Print

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

[Dingan]

I see some threads discussing some specifics of how/when to use Rats:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12452
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10437
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=5090
So I figured I'd try to generalize the concepts from them into 1 place.  Disclaimer: I like writing my opinions to see how they're wrong, i.e. get feedback from other people.  So please correct me if I'm wrong

Rat Infestation!

In my experience, Rats is one of the easiest cards for inexperienced players to screw up.  It does not actually get rid of junk if you consider more Rats to be more junk.  Furthermore, it reduces your hand-size by 1.  I've often seen new players (including myself, multiple times) buy a Rats thinking "Oh cool, I can trash my bad cards", only to get infested with Rats, eventually buying coppers to try to get some payload back, and concluding "Well, Rats is is terrible."  But obviously that can't be what DX had in mind when he created it.

Trash-For-Benefit

I would bet paper money that DX intended that Rats be used hand-in-hand with trash-for-benefitters.  If there is any other major use of Rats, I'd like to hear about it.  Things like Upgrade, Salvager, etc. come to mind, as well some Dark Ages cards (but to a lesser extent) such as Death Cart and Graverobber.  Upgrading free Rats for $5 cards is fun, but the problem is, you have to buy and play the Rats in the first place.

For example, I buy a Rats on T1, play it on T3 to trash an Estate and gain a second Rats, then on T5 Upgrade the Rats (assuming I bought an Upgrade at some point) for that juicy Witch, while my deck still contains 1 Rats.  But the thing is, I could have just as easily bought a Silver on T1 and T3, and afforded the Witch on T5 with normal money.

So, When to Get Rats?

All of these should be true:

• You will need an engine.  I highly doubt Rats would ever be good in a non-engine scenario.  I'm not saying you need to have all other engine components lined up before you buy your first Rats; I'm saying you should at least have a plan to set up an engine eventually.
• You will need targets for your Rats.  These could be your starting 10 cards.  If you need more targets, you will want to be picking up more cheap cards.  If you play x Rats per turn, you will need to ensure you will have at least x targets for them to hit.
• Assuming you have trash-for-benefitting in the plan, you will ideally want 1 T4Ber for every Rats you have.  That is, if you have x Salvagers that you want to play per turn, and you want Rats as their targets, you will want to start your hand with at least x Rats in your deck.  For example, say I have 1 Upgrade and 1 Salvager.  I will want 2 Rats, play those 2 Rats on my junk targets (for a total of 4 Rats), then play the Upgrade and Salvager on those 2 new Rats.  I will also need to acquire 2 new cheap targets for the Rats if I don't already have them.

Of course, there are always some exceptions (Fairgrounds, Horn of Plenty, Vineyards, etc.).  But as a rule of thumb, I would want to be able to ensure those 3 things before I go the Rats route.

EDIT: the 1 non-engine scenario in which Rats can be very useful is in a 3-pile slog.  Rats can trash Curses, while the ensuing 'infestation' does not actually make your deck all that much worse.  If there is any sort of even modest trash-for-benefitting support, and T4Bing a Rats can spike an occasional Duchy or whatever, then that can be the difference between winning and losing.

Also, consider these other "uses" of Rats:

Combo: Rats-Watchtower

Say your hand consists of Something-Something-Something-Rats-Watchtower.  You play Rats to gain another Rats, trash it with Watchtower, draw the extra card, then trash a card with the Rats.  So you don't actually gain another Rats, and you draw an extra card out of it.  You could repeat this process if you have another Rats.  This can be kind of cool.

(You can actually top-deck the new Rats with WT, instead of trashing it, then play it, repeating until potentially your entire deck is gone.)

Black Market Deck

It's unlikely, and certainly will never be the backbone of your strategy, but it's cool if you can get the Rats from the Black Market deck because you will never have to gain more Rats.

Vineyards

If the Rats route is the correct one for your deck (i.e. if the above mentioned scenarios collide), then they will work as a Vineyards-enabler.  If not, and you have no other synergies with your Rats (i.e. they're junk), then at the very least you could theoretically turn your starting 10 cards into 10 Rats (for a total of 11 Rats), which would bump your Vineyards by 3VP each.  But in this case, the Rats are basically worse than Ruins.  So use caution.

