Print

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

[markusin]

You guys, please go on believing Hunting party is bad. I need all the help I can get winning games.

At Rank 17 it doesn't look like all that many people are convinced. 17 is a good initial ranking.

[Erick648]

I ranked Treasure Trove 30th, here it's 59th.
Guys, Treasure Trove is totally broken. It's a difficult card to use in engines but oh mansies, this thing is enormous. I think the community really needs to rethink this card; there's a Treasure Trove of potential here that most people appear to just not be seeing.

Care to elaborate?  I've seen it used to good effect in Big Money and can see the synergy with Copper-trashers and scaling trash-for-benefit, but don't feel I really understand the card.

I ranked Distant Lands 20th, here it's 54th.
*evil laugh* I remember losing so many games in playtesting because I thought I could just get by without going for Distant Lands. Don't let this happen to you, unless you're playing me Distant Lands is vastly underrated by the community, it's a wonderful card and it is really powerful. Going for Distant Lands will change the way you build your whole deck, where it feels like you are just spinning your wheels for four or five turns, but it's so many points and I think that's where people are misreading this card.

I agree.  Mathematically, Distant Lands gives you more VP for your money than Provinces (3 Distant Lands give the same VP as 2 Provinces but cost $1 less), and is the only non-scaling VP card other than Colony to do so.  And while it costs an action to play (and shouldn't be bought unless you're confident you'll draw and play it before the end of the game), it removes itself from your deck, making greening easier. 

In a deck-drawing engine (which seems to be increasingly common nowadays), I often find it best to empty the Distant Lands before starting on Provinces.  As long as you have the actions to play your Distant Lands every turn, you'll easily outpace a Province-buying opponent, who'll have to buy 7 Provinces (which is a lot of greening) before you can buy 7 Distant Lands and 2 Provinces (ignoring Estates/Duchies for purposes of argument).

[Titandrake]

To AdamH, on Hunting Party: how would you rate the following card?

Action - $5
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Discard the top 3-5 cards of your deck.

I like this card over Lab quite a bit. That cycling is just beautiful.

Now, Hunting Party isn't that card, it's closer to

Action - $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
Draw a card based on the cards in your hand.
Discard the top 3-5 cards of your deck.

With Hunting Party, drawing a unique can hurt or help you. In some hands, you can heavily increase the probability of drawing the card you want. In some hands, you desperately want a specific Action that you already have in hand. It's a wash, but on average I see it as slightly better than 1 random card from Lab.

I think Lab + Stables should be higher. I also think cycling is still undervalued. Together, that means I'm okay with Hunting Party this high up. It can be a pain to deal with at times, but it's still a monster. (And I would definitely put HP over Duke, Inn, and BoM, which all have higher rankings in your list.)

[LibraryAdventurer]

I didn't get to ranking the $5s (can we get more time to do our rankings next time please?), but here are the major things I disagree with.

Should be significantly higher: Treasure Trove, Merchant Guild, Distant Lands, Royal Carriage,

Should be significantly lower: Knights

Should be a little higher: Wine Merchant, Outpost, Ball, Artificer

Should be a little lower: City, Soothsayer, IGG, Apprentice, Swamp Hag, Ghost Ship, Hunting Party, Minion

[AdamH]

So the whole thing about 5 HPs not making a good HP stack, that applies to HP+x only. The point is that you need to be making a deck with more things than just Hunting Party if you want to really get the most out of it, and if people are ranking HP really high based on the fact that a HP stack exists, I'm saying that's not a good reason.

Titandrake, a lab that cycles is clearly amazing in the early game, way better than a lab. A lab that doesn't cycle is actually better in most decks in the late game because you can control your shuffles much better. Each has their place.

Ideally, Lab and HP should be right next to each other on the rankings, yeah? I think I had Lab/Stables higher than the consensus but the difference of 13+ ranks between Lab and HP just doesn't make any sense at all to me. I said something to the effect of I underrated HP by putting it 40th, I think.

I would put HP right below Lab if I had it to do again -- again with this new way of sorting cards (and me not bothering to go through and do a sanity check) I'm finding cards that I'm like "how did this get here?" As for which is really better, well I'm not expecting to change people's minds, but a lot of people out there think that HP is just a better Lab and that's just not true.

