Print

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

[chwhite]

I mostly don't agree with WW on which cards are too low or too high, but he's totally right about Lab.  I had it just above Stables, because it's useful in a wider variety (read: Treasure-light) of decks, but really the two are almost identical in power. 

I've made a couple of complaints about cards being too far ahead of similar cards(farming vs walled village, bazaar vs market), but I can understand lab and stables being reasonably far apart. They are not really the same power level. Stables is much worse, because even though it's similar in a lot of situations, it's worse in the kinds of decks where you most often want non-terminal draw -- trimmed engine decks. Sure stables may be better in decks with lots of money, but neither card is particularly good in these situations. That's not to say stables is a bad card, but it never really shines the way lab does.

Regarding the Witch vs Mountebank discussion:
Mountebank is better when there is a chance to trash your way into an engine despite the curses, because that's when the copper actually hurts. But Witch is better in basically all other curse situations, since it can't miss, and copper is not so bad. The situations in which Witch is better are far more plentiful. While Witch may be ignorable more often, it's not ignorable that often (certainly not TWICE as often as mountebank). So I'm in the Witch camp.

I also think the biggest miss in the top 16 (besides maybe the omission of Haggler) is that IGG is too low, which I'm sure is an artifact of the newness. I'm pretty sure it belongs at #3, behind only Witch and Mountebank. Sure it's ignorable more often than Wharf, but it's simply more game-warping.

What dings Lab in my eyes is that it's not actually that great of a +Card source in trimmed engine decks.  I much prefer cards like Menagerie, Scrying Pool, Minion, Hunting Party, Tactician, etc etc.  I mean, it'll do fine, but there are other options that are cheaper, or potentially more powerful, or come with other benefits.   So I'm rarely excited to use Lab in big engines.  While it will function in these setups, I find its most frequent and best use to come in treasure-heavy decks instead.  So that really minimzes its big advantage over Stables.  Mind you, I did have Lab higher, but only by two spots.

Also, Bazaar and Market are not particularly similar.  They have some commonalities, sure, but much different uses.

[WanderingWinder]

I mostly don't agree with WW on which cards are too low or too high, but he's totally right about Lab.  I had it just above Stables, because it's useful in a wider variety (read: Treasure-light) of decks, but really the two are almost identical in power. 

I've made a couple of complaints about cards being too far ahead of similar cards(farming vs walled village, bazaar vs market), but I can understand lab and stables being reasonably far apart. They are not really the same power level. Stables is much worse, because even though it's similar in a lot of situations, it's worse in the kinds of decks where you most often want non-terminal draw -- trimmed engine decks. Sure stables may be better in decks with lots of money, but neither card is particularly good in these situations. That's not to say stables is a bad card, but it never really shines the way lab does.

Regarding the Witch vs Mountebank discussion:
Mountebank is better when there is a chance to trash your way into an engine despite the curses, because that's when the copper actually hurts. But Witch is better in basically all other curse situations, since it can't miss, and copper is not so bad. The situations in which Witch is better are far more plentiful. While Witch may be ignorable more often, it's not ignorable that often (certainly not TWICE as often as mountebank). So I'm in the Witch camp.

I also think the biggest miss in the top 16 (besides maybe the omission of Haggler) is that IGG is too low, which I'm sure is an artifact of the newness. I'm pretty sure it belongs at #3, behind only Witch and Mountebank. Sure it's ignorable more often than Wharf, but it's simply more game-warping.

What dings Lab in my eyes is that it's not actually that great of a +Card source in trimmed engine decks.  I much prefer cards like Menagerie, Scrying Pool, Minion, Hunting Party, Tactician, etc etc.  I mean, it'll do fine, but there are other options that are cheaper, or potentially more powerful, or come with other benefits.   So I'm rarely excited to use Lab in big engines.  While it will function in these setups, I find its most frequent and best use to come in treasure-heavy decks instead.  So that really minimzes its big advantage over Stables.  Mind you, I did have Lab higher, but only by two spots.