========================================

... Comments, questions, concerns???
Any other neat tricks that you can do with Rats?  EDIT: yes, see below
PS: Any reason why there are 20 instead of 10?  EDIT: I guess so multiple players can have a bunch of Rats.
PPS: I think it's weird that I have 1 "Rats", not 1 "Rat".  It's not like I have 1 "Squires", 1 "Beggars", etc.  EDIT: 1 "Goons", 1 "Horse Traders" or 1 "Smugglers", etc.

=================EDITS==================

The below are other synergies/tricks with Rats.  Some of them are more "fringe-case" than others, but I believe they are all worth a mention.

Other Notable 2-Card Combos

Rats - Market Square.  At least as good as straight BM by itself; better with support (e.g. Smithy).
credit: sudgy

Rats - Trader.  Rats/Trader is generally better than just Trader.
credit: jomini

Rats - Apprentice.  Can be very powerful.  Rats can trash Coppers (which Apprentice doesn't like trashing), and Apprentice the Rats.  Of course, you'll want additional payload.
credit: Chris is me

Cards That Care About Actions

Any card that cares about whether or not another card is an action will be affected by Rats -- Scrying Pool, Death Cart, Ironmonger, Library, etc.  Even if the Rats are junk, these cards can consider them less junky than non-action junk (of course, if the Rats are not junk, then that's even better).
credit: ehunt & Chris is me

Endgame Desperation

Say there's 1 Province left, you're down by 5vp, and your hand consists of Gold-Silver-Silver-Rats-Province. You might as well play the Rats, given that if you have to chuck a Silver and end up with $5, that's no worse than having the $7, while it gives you a chance to draw that Gold or Cultist which would win you the game.  Of course, we're ignoring how that Rats could have just been a Silver.
credit: DG

[sc0UT]

PS: Any reason why there are 20 instead of 10?

After trashing your whole starting deck their remaining supply pile still has enough fuel for player #2 and/or more Rats can flood your deck to get your good stuff.

PPS: I think it's weird that I have 1 "Rats", not 1 "Rat".  It's not like I have 1 "Squires", 1 "Beggars", etc.

Well, you can have 1 "Goons", 1 "Horse Traders" or 1 "Smugglers", too.

[LibraryAdventurer]

PPS: I think it's weird that I have 1 "Rats", not 1 "Rat".  It's not like I have 1 "Squires", 1 "Beggars", etc.

Well, you can have 1 "Goons", 1 "Horse Traders" or 1 "Smugglers", too.

Your kingdom is too big for one rat by itself. It'd be like having one ant, one gnat, or one roach. It just doesn't happen.

[AdamH]

I've said it in those other threads and nobody agreed with me.

But I don't learn I guess, so I'll say it again here.

I really don't think Rats/Vineyard is actually good. Like, it seems good in concept but it just never actually works out. Maybe Rats can play as minor support for a Vineyards deck that's already good, but I certainly don't think it's impressive by any means.

If you get Rats early enough, then your deck is just really bad and you're picking up Vineyards too slow that aren't worth enough. If you get Rats later, then you're probably either already thin or you can gain other action cards that aren't awful (are better for your deck than Rats).

I've never heard of a n actual game where Rats was actually impressive as a Vineyard enabler. Can anyone share a log?

[sudgy]

Nobody ever remembers, but if you're going to mention the combo of Rats/Watchtower, you should mention Rats/Market Square.  Even with no support whatsoever, it's at least as fast as BM (from the few solitaire games I played) and any type of support at all (of which there are a lot) can easily make it good.

These are a couple example games (I skimmed them, no idea if they're good examples):

http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20140414/log.5079abc80cf28ed55d9d769a.1397532618064.txt

This one I did it just with a couple Butchers.  I won in spite of my opponent going for Chapel/Market Square/Cultist.

http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20150203/log.5068c69551c38622de84eb0e.1422992479526.txt

This one my opponent went for mostly FG/Embassy with a Scavenger.  I got some FG (but didn't use them as much as my opponent) and used Embassy to filter the Rats, and I won.