I think the disagreement here is very small anyways. And this reminds me I didn't put my full rankings in that post. I should go do that.

[AdamH]

I ranked Treasure Trove 30th, here it's 59th.
Guys, Treasure Trove is totally broken. It's a difficult card to use in engines but oh mansies, this thing is enormous. I think the community really needs to rethink this card; there's a Treasure Trove of potential here that most people appear to just not be seeing.

Care to elaborate?  I've seen it used to good effect in Big Money and can see the synergy with Copper-trashers and scaling trash-for-benefit, but don't feel I really understand the card.

This is tough to talk about generally, I'll do my best and maybe it helps you. First, you use the word "good" to describe T-Trove's effect on Big Money games when I think a more appropriate phrase is super-bonkers-sauce or "totally broken." The biggest thing is that T-Trove doesn't get in the way of like any other Big Money enablers, it just adds on to them. It's less conditional than Hoard, costs less, stacks better, and those Coppers just don't hurt you at all.

So take your average draw engine where you want treasures as (some part of) the payload. Many people would say the best strategy here is to get just enough treasures to get however many Provinces you can get and then try to draw it all. It's a draw engine! Yay, we did it! Now what if I told you (insert meme here) that you could, at no additional opportunity cost, just shove 10 free Silvers into that deck. Would you do it? Do you think that would make your deck better?

A lot of you were probably grossed out by that. I can't draw my whole deck anymore! My engine is ruined! It totally sucks now! Yellow equals purple! EWW TREASURES HAVE COOTIES GET THEM AWAY I WANT TO PLAY ACTION CARDS!!! I would say that most engine decks become better by adding in this kind of thing.

So you buy one or two T-Troves while you're building, and you draw large swaths of your deck for the next three turns and have a buttload of money. It's still pretty good, probably better than what you were doing before because you have more staying power. You're trashing Coppers maybe, that's super-great. This aversion to Silver gain in engines (T-Trove's Gold/Copper is actually better than Silvers because you can trash the Copper and increase money density and/or it's less smooth which in general which is good) causes people to underestimate decks that use a lot of them, like I dunno, Jack-in-an-engine?

Hopefully this is helpful? I may be able to answer more specific questions or talk about particular kingdoms or something?

[Chris is me]

I think one of the things people need to rethink when Adventures comes online is the viability of money strategies. I hesitate to call it "Big Money" as that paradigm is pretty limiting; it's not necessarily "buy 2-3 terminals and then always buy the most expensive money and then buy Provinces", as the term Big Money implies. By "money strategy" I basically mean any strategy where you aren't consistently drawing your whole deck and where the primary payload of your deck is in Treasure. There are a huge number of cards in Adventures that really ratchet up the strength of money decks to another level.

Treasure Trove is a phenomenal example. You might look at it and draw comparisons to Cache, but Treasure Trove is way, way better. There's obvious synergy with any deck that can do something with the Copper - Moneylender, Spice Merchant, Remake, etc. Even the presence of just one or two copies of these cards to just occasionally remove a Copper or two will drastically increase the money density of a Treasure Trove deck. It really doesn't take that much support for Treasure Trove to get really good, and that's because even without any support at all it's pretty good. You only really need 2 golds in hand to get a Province, so all those Copper don't really do a lot to hurt the benefit of having a deck absolutely stuffed full of Gold in the first place. The presence of basic sifters or holding cards also makes Treasure Trove great. Embassy is fantastic - discard all those Copper and have enough money per turn to consistently score even Colonies! Who needs Platinum? Or my personal favorite - Treasure Trove / Gear, a two card combo that's probably good enough to merit its own article, a Big Money strategy that can legitimately win the game in 12 turns flat.

What's the fundamental problem with money strategies that make them worse than engines? Speed and reliability. With engines you can use multiple buys or gainers to accelerate picking up components, payload to slow your opponent down (or reward yourself for your patience), etc. to increase the speed and reliability of an engine to the point that it's better than a mostly money strategy. Treasure Trove provides that same level of acceleration and reliability that engine enablers give, but instead of enabling an engine it enables money strategies, and it does so VERY well, and VERY quickly. It's a force to be reckoned with that totally changes the game in favor of money strategies.