Also, Bazaar and Market are not particularly similar.  They have some commonalities, sure, but much different uses.

Actually, I find lab to be not that great in treasure decks. Like, just Lab+BM is dreadful. And with terminals, it lets you play them more, except... then you need to buy fewer. And so you'd almost prefer to have the terminal in a lot of cases. And in some cases, you actually would.
I find that lab is a card that almost always helps, but is basically never a star, and rarely helps a ton. It's a nice card to have, but not a card you're like 'oh, I'm going to build around that'.

[Kore]

I think minion is overrated. A pure minion strategy is nice, but not so easy to pull off. I don't understand why it's higher than Ghost ship, which is a very strong attack.

I think you're right about minion. The pure minion deck is fun and amazing when you can pull it off but it needs strong enablers (chapel, lighthouse) on the board. It's just too slow otherwise to keep up with standard BM + X play especially if you have no good way to consistently gain minions.

[WanderingWinder]

I think minion is overrated. A pure minion strategy is nice, but not so easy to pull off. I don't understand why it's higher than Ghost ship, which is a very strong attack.

I think you're right about minion. The pure minion deck is fun and amazing when you can pull it off but it needs strong enablers (chapel, lighthouse) on the board. It's just too slow otherwise to keep up with standard BM + X play especially if you have no good way to consistently gain minions.

Not really. The attack is pretty good. And if your opponent doesn't contest minion, you're in very good shape.
My top 5, if I did the list right now, would be
Witch
Mountebank
Wharf
IGG
HP

[jonts26]

I think minion is overrated. A pure minion strategy is nice, but not so easy to pull off. I don't understand why it's higher than Ghost ship, which is a very strong attack.

I think you're right about minion. The pure minion deck is fun and amazing when you can pull it off but it needs strong enablers (chapel, lighthouse) on the board. It's just too slow otherwise to keep up with standard BM + X play especially if you have no good way to consistently gain minions.

Not really. The attack is pretty good. And if your opponent doesn't contest minion, you're in very good shape.
My top 5, if I did the list right now, would be
Witch
Mountebank
Wharf
IGG
HP

I agree on the attack part of minion. It's more than just a slap on the wrist. Minion creates this odd game dynamic. The ability to get all 10 (or even 7 or 8 ) will let you do fantastic things, and greening isn't much of a problem until really late game. So if someone starts going minions, well you need to get some to stop that, which means, you're basically going minions yourself. And yeah, minions are much weaker when you only have 5, but you kind of have to take those 5.

And I agree with the 5 cards you have on the top 5, but it's really close I think between Wharf/IGG/HP, and I might reorder that depending on my mood. I'd also really want to sneak tactician on there, but I think that has to fall to #6 for me.

[O]

+2VP in the endgame is "rarely significant"? Yikes man.

Farmland chains are indeed generally terrible, and certainly not how Farmland should generally be played. Overall, Farmland is a fine if slightly undewhelming card you often buy once or twice (in the right situations, hopefully). Adventurer, you pretty much never buy.

+2VP is not insignificant until you put it in the context of essentially needing 6$+Gold. If it's a BM deck with 2-3 Golds, you're making a mistake with an early gold trash in the first few provinces and you're either looking very good (because you have a superior deck) or very bad (because you got a bad shuffle) if you get 6+Gold after 4 provinces are gone.

 I'm not saying Farmlands can never be bought advantageously, but I would made the analogy that Adventurer:Farmland::Saboteur:Stash. Saboteur is a worse card head-to-head in most decks, but it can be crucial in certain situations. Stash, on the other hand, has Chancellor (analogous to BV for Farmland, I guess) which makes it great and is barely, barely better than a silver in other games.

[WanderingWinder]

+2VP in the endgame is "rarely significant"? Yikes man.