[Seprix]

One big thing to look out for is when Upgrade and Rats are on the board with a lackluster board. You get all the Rats and Upgrades, with intent to quickly 3-pile on Duchies. It's very strong but incredibly situational, just like Rats!

[ehunt]

Scrying pool is a definite combo. Rats replaces junk a scrying pool can't draw with junk it can. This is one of the few times they are worthwhile even without other trashers.

[Awaclus]

One big thing to look out for is when Upgrade and Rats are on the board with a lackluster board. You get all the Rats and Upgrades, with intent to quickly 3-pile on Duchies. It's very strong but incredibly situational, just like Rats!

That requires 20 cards in your deck that you can trash for Rats, though, unless there's also Fortress (in which case it's an incredibly strong rush strategy).

[DG]

Rats can do a job without an engine to support them. I think they are worth considering even if you decide to avoid them, based on the kingdom, nearly every time.

To my mind the first gained rat has a different effect on the deck compared to the rats you breed. The first rats is an overhead and it takes up space in your hand and deck unless you keep feeding it trash. It has to be compared to buying nothing or buying a useful silver, at the very least. This overhead is why you usually don't want rats. However a rats gained through trashing a bad card, such as a curse, only has to be better than the card it replaced. The concept of the rat infested bad deck only comes from trashing cards that are ultimately better than rats.

[Seprix]

One big thing to look out for is when Upgrade and Rats are on the board with a lackluster board. You get all the Rats and Upgrades, with intent to quickly 3-pile on Duchies. It's very strong but incredibly situational, just like Rats!

That requires 20 cards in your deck that you can trash for Rats, though, unless there's also Fortress (in which case it's an incredibly strong rush strategy).

I've done it with just Rats and Upgrades. If your opponent goes for it too, you don't need as many Rats. If you're going for it alone, you're also buying Silver early on to get to Upgrades, as well as buying copper when you can. You can also track your deck to ensue you don't hit a bad trashing card. I am not afraid to lose an Upgrade, since Rats can turn into Upgrades. The more important thing is that you have enough Rats to burn with enough Upgrades when you're soloing it. When contesting, it's even easier to not lose Upgrade. A very important thing to note is that you are trashing your Rats while you gain them simultaneously.

[SCSN]

I've never heard of a n actual game where Rats was actually impressive as a Vineyard enabler. Can anyone share a log?

http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20130730/log.505d732a51c359e6597efeb8.1375230554831.txt

I won with 13 Rats and 5 Vineyards, for 12 * 5/3 = 20 VP from extra gained Rats.

http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20130701/log.505d732a51c359e6597efeb8.1372691130578.txt

Awaclus beat me by one point after buying all Provinces; I had 10 Rats and 6 Vineyards for 9 * 6/3 = 18 VP from extra gained Rats.

http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20130624/log.505d732a51c359e6597efeb8.1372100125009.txt

I won with 7 Rats and 8 Vineyards, for 6 * 8/3 = 16 VP from extra gained Rats.

http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20140521/log.505d732a51c359e6597efeb8.1400704209381.txt

Stef beat me with 10 Rats and 5 Vineyards, for 9 * 5/3 = 15 VP from extra gained Rats.

http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20130721/log.505d732a51c359e6597efeb8.1374412013735.txt

I had 8 Rats and 5 Vineyards when my opponent resigned, for 7 * 5/3 = 11.66 VP from extra gained Rats.

http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20131214/log.507c2cbf0cf28ed55d9d7eee.1387044634700.txt

I won with 8 Rats and 4 Vineyards, for 7 * 4/3 = 9.33 VP from extra gained Rats.

http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20130919/log.50a208ebe4b0058ff63ee808.1379613803724.txt

I won with 5 Rats and 5 Vineyards, for 4 * 5/3 = 6.66 VP from extra gained Rats.

http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20130602/log.505d732a51c359e6597efeb8.1370203650244.txt

I won with 4 Rats and 4 Vineyards, for 3 * 4/3 = 4 VP from extra gained Rats.

I wouldn't call Rats-Vineyards an amazing combo or anything (and I don't think anyone is actually claiming this), but there's definitely positive synergy, and never taking advantage of the "exchange non-actions for actions" mechanic is going to cost you a few games over the course of your Dominion life. Making the difference between winning and losing is certainly impressive in the context of that particular game.

