Print

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

[Davio]

The way it's worded, I think I could do:

Draw 2 cards, look at them, then decide whether to draw an extra card or get that +$1.

[tristan]

It's not crazy super awesome, but it seems solid enough to me.  They can't all be the best card.

You could argue that Torturer, Margrave adn Catacombs are overpowered but I cannot fathom a situation in which I'd pick Plantation over any 5$ terminal drawers except for perhaps Journeyman.

Really, you can't fathom a situation?  Torturer: the curses are out.  Margrave: you already have a discard attack and +buy.  Catacombs: you're thin enough you don't need the extra sifting.

I think +3 cards, +$1 would be a reasonably good $5, and I think Plantation is a little worse than that, so it might be on the weak side, but it's not awful compared to other terminal draw $5's.

About your comparisons with Torturer and Margrave. Torturer is still a Smithy when Curses are out whereas Plantation is nearly half of the time worse than a Smithy. About Margrave, once you have 2 or 3 of them you do indeed rather want another terminal draw lest you help your opponent via playing two of them in one turn.

These are saturation effects though, on average both Torturer and Margrave are still far better than Plantation.

Oops, for some reason I was thinking you always got +3 cards and it was the +$1 that went on and off.  Well, I don't think Plantation is much worse than Smithy in Spring/Fall, so I think you'd still take it over a dead Torturer.

But I was responding specifically to "I cannot fathom a situation in which I'd pick Plantation over any $5 terminal drawers..." which is just absurd.  The Margrave thing is an obvious example of situation, and it's common enough that it's pretty easy to fathom.  Maybe you're already building an engine with Mercenary and +buy, so the Margrave attack actually helps them and gives you no additional benefit.

Technically you are right, I made a remark which was too general. But in such a situation even Smithy would be preferrable to Margrave and yet Margrave is on average still better than Smithy.

About your claim that +2 Cards, +1$ is not much worse than +3 Cards, I totally disagree. "+2 Cards, +1$" would be a strong 2$ and a weak 3$. It would do little for an engine and even less for BM. Smithy on the other hand can be a key component for both. Now of course there are situations in which you rather want a coin than a card (and Davio's interpretation of the card would actually make it quite a bit better) but on average you'd rather want a card than an extra coin. The extra coin is more beneficial, relative to the extra card, earlier in the game ... but Planatation is not a card you will buy often when you open with 2/5.

[eHalcyon]

It's not crazy super awesome, but it seems solid enough to me.  They can't all be the best card.

You could argue that Torturer, Margrave and Catacombs are overpowered but I cannot fathom a situation in which I'd pick Plantation over any 5$ terminal drawers except for perhaps Journeyman.

There are many possible reasons and the most trivial one is when the others aren't available.  This card might be a bit on the weaker side for $5 (needs testing) but it has enough going for it overall that $5 works.  Again, they can't all be the best.

You should be able to fathom something.  Torturer and Margrave may be less desirable when there are counters to discard attacks (Menagerie, Tunnel, Watchtower).  You might not want the cycling that comes with Catacombs.  You might prefer the coin on Plantation in a slight deck.

Also note that it will usually be in its stronger version for more than half the game since you won't be playing it much in Spring, if at all, and the on-gain effect will also tilt time in its favour.

And FWIW, i think there was someone (Graystripe77?) who had tested "+2 Cards, +$1" and claimed that it was stronger than Smithy.  I don't buy that, but I don't think it would be a weak $3 either.  (Edit: it was for a similar card, though not quite the same.)

[Asper]

Also note that it will usually be in its stronger version for more than half the game since you won't be playing it much in Spring, if at all, and the on-gain effect will also tilt time in its favour.

This is a very relevant point. From our playtesting experience, Plantation is played as its stronger version about 3/4ths of the time. The first Spring is part of that, but also that being able to skip/replay 1/5th of a Season each time you gain one has a substantial effect.

[Davio]

Moving the season marker mid-turn could be a thing...

[tristan]

And FWIW, i think there was someone (Graystripe77?) who had tested "+2 Cards, +$1" and claimed that it was stronger than Smithy.  I don't buy that, but I don't think it would be a weak $3 either.  (Edit: it was for a similar card, though not quite the same.)

I am with drsteelhammer on this, "+2 Card, +1$" is on average probably weaker than Oracle.  The jump from 2 to 3 and then to 4 cards is quite large and unless you have a lot of villages that combo with "+2 Cards" into a Lab (respectively a Lab and a Peddler in the case of this card) you do not really want such a mediocre card draw as an engine piece, even if it comes with an extra coin.
It is kinda like Squire and Village, more often than not (taking into account that with draw up to X you sometimes want villages with virtual coins which doesn't matter for terminal draws!) you would prefer the extra card of the latter over the extra coin of the latter.