TLDR: adam's hella right

[Qvist]

(can we get more time to do our rankings next time please?)

In a previous year I scheduled like 4 weeks and a lot of people complained that it is too long of a time frame. Sorry.

[managore]

(can we get more time to do our rankings next time please?)

In a previous year I scheduled like 4 weeks and a lot of people complained that it is too long of a time frame. Sorry.

You monster!

[GendoIkari]

(can we get more time to do our rankings next time please?)

In a previous year I scheduled like 4 weeks and a lot of people complained that it is too long of a time frame. Sorry.

Look all we want is long enough that no one thinks it's too short, and short enough that no one thinks it's too long. Is that too much to ask?

 

[Qvist]

Part 8

[A Ladder]

Oh man Warf lost the #1 non-attack spot... what is the world coming to?

[ehunt]

I put Rebuild > Mountebank, primarily because "it's a Rebuild game" is something you say a bit more often than "it's a Mountebank game," although both of those things are things you say pretty much any time that respective card is on the board. The head-to-head is what really drives the point home; do you think "It's a Rebuild game, but I should pick up at least one Mountebank?" Or do you think "It's a Mountebank game, but I should pick up at least one rebuild?"

[Chris is me]

Oh man Warf lost the #1 non-attack spot... what is the world coming to?

Rebuild was higher than it last year too.

I still think Cultist is stronger than Mountebank, as vicious as Mountebank is, its block able, doesn't draw cards, and can't compete with the speed of a Cultist stack. They're both clearly powerhouses, I just skip Mountebank way more than I skip Cultist I guess.

[faust]

I put Rebuild > Mountebank, primarily because "it's a Rebuild game" is something you say a bit more often than "it's a Mountebank game," although both of those things are things you say pretty much any time that respective card is on the board. The head-to-head is what really drives the point home; do you think "It's a Rebuild game, but I should pick up at least one Mountebank?" Or do you think "It's a Mountebank game, but I should pick up at least one rebuild?"

The difference is that some games have Rebuild and you can counter it with a better strategy. It is extremely rare that you ignore Mountebank because it fits in most deck types.

[managore]

I put Rebuild > Mountebank, primarily because "it's a Rebuild game" is something you say a bit more often than "it's a Mountebank game," although both of those things are things you say pretty much any time that respective card is on the board. The head-to-head is what really drives the point home; do you think "It's a Rebuild game, but I should pick up at least one Mountebank?" Or do you think "It's a Mountebank game, but I should pick up at least one rebuild?"

I don't think it's accurate to use "I should pick up at least one X" as a measure. Some cards do everything they need to if you buy just one (Chapel, Militia, Outpost, etc) while others work better the more you have (Fool's Gold, Minion, Cultist, Gardens, etc), and most cards are somewhere in between the two extremes. Mountebank is almost always a fantastic card, but you rarely build your game around it (and the same is true for many attacks). That doesn't make it any less good.

[SCSN]

I still think Cultist is stronger than Mountebank, as vicious as Mountebank is, its block able, doesn't draw cards, and can't compete with the speed of a Cultist stack. They're both clearly powerhouses, I just skip Mountebank way more than I skip Cultist I guess.

I agree.

Here's my top 10:

Code: [Select]

1.) Rebuild 
2.) Cultist   
3.) Mountebank   
4.) Wharf   
5.) Summon   
6.) Junk Dealer   
7.) Upgrade 
8.) Governor 
9.) Witch 
10.) Counterfeit

[Dingan]

I put Rebuild > Mountebank, primarily because "it's a Rebuild game" is something you say a bit more often than "it's a Mountebank game," although both of those things are things you say pretty much any time that respective card is on the board. The head-to-head is what really drives the point home; do you think "It's a Rebuild game, but I should pick up at least one Mountebank?" Or do you think "It's a Mountebank game, but I should pick up at least one rebuild?"