If you get Rats early enough, then your deck is just really bad and you're picking up Vineyards too slow that aren't worth enough. If you get Rats later, then you're probably either already thin or you can gain other action cards that aren't awful (are better for your deck than Rats).

They are generally good in Vineyard slogs where you're not getting thin anyway, so getting to exchange your Coppers and Estates for Rats is pretty nice. E.g. on Vineyard, Hamlet, Village, Workshop, Rats, Junk Dealer, ... you're going to open something like double Workshop and get a Rats on T3 or 4 (opening Rats would probably cripple your economy (and ultimately your deck) too early). You could get thin with Junk Dealer here but there's not enough of a pay-off to it to make it worth your time, and there are of course other times when there just isn't any trashing.

[Ghacob]

I assume that this is so obvious that no one is mentioning it, but just in case I'll mention it anyway:
Scrying Pool

[Jack Rudd]

I assume that this is so obvious that no one is mentioning it, but just in case I'll mention it anyway:
Scrying Pool

Nobody except ehunt, you mean?

[Ghacob]

I cannot read.

[AdamH]

This is a really good post. Like, this might be my favorite out of all of your posts ever. Seriously. There's a lot of really good stuff in this post and there's a lot of value in looking at each of those game logs and having a good think about it.

Like, I just want to hug you right now.

EDIT: like I'm ashamed that this post doesn't have the most +1s in this thread right now. Except for the OP, that's OK. But srsly, everyone press the button.

EDIT 2: wow, that was fast

[jomini]

A few notes:
1. Like Rats/Wt, you can also get a decent bit out of Rats/Trader. You can either use Rats on a Copper, gain a Silver or you can Trader the gained Rats later for 4 Silver +1 card. If the board needs you to pound out Silver, I believe Rats/Trader works better than Trader alone. Rats/Trader/strong trashing (e.g. Steward) is vastly faster than alternatives.
2. Rats/Jack is highly fragile, but potentially powerful setup to get rid of copper & eventually Rats with decent draw (up to 6 if you trash a Rats); you can also eat the inbound Silver with Rats and then Upgrade/Forge/etc. them for something better. Without an engine it might be the strongest option on a really weak colony board.
3. While uncommon, the phenomena of piling out from two starting Rats (or Tr-> Rats) and an empty draw deck/discard does happen now and again. You either need all your green cards in play (e.g. Nobles, Great Hall), out of deck (e.g. Island, Nv, Haven, Distant lands), or not to exist (e.g. Goons, Bish, or Monument) or to be bought with banked coin (e.g. Black market -> Rats).
4. Rats from the Bm is a very, very different card than regular Rats. While inferior to Junk dealer, it handily beats a lot of lower tier trashing (e.g. Trade route, Raze, etc.) and I have routinely seen people skip it on boards that are very nice for it.
5. Be evil with Rats/Masquerade on some boards. Normally sending a Rats is sending an inferior curse. However, they are diabolically horrid to get when you have forced action play (e.g. Golem, Herald, some Tr engines); such engines are even nicer because many players actively avoid Masq when building them. Swindler and Ambassador are both able to do this as well, but less reliably.
6. Rats can be used to decrease diversity. This is rare, but it can eventually make a Hunting party stack more reliable by getting rid of curses, estates, and coppers. Journeyman is another option.
7. Like with Pool, you can juice up the village character of Ironmonger by Ratting out your deck with no other trashing.

[pacovf]

One big thing to look out for is when Upgrade and Rats are on the board with a lackluster board. You get all the Rats and Upgrades, with intent to quickly 3-pile on Duchies. It's very strong but incredibly situational, just like Rats!

That requires 20 cards in your deck that you can trash for Rats, though, unless there's also Fortress (in which case it's an incredibly strong rush strategy).

IIRC correctly, the guy who played regularly with all-cards-ever (minus KC and goons?) as his kingdom found out that the best strategy was rats-upgrade-duchies, so if that is the case with all-cards-ever, it should be the case on a random kingdom too.