I wonder about Davios' question though as being able to decide between the coin and the card after having drawn two cards would make the card a tiny bit better.

[eHalcyon]

Squire/Village isn't a good comparison for this.  +Card is much better on a nonterminal.  This is terminal, so coin and card are closer.  I agree that card is better, but the difference is not so big.  Consider that a simple terminal +$3 is usually considered to be decent at $5.

[tristan]

Squire/Village isn't a good comparison for this.  +Card is much better on a nonterminal.  This is terminal, so coin and card are closer.

I disagree because of "draw up to X" which combos with degenerate Villages.
With BM that extra coin is worse than the extra card and in an engine the virtual coins only shines if you have decent Village support.
Take the base game and Village plus Moat. They neatly combo into a Lab but it is pretty hard to pull it off to get ample of villages and ample of Moats. You also need a higher village density with Moat than with Smithy.
Now if you can get that village support a terminal draw that provide coins does shine. But if you don't it sucks.

I agree that card is better, but the difference is not so big.  Consider that a simple terminal +$3 is usually considered to be decent at $5.

Apples and oranges. A terminal +$2 is worth around 2$ and a terminal +$1, being worse than Copper, worth 0$.
 
Consider that Wharf is usually considered to be stronger than Merchant ship. Independent of whether you play an engine or BM, you want that Wharf. Merchant Ship is only perferable if you need some virtual coins because of Pirate Ship, Grand Market or some other idiosyncracy of the specific Kingdom. In general you want to draw cards and not quasi-draw Coppers.

[eHalcyon]

Squire/Village isn't a good comparison for this.  +Card is much better on a nonterminal.  This is terminal, so coin and card are closer.

I disagree because of "draw up to X" which combos with degenerate Villages.
With BM that extra coin is worse than the extra card and in an engine the virtual coins only shines if you have decent Village support.
Take the base game and Village plus Moat. They neatly combo into a Lab but it is pretty hard to pull it off to get ample of villages and ample of Moats. You also need a higher village density with Moat than with Smithy.
Now if you can get that village support a terminal draw that provide coins does shine. But if you don't it sucks.

Huh?  Drawing additional cards is stronger on a non-terminal than on a terminal.  I don't see how your argument here relates.

I agree that card is better, but the difference is not so big.  Consider that a simple terminal +$3 is usually considered to be decent at $5.

Apples and oranges. A terminal +$2 is worth around 2$ and a terminal +$1, being worse than Copper, worth 0$.
 
Consider that Wharf is usually considered to be stronger than Merchant ship. Independent of whether you play an engine or BM, you want that Wharf. Merchant Ship is only perferable if you need some virtual coins because of Pirate Ship, Grand Market or some other idiosyncracy of the specific Kingdom. In general you want to draw cards and not quasi-draw Coppers.

Again, huh?  This goes back to the first point.  Wharf is so much stronger because the second half of its draw is non-terminal.  Non-terminal draw is way better than terminal draw, whereas the difference with coin is less.  If we're talking apples and oranges, Wharf vs. Merchant Ship isn't even a fruit.  But I don't understand your reason for dismissing the comparison to a terminal +$3.  The point there is that getting coin is not so bad.

[tristan]

Squire/Village isn't a good comparison for this.  +Card is much better on a nonterminal.  This is terminal, so coin and card are closer.

I disagree because of "draw up to X" which combos with degenerate Villages.
With BM that extra coin is worse than the extra card and in an engine the virtual coins only shines if you have decent Village support.
Take the base game and Village plus Moat. They neatly combo into a Lab but it is pretty hard to pull it off to get ample of villages and ample of Moats. You also need a higher village density with Moat than with Smithy.
Now if you can get that village support a terminal draw that provide coins does shine. But if you don't it sucks.

Huh?  Drawing additional cards is stronger on a non-terminal than on a terminal.  I don't see how your argument here relates.

What is not to get? You claimed that extra cards are relatively better on villages than on terminal draws whereas I claimed that extra coins are relatively better on villages than terminal draws due to the existence of "draw up to X cards". As an example, Fishing Village or Festival combos well with Library or Watchtower. They even combo well with ordinary terminal draws.
This is why DXV has done several villages but not even one terminal draw with virtual coins.

But I don't understand your reason for dismissing the comparison to a terminal +$3.  The point there is that getting coin is not so bad.

Terminal +$3 would indeed be a strong 5$. But this has nothing to do with what the addition of an extra coin on a terminal draw card would be worth. Hell, the closest comparison would be a terminal virtual coin which would be inferior to Copper so obviously this leads nowhere.
It is a bit more complicated than that. For example we agreed that "+3$" would definitely have to cost more than Smithy yet this doesn't imply that virtuals coins are always inferior extra cards. Usually it is the other way around.