I don't think it's accurate to use "I should pick up at least one X" as a measure. Some cards do everything they need to if you buy just one (Chapel, Militia, Outpost, etc) while others work better the more you have (Fool's Gold, Minion, Cultist, Gardens, etc), and most cards are somewhere in between the two extremes. Mountebank is almost always a fantastic card, but you rarely build your game around it (and the same is true for many attacks). That doesn't make it any less good.

To add on to this, if the board has both Monty and Rebuild, I will often buy a Monty on my first $5, Rebuild on my next 2 $5s, then Duchies thereafter (obviously, there are exceptions, and sometimes all of these cards can be ignored altogether).  So even in "Rebuild games", I'll still pick up a Monty on high priority.

Does this make Monty "better" than Rebuild?  Maybe, maybe not.  But I just feel that Monty is ignorable so much less than Rebuild.  Actually, now that I think about it, I can sort of see Rebuild suffering the same fate that Sea Hag once did.  That is, once people figure out how to counter it more (I'm talking about in non-mirrors), it may drop in rankings in 2016.  We'll see.

EDIT:
I agree that Cultist is better than Monty, because of these reasons:

• You can junk your opponent so much faster (same exact reason Cultist is better than Witch)
• Monty is defendable
• Sometimes Coppers aren't terrible (Spice Merchant, Apothecary, Gardens, etc.)
• Cultist's trash-for-benefitness makes it "useful" after the Ruins are gone

Of course, Monty keeps on junking after the Curses are gone, which can't be said about Cultist once Ruins are gone.

EDIT2:
Does anyone think Ambassador is better than both Cultist and Monty?  I'm somewhat inclined to say so, but not sure.  I definitely like Ambassador over Witch.

[luser]

I put Rebuild > Mountebank, primarily because "it's a Rebuild game" is something you say a bit more often than "it's a Mountebank game," although both of those things are things you say pretty much any time that respective card is on the board. The head-to-head is what really drives the point home; do you think "It's a Rebuild game, but I should pick up at least one Mountebank?" Or do you think "It's a Mountebank game, but I should pick up at least one rebuild?"

I don't think it's accurate to use "I should pick up at least one X" as a measure. Some cards do everything they need to if you buy just one (Chapel, Militia, Outpost, etc) while others work better the more you have (Fool's Gold, Minion, Cultist, Gardens, etc), and most cards are somewhere in between the two extremes. Mountebank is almost always a fantastic card, but you rarely build your game around it (and the same is true for many attacks). That doesn't make it any less good.

As mentioned on other threads with attempts to make automated rankings only way to get something meaningful is to compare cards A and B is to play games where one player couldn't buy A while other couldn't buy B.

Otherwise pearl diver would look really good as you buy it in lot of games. Also with some other rankings best card would be curse as almost every time player buys curses he wins.

[JW]

As mentioned on other threads with attempts to make automated rankings only way to get something meaningful is to compare cards A and B is to play games where one player couldn't buy A while other couldn't buy B.

Otherwise pearl diver would look really good as you buy it in lot of games. Also with some other rankings best card would be curse as almost every time player buys curses he wins.

A better metric would be to play games that may include card A and/or card B, at random. Player 1 can't gain card A when it appears and plays against an opponent who can gain anything. Player 2 can't gain card B when it appears and plays against an opponent who can gain anything.

You shouldn't only consider kingdoms that include both cards A and B. Among other benefits, this prevents cycles (where card A beats card B, which beats card C, which beats card A).

[Donald X.]

I don't know about this list guys. I've beaten the first card with the last card.

[SCSN]

I don't know about this list guys. I've beaten the first card with the last card.

The list is secretly a circle.

[Dingan]

I don't know about this list guys. I've beaten the first card with the last card.

Shoulda voted

[markusin]

I don't know about this list guys. I've beaten the first card with the last card.

It's classic Spy vs. Admiral in Stratego.

Edit: Also Counting House vs. Mountebank was a theme in Stef's board for the last Gokodom, which I believe you might have dismissed as a Gardens board at some point. Counting House was part of the winning strategy.

[ConMan]

I don't know about this list guys. I've beaten the first card with the last card.

Shoulda voted

Who do you think put in all the wonky reverse-order votes?