And apparently you always do!

No.. but I do sometimes go on to write sentences that explain my point.

In fact I endlessly spend time explaining obvious things to people on the internet. Hey it's part of the job and it's easy.

And I gave you some sentences; they just didn't do much for you. I don't see why additional sentences would be treated differently. At the same time this hypothetical card is too close to a real card for it to be great for me to endlessly analyze it. I don't need to convince you of anything; believe whatever you want about that hypothetical card.

[Witherweaver]

If you already had 3 copies of the highest treasures available in hand, the Storyteller with +1 sifting also cannot draw more.

And apparently you always do!

No.. but I do sometimes go on to write sentences that explain my point.

In fact I endlessly spend time explaining obvious things to people on the internet. Hey it's part of the job and it's easy.

And I gave you some sentences; they just didn't do much for you. I don't see why additional sentences would be treated differently. At the same time this hypothetical card is too close to a real card for it to be great for me to endlessly analyze it. I don't need to convince you of anything; believe whatever you want about that hypothetical card.

Not all sentences are created equal! 

[TheOthin]

Solitaire speed emptying Supply currently depends on connecting Procession-Procession-Fortress-Watchtower. Improving on existing methods is really just about getting there faster, either with cards that do more on the first two turns or that will help you assemble what you're missing on Turn 3.

[Donald X.]

If you already had 3 copies of the highest treasures available in hand, the Storyteller with +1 sifting also cannot draw more.

And apparently you always do!

No.. but I do sometimes go on to write sentences that explain my point.

In fact I endlessly spend time explaining obvious things to people on the internet. Hey it's part of the job and it's easy.

And I gave you some sentences; they just didn't do much for you. I don't see why additional sentences would be treated differently. At the same time this hypothetical card is too close to a real card for it to be great for me to endlessly analyze it. I don't need to convince you of anything; believe whatever you want about that hypothetical card.

Not all sentences are created equal!

But my post already had the three best sentences.

[Gherald]

If you already had 3 copies of the highest treasures available in hand, the Storyteller with +1 sifting also cannot draw more.

And apparently you always do!

No.. but I do sometimes go on to write sentences that explain my point.

In fact I endlessly spend time explaining obvious things to people on the internet. Hey it's part of the job and it's easy.

And I gave you some sentences; they just didn't do much for you. I don't see why additional sentences would be treated differently. At the same time this hypothetical card is too close to a real card for it to be great for me to endlessly analyze it. I don't need to convince you of anything; believe whatever you want about that hypothetical card.

Sorry for being unclear, I did not write that to imply you're not explaining yourself.

I was objecting to having my first sentence quoted by itself there, when the rest of my post is where I actually got into the point I had to make