Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  All

Author Topic: Scout is bad, not horrible?  (Read 39396 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #50 on: May 30, 2015, 10:48:53 pm »
0

You're just making this stuff up. Thief over Scout? You'd do that probably less than 20% of the time. Talisman? I doubt you want that. The main reason that you would take Silver over Scout is because Silver is a solid card and Scout is a mediocre one. Does that mean Scout is weak? Of course not! You'd get Silver over Chapel after the first 5 turns, but that doesn't mean Chapel is weak.

I don't think you understood what I wanted to say.

The frequency in which you buy cards is not important at all, and I wanted to stress the opposite.  The cards you mentioned have situations where they have a strong influence on how you play this board, and/or are a strong addition to you deck.  Even if it does not happen often, it does happen. Often enough to mattter.

With this likelyhood, Scout is maybe a net positive for your deck, but its influence is still marginal.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #51 on: May 31, 2015, 12:13:28 am »
+1

Talisman? I doubt you want that.

I'm pretty sure I buy Talisman more often than Scout. It's great if you need many copies of a couple of cheap cards or if there's some way to reduce costs.
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9630
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #52 on: May 31, 2015, 12:15:19 am »
+2

Mystic just likes non-terminal deck-inspection, period.  I would rather have a Spy than Scout in that instance.  I'd certainly rather have a Cartographer.  Scout is just hurt so much by not being a cantrip.
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

enfynet

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1691
  • Respect: +1162
    • View Profile
    • JD's Custom Clubs
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #53 on: May 31, 2015, 12:16:03 am »
0

Most cases I'd take Thief and Talisman over Scout. Unfortunately, most cases also mean I would get Silver over all 3.
Logged
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious."

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #54 on: May 31, 2015, 12:20:59 am »
+1

Mystic just likes non-terminal deck-inspection, period.  I would rather have a Spy than Scout in that instance.  I'd certainly rather have a Cartographer.  Scout is just hurt so much by not being a cantrip.

Usually a Cartographer you gain could have been a Mystic; Scout is meaningfully cheaper.

One Scout can do the work of several Spies. I'm pretty sure if all three (Scout, Spy, Mystic) were on the board, I'd buy Scout over Spy every time.
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9630
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #55 on: May 31, 2015, 12:25:19 am »
0

Now I just want to hand out Scouts with Messenger.
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #56 on: May 31, 2015, 06:28:40 am »
+2

Thief: Gets pretty big in games with many players.
Coppersmith: Besides draw-your-deck strategies, this enables you to gamble for very early very expensive cards like Prince
Nomad Camp: A buy, and when you need it. Also interesting for openings (again, with a little gambling)
Talisman: Strategies that want a big deck or lots of Silvers. Strategies about cheap cards. Cost reduction.
Spy: Also very useless, but at least it's a cantrip. That and the card reveal make it better than Scout allready, attack is just a useless bonus.

Scout can't compete. I'm not sure it's the worst card in Dominion, because Adventurer is a terrible piece of junk too, but i find it very hard to make up any card as bad, especially a card that costs $4. And i'm out of this discussion now, because i don't think statements are given the proper thought here.
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9630
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #57 on: May 31, 2015, 08:48:42 am »
0

Adventurer is probably nice in Masterpiece or maybe Soothsayer games.  It just needs to be able to draw something other than Coppers, and if you've gotten rid of your Coppers, you're usually drawing your entire deck anyway with other draw cards, so it's usually just redundant.  And expensive.  Adventurer has to be the only draw and you need a way to get rid of Coppers, or at least overwhelm them with other Treasures.  Maybe Bank likes Adventurer?
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #58 on: May 31, 2015, 09:13:11 am »
0

Adventurer is probably nice in Masterpiece or maybe Soothsayer games.  It just needs to be able to draw something other than Coppers, and if you've gotten rid of your Coppers, you're usually drawing your entire deck anyway with other draw cards, so it's usually just redundant.  And expensive.  Adventurer has to be the only draw and you need a way to get rid of Coppers, or at least overwhelm them with other Treasures.  Maybe Bank likes Adventurer?

