Print

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

[markusin]

Whoa, Coin of the Realm below Crossroads, huh? That doesn't seem right.

Really? I don't think it's so obvious to me that CotR should be ranked higher. I had them close in ranking, but with Crossroads slightly higher just because you can get it's consistency boost every turn and sometimes it's a star.

[jsh357]

I think Crossroads should be above Coin of the Realm, so LF's confusion is confusing to me unless his assumption was that people would overrate COTR.

[LastFootnote]

I think Crossroads should be above Coin of the Realm, so LF's confusion is confusing to me unless his assumption was that people would overrate COTR.

Crossroads is almost the definition of unreliable, whereas the entire point of Coin of the Realm is reliability. I guess reliability counts for a lot with me.

[SCSN]

I wouldn't really call Crossroads unreliable. Its main selling point for me is the +3 Actions which you never not get the first time around. If you look at it as a drawer or want to rely on it as your draw, then it sure is very unreliable, but I just consider that a nice bonus that can sometimes be used to great effect.

With that said, I have Coin of the Realm on #6 and Crossroads on #11.

[drsteelhammer]

Also, CoTR provides +2 Actions without requiring one, so that's equal to the benefit Croosroads provide given you're not playing it for Diadem money

[aku_chi]

Funny, I have the biggest disagreement with the two cards that have the most deviation, I rated both of them quite a bit lower, can anybody jump to their defense?

I consider Alm not very strong at all. Sure, you open with it 90% of the time(rather it matters 90% of the time), but afterwards? It may be quite neat neat to get a four cost instead of a three cost some time, but a lot of the times there is a viable card to buy for less, too. And it treasure less decks it's a workshop that costs a buy instead of an action and you can not gain+play it, so that's not really great either.

Well maybe you can trash more rigoriously, but that's about it.

I think Alms is the most underrated card on the list so far (I ranked it 6th).  Here is why I think it's one of the cards with the highest impact:

• Alms dramatically changes opening buy/gains.
• Alms makes heavy trashing less costly.
• Alms makes early gainers more valuable.
• Alms makes early coin less valuable.
• Alms makes virtual money decks with +buy more viable.
• Alms reduces the effectiveness of early attacks like Militia and Cutpurse by providing a floor on the worst possible hand.
• Alms smooths out bad hands early due to shuffle luck.
• If you use Alms, you don't play any of your treasures, so you deny information to your opponent(s).

Now that I think on it, I might have underranked it at 6th!  I will be shocked if Alms doesn't rise in the next set of rankings.

I had Traveling Fair >> Save > Borrow, but they were all in the middle.  They all smooth out awkward buys, but I think +buy and top-decking is the most impactful of the bunch.

I also had Coin of the Realm > Crossroads: right in the middle of the pack.  They are tricky to compare, though.

[LastFootnote]

On a board without important $5 cards, Alms is probably fantastic. With important $5 cards, it will mostly only matter in the opening. That's my prediction.

[markusin]

I'd say take care not to evaluate the strength of Alms based on how it affects openin splits. That's like taking into account the starting Baker token when evaluating the strength of Baker.

The strength of Alms should be based on how easy it is to base a strategy that incorporates it better than other alternatives and the benefits it provides when doing so.

I see Alms as favouring engines that have lots of virtual coin and some spare buys (and 4-cost or less cards worth getting). It also looks good in slogs or as a complement to rushes. So all in all it strengthens the non Big-Money strategies considerably and to me that makes it quite strong.

[faust]

I find it interesting that Raze is below Ratcatcher apparently. I feel like Raze is stronger:

- it is a faster trasher. Ratcatcher needs two turn to take effect.
- Raze is a bit worse at trashing Copper, granted. I don't think that's huge.
- on the other hand, Raze is better for trashing Estates.
- both remove themselves from your deck when no longer needed. But Raze gives a benefit when doing that.
- Raze has some mid- to late-game utility, Ratcatcher doesn't.

[drsteelhammer]

I find it interesting that Raze is below Ratcatcher apparently. I feel like Raze is stronger:

- it is a faster trasher. Ratcatcher needs two turn to take effect.
- Raze is a bit worse at trashing Copper, granted. I don't think that's huge.
- on the other hand, Raze is better for trashing Estates.
- both remove themselves from your deck when no longer needed. But Raze gives a benefit when doing that.
- Raze has some mid- to late-game utility, Ratcatcher doesn't.

Raze reduces your handsize to three when trashing copper while Ratcatcher doesn't hurt you at all when playing and reduces your handsize by one when calling it, so it hurts your turn significantly less. Also the benefit of trashing Raze is marginally better than just playing Ratcatcher.

[LastFootnote]

I see Alms as favouring engines that have lots of virtual coin and some spare buys (and 4-cost or less cards worth getting).

Alms favors engines that have ONLY virtual coin and some spare buys (and 4-cost or less cards worth getting).