[Seprix]

One big thing to look out for is when Upgrade and Rats are on the board with a lackluster board. You get all the Rats and Upgrades, with intent to quickly 3-pile on Duchies. It's very strong but incredibly situational, just like Rats!

That requires 20 cards in your deck that you can trash for Rats, though, unless there's also Fortress (in which case it's an incredibly strong rush strategy).

IIRC correctly, the guy who played regularly with all-cards-ever (minus KC and goons?) as his kingdom found out that the best strategy was rats-upgrade-duchies, so if that is the case with all-cards-ever, it should be the case on a random kingdom too.

Woah, seriously? Is there a link I can click on?

[pacovf]

Eh, I misremembered: you also need Fortress, and that makes it a 3 card combo...

Here's the link.

[Seprix]

Eh, I misremembered: you also need Fortress, and that makes it a 3 card combo...

Here's the link.

Very fast. I wish there was an undiscovered combo in Dominion even today.

[liopoil]

Eh, I misremembered: you also need Fortress, and that makes it a 3 card combo...

Here's the link.

I mean, those three cards are a very good strategy, and will be dominant on pretty much every board with those 3, but don't think you're going to get 7 turns unless you have the rest of those cards in that kingdom.

[Chris is me]

I kind of like the article currently on the wiki a bit better than this, at least if I'm remembering it correctly. But both aren't really succinct and to the point enough. There's really just a few points that need to be made for people to get Rats:

- Playing Rats repeatedly will replace cards in your deck (junk) with Rats.
- Thus Rats is best used when a Rats in your deck is "better" than other junk.
- How can Rats be better than other junk?
-- Rats draw a card when trashed, minor benefit.
-- Rats are Actions - Scrying Pool won't choke on them, Library can skip them, Death Cart can score with them, Vineyard can be worth more with them.
-- Rats has a higher cost -> TfB cards prefer Rats to Copper / Estate (Salvager, Apprentice, Upgrade, etc)
- Don't always play Rats from your hand.

That's pretty much it, really.

A few specific points

Rat Infestation!
I would bet paper money that DX intended that Rats be used hand-in-hand with trash-for-benefitters. 

This is actually true, I believe he's said as much. He's called Rats his favorite card in Dominion as well.

If there is any other major use of Rats, I'd like to hear about it.  Things like Upgrade, Salvager, etc. come to mind, as well some Dark Ages cards (but to a lesser extent) such as Death Cart and Graverobber.  Upgrading free Rats for $5 cards is fun, but the problem is, you have to buy and play the Rats in the first place.

I wouldn't say Graverobber or Death Cart benefit from Rats to a lesser extent at all. They are both potentially very happy with Rats. Graverobber can gain Gold, King's Court, whatever you want except Province for every Rats, for example. The problem you mention with Upgrade is not unique to Upgrade at all - it applies to literally every TfB card or literally any use of Rats.

If you're going to go into detail, Apprentice / Rats should probably have its own paragraph - it is extremely powerful in certain situations. Definitely deserves more attention than Black Market.

I wouldn't say at all that an engine is a hard requirement for playing Rats. Consider situations such as a slog when lots of Curses are around. You grab a few Salvager and Rats, you use Rats to trash Curses, Salvage Rats into Duchy or whatever. Rats / Remodel is another basic idea - load up on Rats and several Remodel, Remodel Rats into Gold and Gold into Province. Obviously not the greatest strategies on every board but there are several situations where rats works even if you.'re not trying to draw your whole deck every turn and play some payload.

[Awaclus]

Eh, I misremembered: you also need Fortress, and that makes it a 3 card combo...

Here's the link.

Very fast. I wish there was an undiscovered combo in Dominion even today.

It's not a combo, it's a rush.

[Polk5440]

Very fast. I wish there was an undiscovered combo in Dominion even today.

Maybe there is. It's undiscovered, after all.

[DG]

There is another advantage of rats that hasn't been mentioned yet. If you are looking at a losing hand you can play a rats and accept the trashing of 'good' card in order to draw a new card and see if that gives you a winning hand. For instance if you have a hand of 7 coins and need to buy the last province you can play the rats and trash a copper, silver, workshop, duchy, or anything else that isn't giving you that 8 coin hand.

