Print

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

[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.