Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Graverobber vs Butcher; Apothecary; fishing for +Buy?  (Read 893 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Infthitbox

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
  • Respect: +440
    • View Profile
Graverobber vs Butcher; Apothecary; fishing for +Buy?
« on: January 08, 2016, 11:53:56 am »
0



Code: [Select]
Apothecary, Death Cart, Ironworks, Procession, Butcher, Counting House, Graverobber, Journeyman, Library, Border Village

http://gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?http://dominion-game-logs.s3.amazonaws.com/game_logs/20160106/log.0.1452084884104.txt


I open 5/2 and go for Butcher/- here. My opponent opens Silver/Potion, and I follow on potion with Butcher trashing Estate on t3. I suppose this is listed second in the thread title, but appears first in the thread; oh well. Is Apothecary worth it here? After Stef demonstrated the power of it me by walking me through an Apothecary/Farming Village/Oracle thing in one of my first streams, I usually just go for it. There's plenty of draw here though; Journeyman and Library exist.

On turn 6, I use my Butcher to pick up Procession, which I then don't use and just later trash. Feels like a mistake, but I'm not sure what, if anything, I want to gain here.

The endgame here presents (as I see it) two alternatives: Graverobber and Butcher, both with the aim of getting 2 Provinces a turn. I end up getting 2 Graverobbers, with the aim of using them in tandem to pick up a 5 from the trash and then trash it for a Province. The alternative is Butchering these Border Villages into Provinces, which feels less powerful to me here. I feel like I transitioned from Graverobber to Butcher reasonably correctly this game, but I'm not sure at all. Also, as a side note, I was shocked to see that the card gained from the trash with Graverobber went to the top of my deck; I really need to like, RTFC.

I wonder sometimes about Death Cart and fishing for a Ruined Market with no other +Buy available. In this game, I don't think my deck could handle the ruins particularly well, and the Death Cart wasn't necessary for money until I spiked the Ruined Market (if ever). Is fishing for Ruined Market ever correct? I remember playing a game where Ruined Market was was top of the ruins stack; I ended up "buying it for $9" at one point the game, Princed it (this was obviously incorrect in that game; I should have princed an Ironmonger to facilitate drawing my deck to play the Ruined Market naturally every turn), and ended up losing handily to my opponent who managed fine with just one buy. Would you have bought a Death Cart or Ruined Market this game if Ruined Market was on top of the stack?
Logged

faust

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3377
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Graverobber vs Butcher; Apothecary; fishing for +Buy?
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2016, 12:23:06 pm »
+1

I am not sure about Apothecary here. It's weaker without +buy, there is other good draw. It might still be worth it.

On the board, I think maybe you could try Procession/Ironworks to gain all those juicy 5s and trash them later with Graverobber. Procession 5-cost into BV/5-cost is also neat.

I think going for Graverobbers is absolute the better decision. You can also Graverob BVs so that you gain a $5 each time you get BV back from the trash. It probably helps that you topdeck Villages as well.

Buying Ruined Market from the top of the Ruins is a thing, But I don't think it's worth it here. There are enough other gainers and you don't need the buy. Maybe if you were going hardcore on Apothecaries, but I doubt that's the best strategy. Fishing for a Ruined Market that may or may not be in the Ruins pile seems very bad and I would only ever do it if I was really desperate.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.041 seconds with 20 queries.