Buying a rats doesn't create that opportunity as it has to be compared to not having it in your deck at all. A rats gained from trashing a curse, say, does create that opportunity.

[ephesos]

There is another advantage of rats that hasn't been mentioned yet. If you are looking at a losing hand you can play a rats and accept the trashing of 'good' card in order to draw a new card and see if that gives you a winning hand. For instance if you have a hand of 7 coins and need to buy the last province you can play the rats and trash a copper, silver, workshop, duchy, or anything else that isn't giving you that 8 coin hand.

Buying a rats doesn't create that opportunity as it has to be compared to not having it in your deck at all. A rats gained from trashing a curse, say, does create that opportunity.

But the Rats itself cost $4. You have to compare it not to the opportunity you would get if you didn't have it at all, but the opportunity you would get from having another card you could have bought for $4. Say, for instance, Silver, if you were at 7 coins, since it would get you a Province without even risking a draw.

[Deadlock39]

There is another advantage of rats that hasn't been mentioned yet. If you are looking at a losing hand you can play a rats and accept the trashing of 'good' card in order to draw a new card and see if that gives you a winning hand. For instance if you have a hand of 7 coins and need to buy the last province you can play the rats and trash a copper, silver, workshop, duchy, or anything else that isn't giving you that 8 coin hand.

Buying a rats doesn't create that opportunity as it has to be compared to not having it in your deck at all. A rats gained from trashing a curse, say, does create that opportunity.

But the Rats itself cost $4. You have to compare it not to the opportunity you would get if you didn't have it at all, but the opportunity you would get from having another card you could have bought for $4. Say, for instance, Silver, if you were at 7 coins, since it would get you a Province without even risking a draw.

I think you may have missed the part of DG's post bolded above.

[ephesos]

There is another advantage of rats that hasn't been mentioned yet. If you are looking at a losing hand you can play a rats and accept the trashing of 'good' card in order to draw a new card and see if that gives you a winning hand. For instance if you have a hand of 7 coins and need to buy the last province you can play the rats and trash a copper, silver, workshop, duchy, or anything else that isn't giving you that 8 coin hand.

Buying a rats doesn't create that opportunity as it has to be compared to not having it in your deck at all. A rats gained from trashing a curse, say, does create that opportunity.

But the Rats itself cost $4. You have to compare it not to the opportunity you would get if you didn't have it at all, but the opportunity you would get from having another card you could have bought for $4. Say, for instance, Silver, if you were at 7 coins, since it would get you a Province without even risking a draw.

I think you may have missed the part of DG's post bolded above.

No, that was the part I was talking about(in fact, pretty much the only part...).
Buying a rats doesn't create that opportunity as it has to be compared to not having it in your deck at all.
I'm saying that has to be compared to having another 4 cost, not to "not having it in your deck at all". So it is really negative opportunity or lost opportunity that has to be offset by the opportunity gained by the other Rats you get from trashing Curses.

[Awaclus]

I'm saying that has to be compared to having another 4 cost, not to "not having it in your deck at all". So it is really negative opportunity or lost opportunity that has to be offset by the opportunity gained by the other Rats you get from trashing Curses.

Comparing Rats with nothing gives us the information we're looking for here: does it hurt your deck? And yes, it does. But the Ratses beyond the first one do not.

If we compare Rats with, say, Scout, we will find that the Rats hurts your deck less than the Scout does, and that information is pretty misleading because it's still worse than getting nothing.

[Dingan]

I have EDIT'ed the OP with all the notable uses of Rats that I missed, and have given credit to posters.  Speak up if anything is wrong or still missing.

I kind of like the article currently on the wiki a bit better than this, at least if I'm remembering it correctly. But both aren't really succinct and to the point enough. There's really just a few points that need to be made for people to get Rats:

- Playing Rats repeatedly will replace cards in your deck (junk) with Rats.
- Thus Rats is best used when a Rats in your deck is "better" than other junk.
- How can Rats be better than other junk?
-- Rats draw a card when trashed, minor benefit.
-- Rats are Actions - Scrying Pool won't choke on them, Library can skip them, Death Cart can score with them, Vineyard can be worth more with them.
-- Rats has a higher cost -> TfB cards prefer Rats to Copper / Estate (Salvager, Apprentice, Upgrade, etc)
- Don't always play Rats from your hand.