And then, you are already in a position where you get to $8 quite reliably, esp. in the same hand replacing adventurers with gold. So to really profit from the high coin value it produces, you would need a buy, which in the situation you describe is usually difficult to get easily
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9630
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #59 on: May 31, 2015, 09:31:11 am »
0

Adventurer is probably nice in Masterpiece or maybe Soothsayer games.  It just needs to be able to draw something other than Coppers, and if you've gotten rid of your Coppers, you're usually drawing your entire deck anyway with other draw cards, so it's usually just redundant.  And expensive.  Adventurer has to be the only draw and you need a way to get rid of Coppers, or at least overwhelm them with other Treasures.  Maybe Bank likes Adventurer?

And then, you are already in a position where you get to $8 quite reliably, esp. in the same hand replacing adventurers with gold. So to really profit from the high coin value it produces, you would need a buy, which in the situation you describe is usually difficult to get easily

Which I guess would be where Counterfeit comes in?  Man, Counterfeit just makes everything better.  Except Bank...
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Amac

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #60 on: May 31, 2015, 09:52:10 am »
0

I can't hardly think of boards where Thief is dominant as a strategy in 2P (maybe some crazy TR/KC board), except for when your opponent plays in such a way that Thief will be a good card. But it at least has some impact on the board. (for example when someone has a Chapel strategy with treasures as main payload and such. Does Thief-BM beat BM Ultimate usually? (I'm inclined to say no, but I don't know for sure)

Coppersmith is no contest for Scout in being bad. It can be a terminal 7. Obviously there are situations where it is much worse than Scout and it has the problem that it is usually either a bad opening or there's no use for it past the opening (maybe the odd exception is some Hunting Grounds-board)

Nomad Camp is mainly used for it's on-buy ability or because it is the only +Buy in the kingdom. But, as we all know, even Woodcutter can be vital if it is the only card providing +Buy, and in almost every situation it's not (and no alt-VP is in the game) it's terrible. The on-buy ability is a little bit gimmicky though, I never really liked it for that card.

Talisman and Spy deserve some mention maybe, and Spy is really just worse than Scout when there's some Alt-VP in the kingdom, but yeah.. Talisman at least shines with cheap strong cantrips (Caravan) or with Vineyard and Spy is better for a deck without too much green.

The main problem with Scout is that there are many situations it's terrible, a lot of situations it's bad. And when it's somewhat decent many times over there are just many better cards at the price point. And it doesn't even change the card choices of players. And yeah, in a really bad kingdom with many green cards, maybe even Ghost Ship or Wishing Well or Mystic, it can be decent. At best.

I tried Scout/Wishing Well/Great Hall once. It was awful.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11815
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12868
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #61 on: May 31, 2015, 09:56:59 am »
0

Adventurer has to be the only draw and you need a way to get rid of Coppers

and you need to be playing a strategy that wants its Moat to skip over Action cards and you need to be playing a strategy that wants to get rid of Coppers. That's pretty rare. And then, on top of everything, you need to be willing to pay $6 for said Moat. I don't think I've ever bought an Adventurer after the "buy every card in the kingdom" phase as a newbie.

I can't hardly think of boards where Thief is dominant as a strategy in 2P (maybe some crazy TR/KC board), except for when your opponent plays in such a way that Thief will be a good card. But it at least has some impact on the board. (for example when someone has a Chapel strategy with treasures as main payload and such. Does Thief-BM beat BM Ultimate usually? (I'm inclined to say no, but I don't know for sure)

Well, Thief alone isn't really a strategy. But you can definitely use it in an engine against big money, or maybe even in an engine mirror if there's no payload other than Treasures and the Thief. I don't think it's useful to discuss Thief/BM vs. BMU, it's not far from being 100% guaranteed that there's always something better than either strategy.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2015, 10:01:02 am by Awaclus »
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9630
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #62 on: May 31, 2015, 10:01:04 am »
+1

Really, Adventurer should either find 3 Treasures, or only cost $5.
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11815
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12868
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #63 on: May 31, 2015, 10:03:42 am »
+3

Really, Adventurer should either find 3 Treasures, or only cost $5.