Farmland chains are indeed generally terrible, and certainly not how Farmland should generally be played. Overall, Farmland is a fine if slightly undewhelming card you often buy once or twice (in the right situations, hopefully). Adventurer, you pretty much never buy.

+2VP is not insignificant until you put it in the context of essentially needing 6$+Gold. If it's a BM deck with 2-3 Golds, you're making a mistake with an early gold trash in the first few provinces and you're either looking very good (because you have a superior deck) or very bad (because you got a bad shuffle) if you get 6+Gold after 4 provinces are gone.

 I'm not saying Farmlands can never be bought advantageously, but I would made the analogy that Adventurer:Farmland::Saboteur:Stash. Saboteur is a worse card head-to-head in most decks, but it can be crucial in certain situations. Stash, on the other hand, has Chancellor (analogous to BV for Farmland, I guess) which makes it great and is barely, barely better than a silver in other games.

Farmland is a card that is almost always a factor, on every board.
Adventurer is a card that is almost never a factor, on any board.
Furthermore, adventurer doesn't have as much effect when it does do something as farmland generally does, at least so I find.
If Adventurer cost $5, it would be much better, and a mediocre to middle-of-the-pack $5. If farmland cost $5, it would probably usually be better, though it's not entirely clear. And it would be... well, probably middle-of-the pack.
Not trying to say farmland is good. But it's better than Adventurer.

[danno]

Not sure why Fairgrounds would not be ranked below Farmland (and for that matter Adventurer). In non-Colony, non-Tournament game, the best Fairgrounds can do is 3 - VP (10 kingdom, 3 treasure, 3 victory, plus curse). Might as well buy Duchy and  build the engine I want to.

Am I missing something?

Just asking.

Dan

[jonts26]

You indeed are missing something. Fairgrounds are worth 2VP per 5 unique cards. It's usually pretty easy to get them to 4VP and oftentimes 6VP with the right kingdom. And with the really right kingdom, these puppies can surpass colonies, point wise.

[HiveMindEmulator]

Not sure why Fairgrounds would not be ranked below Farmland (and for that matter Adventurer). In non-Colony, non-Tournament game, the best Fairgrounds can do is 3 - VP (10 kingdom, 3 treasure, 3 victory, plus curse). Might as well buy Duchy and  build the engine I want to.

Am I missing something?

Yeah. You're counting only half the VPs of fairgrounds. It's TWO per 5 kinds of cards.

EDIT: Wow. 2 second ninja. Nice...

[danno]

Doh! Brain cramp.

[gamesou]

I'd swap out Outpost for Philosopher's Stone, which I find worthwhile even less often than Transmute. Other than that I agree.

Isn't Philosopher's Stone underrated ? I'm not an expert, so I may be wrong. But my impression is that, from times to times, there is a board where it is very strong (with no good engine possibility, and when there are +buys, especially Herbalist, and/or alternative victory cards). You may even open with Potion only for that (which looks crazy).

A randomly found sample game (admittedly, not a very impressive one).
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20101213-122616-b8a86df4.html

[Geronimoo]

Phil Stone and Herbalist are hilarious together. I think it's even a viable strategy if you have to open $5/$2 without decent $5s. The likely optimal play for this combo is very interesting:

-open Potion/Herbalist (and you'll only want one Potion)
-buy Phil Stones over Gold
-buy as many Herbalists as you want (over Silvers!)
-buy Coppers with your leftover buy (!)
-buy Duchies extremely early

this should beat a player going Smithy/- on a $5/$2 opening!! Here's a bot:

Code: [Select]

<player name="Philosopher's Stone/Herbalist"
 author="Geronimoo"
 description="Get a bunch of Stones and Herbalists and they'll do beautiful things together. ">
 <type name="Fun"/>
 <type name="BigMoney"/>
 <type name="Combo"/>
 <type name="Bot"/>
 <type name="TwoPlayer"/>
 <type name="Province"/>
 <type name="UserCreated"/>
   <buy name="Province"/>
   <buy name="Duchy">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInSupply" attribute="Province"/>
         <operator type="smallerOrEqualThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="6.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Estate">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInSupply" attribute="Province"/>
         <operator type="smallerOrEqualThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="3.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Philosopher$s_Stone"/>
   <buy name="Gold"/>
   <buy name="Potion">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Potion"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="1.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Herbalist"/>
   <buy name="Silver"/>
   <buy name="Copper"/>
</player>

The Herbalist will always put Gold back over Phil Stone so in your current version of the simulator this bot will not beat Smithy (there will be a fix in the next release of the simulator).