As always the strength of a card is Kingdom-dependent but I think that in general Oracle would be superior to "+2 cards, $1" so the Spring/Autumn part of Plantation would be a weak 3$. The relevant issue seems to be, as always, not these theoretical musings but the empirical facts, i.e. what Asper told about playtesting: that the Winter/Summer part of Plantation is played most often.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Exactly what tristan said in his last sentence, that's the point of Plantation. About 3/4 of the game (I would even say about 90% of the time a Plantation is played) it's in summer unless there's another season card you'd prefer to play in another season so you buy Plantation to get to that season. But if you gain Plantations you play them so that makes you want to move the season marker to summer or winter. As I can tell you based on several test games, Plantation either gets played almost exclusively in the optimal season, or it doesn't get played much at all. The latter is usually the case when there's stronger draw available. But if there is more than one draw card in kingdom, of course you take the strongest one and they can't all be Catacombs.

Also you shouldn't dismiss +$1 instead of +1 card as definitely weaker. Whenever you trashed all your starting cards it happens so easily you overdraw your deck before you start greening. Don't tell me you wouldn't be happy if every single card you overdrew in a turn was an additional $1 instead.

[Davio]

Well, +1 Card is usually better because that card can be a Copper which gives you +$1 anyway.
And if that card is an Estate, well, that's one Estate less in your next hand to worry about.

It's only a problem if the card is a dead action card and if you have dead action cards, well, you don't have enough villages.

I guess the +$1 makes a bigger difference if you need key cards with bad fallback options. Say with $6 you might buy Gold, but with $5 you have to resort to Silver. In that case, the +$1 can be helpful. And of course late game with $7 -> Province.

[eHalcyon]

What is not to get? You claimed that extra cards are relatively better on villages than on terminal draws whereas I claimed that extra coins are relatively better on villages than terminal draws due to the existence of "draw up to X cards". As an example, Fishing Village or Festival combos well with Library or Watchtower. They even combo well with ordinary terminal draws.
This is why DXV has done several villages but not even one terminal draw with virtual coins.

That's what I thought you were saying, but I questioned it because it doesn't make sense.  Draw-to-X is not common.  Your argument is like saying that Copper is relatively better than Silver because of Coppersmith.

This isn't just my claim; it's common knowledge.  It isn't just about villages, it's about non-terminals in general.  Simple example:

Say you have a terminal +2 cards and a terminal +2 coins.  As terminals, both are about equal in value -- they are sub $2 cards (reference Moat and Duchess).  Now make them non-terminal.  The +cards are $5 now (Lab), whereas the +coins are $3 (Silver).

Terminal +$3 would indeed be a strong 5$. But this has nothing to do with what the addition of an extra coin on a terminal draw card would be worth. Hell, the closest comparison would be a terminal virtual coin which would be inferior to Copper so obviously this leads nowhere.

I mean, you say that, but you haven't explained why you think an example with terminal coin has nothing to do with discussing this card with terminal coin while your example with Squire somehow does.  Terminal vs. non-terminal is a bigger difference for this comparison.

The theoretical terminal +$3 is relevant because it is another step on subbing vanilla bonus for vanilla bonus.  Here they all are:

A) +3 cards: Smithy, a decent $4 card
B) +2 cards, +$1: the first form of Plantation, under debate
C) +1 card, +$2: something that shouldn't exist
D) +$3: a theoretical decent $5 card

All of one or the other is preferable because you'll buy that card for a specific purpose and being a generalist is generally less useful.  Option C is a special case of unfunness because +1 card isn't enough to be helpful for draw in an engine and can hurt you when you draw something dead.  Option B is still OK though.  I agree that it's weaker than a flat +3 cards, but it's still OK.  +2 cards can suffice for an engine and +$1 is an OK extra bonus.

My overall argument is that +card and +coin are actually pretty close in power on a terminal card.  Card is better overall, but coin is not far behind can become preferable depending on the board.

This is why DXV has done several villages but not even one terminal draw with virtual coins.

Mercenary.

It is a bit more complicated than that. For example we agreed that "+3$" would definitely have to cost more than Smithy yet this doesn't imply that virtuals coins are always inferior extra cards. Usually it is the other way around.

Are you changing your argument, or is this just a typo?  I thought we agreed that +coins are usually inferior to +cards, not "the other way around". 

As always the strength of a card is Kingdom-dependent but I think that in general Oracle would be superior to "+2 cards, $1" so the Spring/Autumn part of Plantation would be a weak 3$. The relevant issue seems to be, as always, not these theoretical musings but the empirical facts, i.e. what Asper told about playtesting: that the Winter/Summer part of Plantation is played most often.

I don't think the comparison to Oracle is clear cut, but even if that's true it doesn't mean that Plantation would be weak at $3.  Oracle is strong.  Even if this isn't as strong, it's still good.