[werothegreat]

I see Alms as favouring engines that have lots of virtual coin and some spare buys (and 4-cost or less cards worth getting).

Alms favors engines that have ONLY virtual coin and some spare buys (and 4-cost or less cards worth getting).

i.e. Candlestick Maker

[Aleimon Thimble]

Funny, I have the biggest disagreement with the two cards that have the most deviation, I rated both of them quite a bit lower, can anybody jump to their defense?

I consider Alm not very strong at all. Sure, you open with it 90% of the time(rather it matters 90% of the time), but afterwards? It may be quite neat neat to get a four cost instead of a three cost some time, but a lot of the times there is a viable card to buy for less, too. And it treasure less decks it's a workshop that costs a buy instead of an action and you can not gain+play it, so that's not really great either.

Well maybe you can trash more rigoriously, but that's about it.

I think Alms is the most underrated card on the list so far (I ranked it 6th).  Here is why I think it's one of the cards with the highest impact:

• Alms dramatically changes opening buy/gains.
• Alms makes heavy trashing less costly.
• Alms makes early gainers more valuable.
• Alms makes early coin less valuable.
• Alms makes virtual money decks with +buy more viable.
• Alms reduces the effectiveness of early attacks like Militia and Cutpurse by providing a floor on the worst possible hand.
• Alms smooths out bad hands early due to shuffle luck.
• If you use Alms, you don't play any of your treasures, so you deny information to your opponent(s).

Now that I think on it, I might have underranked it at 6th!  I will be shocked if Alms doesn't rise in the next set of rankings.

I agree with everything you said. I have Alms on 3rd place myself, after Page and Chapel. Funny how its deviation is so incredibly high...

--

I'm excited to find out whether Chapel is still #1, and if so, by how much

[markusin]

I see Alms as favouring engines that have lots of virtual coin and some spare buys (and 4-cost or less cards worth getting).

Alms favors engines that have ONLY virtual coin and some spare buys (and 4-cost or less cards worth getting).

Good point, Eventually many engine want Gold and other Treasures, but during the buildup you can skip playing a Silver or a couple of Coppers to get some extra stuff without adding an extra stop card to your deck. Or you can call Secret Chamber to the rescue.

I honestly need more experience with the card to understand it's fill potential.

[Chris is me]

I find it interesting that Raze is below Ratcatcher apparently. I feel like Raze is stronger:

- it is a faster trasher. Ratcatcher needs two turn to take effect.
- Raze is a bit worse at trashing Copper, granted. I don't think that's huge.
- on the other hand, Raze is better for trashing Estates.
- both remove themselves from your deck when no longer needed. But Raze gives a benefit when doing that.
- Raze has some mid- to late-game utility, Ratcatcher doesn't.

i think my favorite part about Raze is that when you trash it, it becomes a sifting cantrip so you don't even reduce your hand size. I'm a big fan of Raze; not as strong as Forager but there are a lot of games where I would pick up 2 of them.

Mostly sort of agree with the middle of the pack here. Readying my pitchforks just in case people have managed to hype Page all the way to #1 though.

Alms is excellent - it really speeds up the game. It's effect is kind of neutral since it gives everyone the benefit "for free" but it's such a good card that totally changes how Dominion works.

[GendoIkari]

It seems to me like Alms + Chapel should be pretty insane. Chapel is so good that people gladly go 2 or 3 turns without buying anything at all just to trash their entire hands. If Alms is on the board, those same turns now suddenly allow you to also gain, at worst, a Silver.

[XerxesPraelor]

I see Alms as favouring engines that have lots of virtual coin and some spare buys (and 4-cost or less cards worth getting).

Alms favors engines that have ONLY virtual coin and some spare buys (and 4-cost or less cards worth getting).

i.e. Candlestick Maker

Maybe Caravan/Conspirator/Market?

[Erick648]

I see Alms as favouring engines that have lots of virtual coin and some spare buys (and 4-cost or less cards worth getting).

Alms favors engines that have ONLY virtual coin and some spare buys (and 4-cost or less cards worth getting).

Even if you're planning on adding treasure latter, Alms can still be useful for double-buys in the early game, as long as you have enough virtual coin for a single card and a +buy.  I've often done things like play a Woodcutter variant and buy a $2 card and Alms.  Basically, if there's enough virtual money to get a desirable card (and your engine relies on cards costing 4 or less), Alms rewards picking up a +Buy significantly earlier than you normally would.

It's not super-powerful, but it's a handy boost in the right engine.

[scott_pilgrim]

And it treasure less decks it's a workshop that costs a buy instead of an action and you can not gain+play it, so that's not really great either.

Correction: It's a workshop that costs a buy instead of a card and an action.