[petrie911]

Would that be a viable strat when you open 5/2 against Ambassador?

[Lekkit]

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1611.0

[DG]

King's Court is slower than most cards, wouldn't you agree?

It is slow to get but the acceleration it provides can be instant and devastating. It enables power strategies that transform the kingdom and let you play fantasy strategies. It can even afford to be a touch slower than money cards since with king's court you can control the endgame.

[jsh357]

Phil Stone and Herbalist are hilarious together.

I just tried this in a few test games... holy cow.  I may have a new favorite combo

[Lekkit]

I think Philosopher's stone in general deserves more love.

[brokoli]

I think minion is overrated. A pure minion strategy is nice, but not so easy to pull off. I don't understand why it's higher than Ghost ship, which is a very strong attack.

I think you're right about minion. The pure minion deck is fun and amazing when you can pull it off but it needs strong enablers (chapel, lighthouse) on the board. It's just too slow otherwise to keep up with standard BM + X play especially if you have no good way to consistently gain minions.

Not really. The attack is pretty good. And if your opponent doesn't contest minion, you're in very good shape.

The attack part of minion is for me a swingy militia. Sometimes better, sometimes weaker.
But, there is a problem : you must discard your hand. Minion is very bad in good draw engines (except library). Nice card, but certainly not the 5th best.
My current list :
1 - Mountebank
2 - Hunting party
3 - Witch
4 - Wharf
5 - Tactician

[Tahtweasel]

Phil Stone and Herbalist are hilarious together. I think it's even a viable strategy if you have to open $5/$2 without decent $5s. The likely optimal play for this combo is very interesting:

-open Potion/Herbalist (and you'll only want one Potion)
-buy Phil Stones over Gold
-buy as many Herbalists as you want (over Silvers!)
-buy Coppers with your leftover buy (!)
-buy Duchies extremely early

this should beat a player going Smithy/- on a $5/$2 opening!! Here's a bot:

Code: [Select]

<player name="Philosopher's Stone/Herbalist"
 author="Geronimoo"
 description="Get a bunch of Stones and Herbalists and they'll do beautiful things together. ">
 <type name="Fun"/>
 <type name="BigMoney"/>
 <type name="Combo"/>
 <type name="Bot"/>
 <type name="TwoPlayer"/>
 <type name="Province"/>
 <type name="UserCreated"/>
   <buy name="Province"/>
   <buy name="Duchy">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInSupply" attribute="Province"/>
         <operator type="smallerOrEqualThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="6.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Estate">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInSupply" attribute="Province"/>
         <operator type="smallerOrEqualThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="3.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Philosopher$s_Stone"/>
   <buy name="Gold"/>
   <buy name="Potion">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Potion"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="1.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Herbalist"/>
   <buy name="Silver"/>
   <buy name="Copper"/>
</player>

The Herbalist will always put Gold back over Phil Stone so in your current version of the simulator this bot will not beat Smithy (there will be a fix in the next release of the simulator).

Try telling it to buy two Apothecaries first, and then prioritize Phil stone after that. That combo is just begging for it.

[timchen]

Fabian: after so many posts I still don't understand your definition of "best". And clearly I think it is not the problem. There certainly are many definitions of "best" which will put KC ahead of Goons; it is just that it does not include the one which counts (1-x) of the boards that you can get away without it. I think everyone here agrees that Goons is more often a must buy. But KC apparently changes the game much much more drastically. Why can I not take the definition of "best", as the most game wrapping, given how the card is played in the game?