I'm glad that my theoretical musings aligned with the playtesting.

[Gubump]

How many unposted cards are left from this expansion, if any?

[Co0kieL0rd]

There's one event and one card but the card has yet to be tested. We might show it to you early but it might change later.

[faust]

Let me weigh in on the card vs coin issue. I think this is not the problem of Plantation. The problem is that you usually want a card that does one thing well than a card that does two things in a mediocre way. This is why both Smithy and "terminal +3$" are better than Spring-Plantation.

That said, I initially felt that the card was too weak, but Davio's interpretation makes is a lot more interesting and stronger, to the point where it really is decent competition for the other $5 draw cards.

[Davio]

I like my interpretation as well since it gives something unique to the card (other than moving the season marker).

Draw, look, draw or +$1.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I like my interpretation as well since it gives something unique to the card (other than moving the season marker).

Draw, look, draw or +$1.

We don't want to make the card more wordy than necessary plus I already gave an explanation why Plantation is good enough as-is. I mean, we could still do your suggestion, it's not a bad idea. I just don't see the necessity since we have sufficiently tested our version and found it to be working out.

[Accatitippi]

Yet I dare say Davio's interpretation is the correct one. There's no reason one should resolve the instructions of a card in a different order than they're written in. 

[Co0kieL0rd]

Yet I dare say Davio's interpretation is the correct one. There's no reason one should resolve the instructions of a card in a different order than they're written in. 

I don't get it. Plantation doesn't instruct you to "look" at any cards.

[singletee]

Yet I dare say Davio's interpretation is the correct one. There's no reason one should resolve the instructions of a card in a different order than they're written in. 

I don't get it. Plantation doesn't instruct you to "look" at any cards.

You look at the cards you've drawn from "+2 Cards" after they're in your hand.

[tristan]

My overall argument is that +card and +coin are actually pretty close in power on a terminal card.  Card is better overall, but coin is not far behind can become preferable depending on the board.

As I already pointed out, Wharf and Merchant Ship are the clearest illustration of why cards are superior to coins. Of course you can analyze the duration effect of both cards as double Peddler respectively double Lab but this doesn't change the fact that cards are usually better than coins. You wanna get through your deck and usually draw something better than copper midgame.
On a sidenote, I think that it is moderately irrelevant to make this seperation between terminal and non-terminal. Of course you need to stick with this assumption to maintain your argument as everybody knows that Lab is far better than Peddler.

Of course there is nothing wrong with an engine that consists of some villages and some terminal coin cards like Pirate Ship or Harvest or whatever. But usually you want the virtual coins if anywhere on your villages and terminal draws just to terminally draw. As faust has pointed out, the mixture of both seems to be inferior to the pure versions. For example a mixture between Merchant Ship and Wharf sounds pretty weak (it'd probably still be a 5$ but most of the time inferior to either of the individual cards) to me. It neither has enough draw power nor does it provide enough coins to make you able to run a pure engine instead of getting some gold.

About Mercenary, this is obviously a joke. Very often you do not have an extra action when you draw with this card. As it is first and above all a trasher it illustrates that DXV has not done any real mixture between terminal draw and virtual coins except for a trasher which rarely can use its little bonus. Ample of terminal draws, ample of terminal silvers and other terminal virtual coins, only one mixture of both. The reason for this fact is faust's point: the mxiture of both is weak.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Yet I dare say Davio's interpretation is the correct one. There's no reason one should resolve the instructions of a card in a different order than they're written in. 

I don't get it. Plantation doesn't instruct you to "look" at any cards.

You look at the cards you've drawn from "+2 Cards" after they're in your hand.

Well, I thought that was obvious.

[Davio]

Yet I dare say Davio's interpretation is the correct one. There's no reason one should resolve the instructions of a card in a different order than they're written in. 

I don't get it. Plantation doesn't instruct you to "look" at any cards.

You look at the cards you've drawn from "+2 Cards" after they're in your hand.

Yes, it follows by this simple logic:

A: When you draw cards, you pull them from the top of your deck and add them to your hand
B: You may look at the cards in your hand at all times
=> You may look at the cards you have drawn

[Co0kieL0rd]

Yet I dare say Davio's interpretation is the correct one. There's no reason one should resolve the instructions of a card in a different order than they're written in. 

I don't get it. Plantation doesn't instruct you to "look" at any cards.

You look at the cards you've drawn from "+2 Cards" after they're in your hand.

Yes, it follows by this simple logic:

A: When you draw cards, you pull them from the top of your deck and add them to your hand
B: You may look at the cards in your hand at all times
=> You may look at the cards you have drawn

I mistook your "interpretation" for a "suggestion" but no, of course Plantation works that way. This is why I wrote it gains a lot of flexibility in Summer and Winter. And usually like 70% of Plantation games take place in Summer.