Or both. Then it would compare pretty well with existing $5s such as Journeyman and Library. Better for big money, worse for engines.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

Amac

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #64 on: May 31, 2015, 10:22:47 am »
0

I don't think it's useful to discuss Thief/BM vs. BMU, it's not far from being 100% guaranteed that there's always something better than either strategy.

Fair enough.
Logged

rspeer

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 469
  • Respect: +877
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #65 on: May 31, 2015, 10:45:36 am »
0

Quote
You're just making this stuff up. Thief over Scout? You'd do that probably less than 20% of the time.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. 20% of what times? If Thief and Scout are on the board, usually I'll buy *neither* of them. But I buy Thief when the situation calls for it (when the opponent's deck relies on treasure cards and I have extra actions). There aren't situations that call for Scout.

Scout/Mystic is fun but I think that's still just making Scout about as good as an average card, for style points.

I don't think anyone here is buying Scout four times as often as Thief.
Logged

Roadrunner7671

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1845
  • Shuffle iT Username: Roadrunner7672
  • Forum Mafia Record: 18-33-2
  • Respect: +1346
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #66 on: May 31, 2015, 12:04:24 pm »
0

Quote
You're just making this stuff up. Thief over Scout? You'd do that probably less than 20% of the time.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. 20% of what times? If Thief and Scout are on the board, usually I'll buy *neither* of them. But I buy Thief when the situation calls for it (when the opponent's deck relies on treasure cards and I have extra actions). There aren't situations that call for Scout.

Scout/Mystic is fun but I think that's still just making Scout about as good as an average card, for style points.

I don't think anyone here is buying Scout four times as often as Thief.

Scout as an average card is what I'm looking for! I'm not saying it's fantastic, I'm just saying it's not horrible.

And I think one person here is buying Scout four times as often as Thief.
Logged
Oh God someone delete this before Roadrunner sees it.

ehunt

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1528
  • Shuffle iT Username: ehunt
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #67 on: May 31, 2015, 01:27:36 pm »
+1

It's true that if you had to give me a 4-cost card (e.g. because of Swindler), over 50% of the time, I'd prefer Scout to Thief (in the same way I'd prefer, say, Abandoned Mine to Ruined Village).

This does not mean Scout is a better card than Thief. Thief is a much better card, even in 2 player.

If you handicapped me to "you can never gain a Scout [except through attacks]," I doubt it would change my win percentage at all. Thief, on the other hand, matters in the 2-3% of games where it's good.

So it depends on your definition of good. I prefer definition (2) but it doesn't seem like a debate worth having.

For any other 4, I don't think there's any contest.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #68 on: May 31, 2015, 02:44:03 pm »
+1

Quote
You're just making this stuff up. Thief over Scout? You'd do that probably less than 20% of the time.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. 20% of what times? If Thief and Scout are on the board, usually I'll buy *neither* of them. But I buy Thief when the situation calls for it (when the opponent's deck relies on treasure cards and I have extra actions). There aren't situations that call for Scout.

Scout/Mystic is fun but I think that's still just making Scout about as good as an average card, for style points.

I don't think anyone here is buying Scout four times as often as Thief.

Scout as an average card is what I'm looking for! I'm not saying it's fantastic, I'm just saying it's not horrible.

And I think one person here is buying Scout four times as often as Thief.

So Scout is average in its best case, which is a rate and exceptional circumstance.  But it's still horrible in general.  Thief is similar, except that it is actually good, even dominant in its best case scenarios.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9412
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #69 on: May 31, 2015, 03:04:07 pm »
+3

Quote
You're just making this stuff up. Thief over Scout? You'd do that probably less than 20% of the time.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. 20% of what times? If Thief and Scout are on the board, usually I'll buy *neither* of them. But I buy Thief when the situation calls for it (when the opponent's deck relies on treasure cards and I have extra actions). There aren't situations that call for Scout.

Scout/Mystic is fun but I think that's still just making Scout about as good as an average card, for style points.

I don't think anyone here is buying Scout four times as often as Thief.

Scout as an average card is what I'm looking for! I'm not saying it's fantastic, I'm just saying it's not horrible.

And I think one person here is buying Scout four times as often as Thief.