That's pretty much it, really.

Those are the most relevant points of the card, but they don't actually tell a beginner/intermediate player when they should buy a Rats.  I.e. they don't answer the "so what?" that an inexperienced player might ask, which I was attempting to answer.  I wrote the article trying to solve for X in "I should buy a Rats when X.", which I don't see in the other wiki (of course, an expert player can deduce it from the points you mention, but that's the thing -- I think only expert players can correctly make that jump).

[sudgy]

Smithy isn't an enabler for Rats/Market Square.  Did you get that confused with another one I mentioned?

[Chris is me]

Those are the most relevant points of the card, but they don't actually tell a beginner/intermediate player when they should buy a Rats.  I.e. they don't answer the "so what?" that an inexperienced player might ask, which I was attempting to answer.  I wrote the article trying to solve for X in "I should buy a Rats when X.", which I don't see in the other wiki (of course, an expert player can deduce it from the points you mention, but that's the thing -- I think only expert players can correctly make that jump).

I thought it was pretty clear - "Rats is bsed used when a Rats in your deck is "better" than other junk". I then elaborated on the cases when that is true.

Good edits though, thanks for the credit.

[Dingan]

Those are the most relevant points of the card, but they don't actually tell a beginner/intermediate player when they should buy a Rats.  I.e. they don't answer the "so what?" that an inexperienced player might ask, which I was attempting to answer.  I wrote the article trying to solve for X in "I should buy a Rats when X.", which I don't see in the other wiki (of course, an expert player can deduce it from the points you mention, but that's the thing -- I think only expert players can correctly make that jump).

I thought it was pretty clear - "Rats is bsed used when a Rats in your deck is "better" than other junk". I then elaborated on the cases when that is true.

Adventurer and Scout are best used when they're better than other junk.  But that tells me nothing about when and when not to buy them.

[XerxesPraelor]

Those are the most relevant points of the card, but they don't actually tell a beginner/intermediate player when they should buy a Rats.  I.e. they don't answer the "so what?" that an inexperienced player might ask, which I was attempting to answer.  I wrote the article trying to solve for X in "I should buy a Rats when X.", which I don't see in the other wiki (of course, an expert player can deduce it from the points you mention, but that's the thing -- I think only expert players can correctly make that jump).

I thought it was pretty clear - "Rats is bsed used when a Rats in your deck is "better" than other junk". I then elaborated on the cases when that is true.

Adventurer and Scout are best used when they're better than other junk.  But that tells me nothing about when and when not to buy them.

Scout doesn't trash junk, so buying it ismainly a comparison of 1 Scout vs. 1 $4 cost or Silver, so that's not true. The main comparison to make with rats, on the other hand, is whether ~10 rats is better than 10 coppers, because the 10 coppers are actually replaced, while scout doesn't replace the junk in your deck.

[Chris is me]

Those are the most relevant points of the card, but they don't actually tell a beginner/intermediate player when they should buy a Rats.  I.e. they don't answer the "so what?" that an inexperienced player might ask, which I was attempting to answer.  I wrote the article trying to solve for X in "I should buy a Rats when X.", which I don't see in the other wiki (of course, an expert player can deduce it from the points you mention, but that's the thing -- I think only expert players can correctly make that jump).

I thought it was pretty clear - "Rats is bsed used when a Rats in your deck is "better" than other junk". I then elaborated on the cases when that is true.

Adventurer and Scout are best used when they're better than other junk.  But that tells me nothing about when and when not to buy them.

Scout doesn't say "trash a card and gain a scout". I don't really understand how this is unclear - the effect of playing Rats is replacing junk with Rats.

[Dingan]

Those are the most relevant points of the card, but they don't actually tell a beginner/intermediate player when they should buy a Rats.  I.e. they don't answer the "so what?" that an inexperienced player might ask, which I was attempting to answer.  I wrote the article trying to solve for X in "I should buy a Rats when X.", which I don't see in the other wiki (of course, an expert player can deduce it from the points you mention, but that's the thing -- I think only expert players can correctly make that jump).