[SirSlugma]

I like both Borrow and Alms a lot more than where they showed up, but they are both REALLY hard to rate properly.  Like, you're probably going to use them at some point in 95% of games they are in.  That is pretty significant!  But how important are they going to be in those games?  Alms I think often will be pretty relevant, while Borrow is less so.  Hard to say where exactly they should lie versus cards you're adding to your deck.

[markusin]

These events are tricky to rate. It will be obvious when Alms is the correct buy, so it's hard to credit outplaying your opponent(s) based on using Alms itself instead of the card you gained with it. That's not the case with Borrow.

I feel like the ranking for a card like Borrow would reflect on how often it's worth buying, but a card like Alms would undoubtedly be first if the rankings were based on gain/buy rate alone since you'd expect to buy it pretty much every game. I guess Alms should be ranked based on how often you'll want to skip playing treasures in order to use it's effect.

To me it seems the events have to be ranked based on different metrics than regular cards and those metrics vary from event to event. What does it really mean for an event to be strong?

[mameluke]

Interesting idea: Play +buy card, buy Mint, trashing all your treasures in play, Buy Alms (gain Silver or FG or whatever)

[Tables]

I think this might be an effect of many people not rating Adventures altogether. Percentage-wise most non adventurous cards will fare better than cards from Adventures, since Adventure density is higher at the top rather than at the bottom.

The whole reason percentages are used is to adjust for people who don't know the cards well enough to rate them all. It means that if you don't rate a specific expansion there's no disadvantage to it, since your result just isn't included when averaging that expansion's results.

[scott_pilgrim]

These events are tricky to rate. It will be obvious when Alms is the correct buy, so it's hard to credit outplaying your opponent(s) based on using Alms itself instead of the card you gained with it. That's not the case with Borrow.

I feel like the ranking for a card like Borrow would reflect on how often it's worth buying, but a card like Alms would undoubtedly be first if the rankings were based on gain/buy rate alone since you'd expect to buy it pretty much every game. I guess Alms should be ranked based on how often you'll want to skip playing treasures in order to use it's effect.

To me it seems the events have to be ranked based on different metrics than regular cards and those metrics vary from event to event. What does it really mean for an event to be strong?

I think it still works to consider the change in your overall win percentage if you don't have access to the event.  If you play a million games on random boards where you have exclusive access to Alms and your opponent doesn't, what happens to your win percentage?  Same question for Borrow instead of Alms.  I'd guess Alms is a lot better than Borrow when you consider it that way.  That means that Alms is contributing more to your win percentage than Borrow is.

There are probably cases where this way of looking at it doesn't fit with our intuitive understanding of card strength, but I don't think events are really different from cards this way.

[aku_chi]

I find it interesting that Raze is below Ratcatcher apparently. I feel like Raze is stronger:

- it is a faster trasher. Ratcatcher needs two turn to take effect.
- Raze is a bit worse at trashing Copper, granted. I don't think that's huge.
- on the other hand, Raze is better for trashing Estates.
- both remove themselves from your deck when no longer needed. But Raze gives a benefit when doing that.
- Raze has some mid- to late-game utility, Ratcatcher doesn't.

Agreed, though I think Raze and Ratcatcher are very similar in value.  Raze is a very solid Estate trasher that removes itself.  Raze is not good at trashing Copper, Curses, and Ruins.  I would never buy Raze for Copper trashing and I would only buy it in response to heavy junking if there was no other option.  (However, having bought Raze for trashing Estates, I might trash a Copper if I drew it in a hand without Estates.)  Lookout is pretty comparable to Raze.  In both cases, you trash a card, discard a card from your deck, and end up with [hand-1] cards and net 0 actions.  The advantage of Lookout is that it can trash Coppers, Curses, and Ruins.  The advantage of Raze is that you have more cards to choose to trash from, and it can remove itself for benefit whenever you want to.

Ratcatcher is slow.  It misses your second reshuffle 7/12 times, as opposed to Raze's 2/12 (assuming no other card draw).  This problem never really goes away.  Like Raze and Lookout, Ratcatcher leaves you with [hand-1] cards and net 0 actions.  It can trash anything, like Lookout.  You can choose from 5 cards, which could be better or worse than Raze.  But, you don't get any deck filtering.  You can also wait until you find the Curse you want to trash.  However, with good draw or sifting, the junk might keep missing your starting hands!  Ratcatcher is especially poor against hand reduction attacks like Militia.

Ultimately, it comes down to how much you value Copper-trashing.  I'm meh on Copper trashing.  I want to trash my Estates in 90% of games.  I'll do it with Raze or Ratcatcher, if I have no better options.  Raze is better for this.  I only get excited about Copper trashing in the presence of certain really strong trashers (Spice Merchant and cards that can trash 2+ cards in one go).  Sure, I'll probably trash some Coppers with Ratcatcher once my Estates are gone.  But not many; Ratcatcher is too slow.

Bonus: Raze is better at trashing Rats than Ratcatcher!