I just took some time to look at my own stats:
KC: 1.54 with,  0.93 without, gaining 94% of the time;
Goons: 1.68 with, 0.80 without, gaining 92% of the time... LOL.
(I know I tend to get KC even if I know I shouldn't; I always try to fancy a way to use that KC. But the without stats probably are not telling since they essentially are the games where I just failed early either by luck or by other misplay that I cannot even get to them.)

As for Mountebank vs. Witch, I was thinking Witch to be better, but then I am convinced by the council room stats. I guess it doesn't mean much though. Head to head witch is better. And which one is better overall? This question does not seem to be useful anyway...

[HiveMindEmulator]

I think everyone here agrees that Goons is more often a must buy. But KC apparently changes the game much much more drastically.

I'm not convinced that KC actually changes the game more than Goons. Goons provides a source of points that is independent of provinces which is actually a really fundamental change. And the attack slows the game down to a Goons kind of pace. KC is a really strong card, enables strategies that delay provinces longer than usual, and makes for some of the craziest turns, but that's not really changing the game the same way that Goons can. You can of course argue that in some other way KC changes the game more, but "much much more" sounds like a pretty big stretch to me.

[ackack]

Here is a possible claim that might illustrate what it would mean to "change the game more." I'm not sure if this is true, but intuitively I'm inclined to think it is.

Imagine that we can construct ideal decks for a given set of kingdom cards. (Is that well defined? Almost certainly not, as what your opponent does will often suggest minor modifications. Nevertheless I think people will know what I mean here.) Now imagine comparing the ideal decks for two kingdoms where the only difference is the second kingdom is missing one card. I would claim that if you remove KC, on average the change in ideal decks is quite substantial - without KC to superpower them many engine strategies become void. By contrast, Goons can often be a small change to an ideal deck. It may offer a considerable improvement, but it doesn't change the strategy in the same way.

[HiveMindEmulator]

Here is a possible claim that might illustrate what it would mean to "change the game more." I'm not sure if this is true, but intuitively I'm inclined to think it is.

Imagine that we can construct ideal decks for a given set of kingdom cards. (Is that well defined? Almost certainly not, as what your opponent does will often suggest minor modifications. Nevertheless I think people will know what I mean here.) Now imagine comparing the ideal decks for two kingdoms where the only difference is the second kingdom is missing one card. I would claim that if you remove KC, on average the change in ideal decks is quite substantial - without KC to superpower them many engine strategies become void. By contrast, Goons can often be a small change to an ideal deck. It may offer a considerable improvement, but it doesn't change the strategy in the same way.

It sounds to me like the way you worded it should strongly favor Goons. If you remove KC from a KC deck, you have a deck that can't get mega-turns, but still has all the pieces to do something. If you remove Goons from a Goons deck, you have absolutely nothing...

[Fabian]

allfail, I don't quite know my definition of best either. It's a pretty tough thing to define, exactly, imo. As for the rest of the post, I don't really know what you're suggesting. I don't accept the premise that KC is more game warping than Goons is, on average*, and I think it's exactly the kind of trap that (apparently, imo) a lot of players fall seems to fall into.

*Rereading, it seems you might not actually be saying KC is more game warping than Goons on average, in which case I don't disagree. *Given that* KC is really game warping, it's probably even more game warping than Goons is, *given that* Goons is game warping. That, again, is a completely useless definition of pretty much anything, to me, and I don't accept it as being practically useful for anything. Possession is really really game warping, *given that* it *is* game warping, but that doesn't mean much at all in evaluating its overall power level, imo.

"There certainly are many definitions of "best" which will put KC ahead of Goons;"

How about you list 3 or 4, and we can then discuss the merits of them, and/or whether or not KC actually is ahead of Goons, given those definitions?