I thought it was pretty clear - "Rats is bsed used when a Rats in your deck is "better" than other junk". I then elaborated on the cases when that is true.

Adventurer and Scout are best used when they're better than other junk.  But that tells me nothing about when and when not to buy them.

Scout doesn't say "trash a card and gain a scout". I don't really understand how this is unclear - the effect of playing Rats is replacing junk with Rats.

It's 100% clear.  I'm not debating anything.  What I'm trying to make clear is the "so, what?" part.

A Smithy gives you 3 cards.  Ok, sure.  I get it.  Simple enough.  But when is a Smithy my best possible option?  When is it better than a Silver?  How many do I want?  For that matter, when is a Hunting Grounds better than a Gold?

The point I'm trying to make is that yeah, Rats is a simple card on the surface -- the benefits of which are what you mention.  But people still manage to screw it up.  And that's what I'm trying to fix with this article.

[ehunt]

I agree with Dingan. Just thinking "Rats replaces other junk with Rats," it can be easy to ignore the opportunity cost of buying the first Rats. You see a board where you have some good junker that you can play along with Rats, e.g. Junk Dealer, and if you think:

"It will be easy to get rid of rats, and I'd rather have Rats than other junk (because of the +1 card bonus when I trash it with junk dealer)"

you are 100% correct; however, if you conclude from this reasoning that

"therefore, I should buy a Rats,"

you are wrong, or at least, you are maybe wrong, because you have to give up a turn to get the rats in the first place, and there's often something better you can do with that turn (for example, it's not always true that the replacing-junk-with-marginally-better-junk effect of rats in such a deck is even better than just buying a silver).

[Erick648]

I agree with Dingan. Just thinking "Rats replaces other junk with Rats," it can be easy to ignore the opportunity cost of buying the first Rats. You see a board where you have some good junker that you can play along with Rats, e.g. Junk Dealer, and if you think:

"It will be easy to get rid of rats, and I'd rather have Rats than other junk (because of the +1 card bonus when I trash it with junk dealer)"

you are 100% correct; however, if you conclude from this reasoning that

"therefore, I should buy a Rats,"

you are wrong, or at least, you are maybe wrong, because you have to give up a turn to get the rats in the first place, and there's often something better you can do with that turn (for example, it's not always true that the replacing-junk-with-marginally-better-junk effect of rats in such a deck is even better than just buying a silver).

Actually, even without the opportunity cost of buying the first Rats, Rats' on-trash ability doesn't make it worthwhile.  Using Rats as an intermediary trasher makes you trash twice for each junk card you eliminate, and trashing a card from hand reduces handsize.  Compare, say, Rats->Junk Dealer to just Junk Dealer:

With just Junk Dealer, each starting card (or Curse, Ruins, etc.) you trash goes as follows:
 - Play Junk Dealer from hand (-1 card), draw a card (+1 card), trash junk from hand (-1 card).  Net handsize change: -1.
- Total handsize cost for each junk card trashed: -1

With Rats->Junk Dealer, each starting card (or Curse, Ruins, etc.) you trash goes as follows:
 - First, play Rats from hand (-1 card), draw a card (+1 card), gain Rats, trash junk from hand (-1 card).  Net handsize change: -1.
 - Later, play Junk Dealer from hand (-1 card), draw a card (+1 card), trash Rats from hand (-1 card), draw another card (+1 card).  Net handsize change: 0.
- Total handsize cost for each junk card trashed: -1 + 0 = -1

Rats' on-trash ability isn't a benefit; it just compensates you for having to trash twice instead of once.

IMO, trashing with Rats just to trash them with something else is only potentially beneficial if the other trasher is a scaling trash-for-benefit, or can trash Rats but not your other junk (e.g. Hermit or Watchtower).  There are doubtless edge-cases (e.g. Market Square), but in general, you shouldn't buy Rats for its on-trash ability.

[pacovf]

Actually, I would say it compensates for having to draw the junk twice, rather than having to trash it twice. While the distinction may appear to be mostly pointless, it is important for cards that can trash from elsewhere than your hand.