So Scout is average in its best case, which is a rate and exceptional circumstance.  But it's still horrible in general.  Thief is similar, except that it is actually good, even dominant in its best case scenarios.

And yet Thief could still be called "horrible."  It's certainly in the bottom 10% of cards.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1798
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1679
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #70 on: May 31, 2015, 03:58:19 pm »
0

Besides Mystic, my favorite cards for making Scout useful are Inheritance and my Illusionist card. It's one of the reasons I love Inheritance.

Roadrunner7671

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1845
  • Shuffle iT Username: Roadrunner7672
  • Forum Mafia Record: 18-33-2
  • Respect: +1346
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #71 on: May 31, 2015, 07:43:24 pm »
0

Besides Mystic, my favorite cards for making Scout useful are Inheritance and my Illusionist card. It's one of the reasons I love Inheritance.
Inheritance is a great idea, you're right! Also, Illusonist could make Scout better than a Lab!
Logged
Oh God someone delete this before Roadrunner sees it.

Marcory

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 715
  • Respect: +1207
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #72 on: May 31, 2015, 11:23:24 pm »
+2

Scout is better when you're playing only with Intrigue cards. Six of the 24 other cards in Intrigue make Scout a potentially viable option: Wishing Well, Baron, the 3 hybrid VP cards, and Duke (because you green earlier and more often in Duke games). There are only two other cards in all of Dominion that potentially combo with Scout: Mystic and Crossroads. But if you're greening enough to make Crossroads' draw reliable, you're probably greening to early, and Cartographer and maybe even Navigator, Ironmonger, and Vagrant work just as well or better for Mystic than Scout does.

But when playing with all sets, the other Scout variants are usually more useful. Navigator and Duchess work with Treasure-less engines, Cartographer can discard, and the cantrip Scout-variants (Pearl Diver, Vagrant, Spy, and Ironmonger) are more spammable than Scout is, because they don't reduce your handsize when they don't hit VP.

Coppersmith at least fills a unique niche. Talisman and Nomad Camp are useful because sometimes you are willing to pay $4 for a Workshop or Woodcutter. Thief and its variants scale with multiplayer.

Perhaps the most damning argument against Scout, however, is that the only non-vanilla Ruin is a Scout variant. That gives you a good idea of what DXV thinks of Scout's "power".

Scout does have one good use--in slogs, late in the game when you don't have $5, it can be worth picking up a Scout to move through your deck faster. But in that respect, the oft-mocked Chancellor, with its coins, is probably more useful than Scout is.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2015, 09:52:55 pm by Marcory »
Logged

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3500
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3838
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #73 on: June 01, 2015, 12:22:28 am »
+1

One Scout can do the work of several Spies. I'm pretty sure if all three (Scout, Spy, Mystic) were on the board, I'd buy Scout over Spy every time.

This got me thinking. Knowing the top card of your deck lets Mystic draw a card. If Mystic fails to draw a card, it still let's you know the top card of your deck. Thus, we can make the approximation that, with Mystic in hand, looking at the top card of your deck is worth half a card.

With this approximation, Scout draws 4*1/2 = 2 cards (assuming you get 4 Mystics in hand), while Spy draws 1+1/2 cards (assuming you get 1 Mystic in hand). In the first case, you might draw much less, but you might also draw more if you reveal Victory cards and get some lucky guesses, and you always get to reorder your next 4 cards. In the latter case, you get more consistent (but lower) draw, and you also get a mild attack.

Is Scout really that much better than Spy here? Especially considering that you need enough Scouts to draw them reliably, but that later Scouts in your turn still behave like "ordinary" Scouts...
« Last Edit: June 01, 2015, 02:17:26 pm by pacovf »
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9630
    • View Profile
Re: Scout is bad, not horrible?
« Reply #74 on: June 01, 2015, 12:29:05 am »
+1

4 Mystics alone = +2 Cards
4 Mystics + Scout = +4 Cards
4 Mystics + Spy = +4 Cards and a mild attack

If a Mystic whiffs, the next Mystic is assured a draw. 

Scout makes sure none of the Mystics whiff, but draws nothing itself.

Spy draws its own card, and makes sure one of the Mystics doesn't whiff.
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  All
 

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 21 queries.