Print

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

[JThorne]

I've been mulling this one over, waiting, but what the heck, I'll do it. Someone said "start a new thread" so I'm starting a new thread.

I was shocked to see that anyone would even bother to argue this, but to review: You open Chapel/Silver.

Question: With a hand of Chapel-Silver-Copper-Copper-Copper, do you trash three coppers or buy a key power-$5?

Answer: You trash three coppers.

Trash down/build up is such a fundamental principle it's hard to imagine why there would even be an argument. You're going to have at least another $3 hand before your next shuffle, and if you want to be sure to hit $5 you can always buy another Silver. Your odds of colliding two Silvers increases dramatically with three fewer coppers in your deck.

I tried to imagine any situation in which it would be beneficial to buy the $5, and I had a really hard time doing so. If you're worried about losing the split, well, you'll probably lose it anyway to the player who builds correctly and can buy $5s reliably every turn. I've seen many people make this mistake, and inevitably, they build up their drawing capability while their deck is still half-full of junk and then start complaining about how they never draw their Chapel with their junk cards, or draw their Chapel dead.

It's even worse with Steward. The number of times I've seen Steward used for money early in a Steward, Copper, Copper, Copper, Estate hand because they wanted that power-$5 so badly is astounding. Or even Steward-4C being used to buy Gold. (Ick. Yellow cards.) The beauty of Steward is that you can trash Coppers even more aggressively than with Chapel because it can switch to giving economy for the build phase.

There's nothing like the audible "click" you hear when an engine snaps into place and starts humming because you've draw a tiny deck into your hand. The world is your oyster. You've made your own shuffle luck. Anyone who has bought a Donate on turn three or four and trashed down to five cards or less knows what I'm saying. Did you really need a power-$5 first, or are you just going to start getting them by the handful starting now?

It would be nice to have some clarity about this, if nothing else for the benefit of newer readers.

[LastFootnote]

If you get Chapel-Silver-Copper-Copper-Copper against a similarly skilled opponent, haven't you basically already lost?

[McGarnacle]

This is interesting. I never thought of this. What if, on the other hand, you really wanted a $4? Trash only 1 copper and buy it, or trash down all the way? What about a $3. I would think you want to do the same as with a $5, but I could be wrong.

[Deadlock39]

If you get Chapel-Silver-Copper-Copper-Copper against a similarly skilled opponent, haven't you basically already lost?

Perhaps in most cases... but what if they got that hand too? There may also be worse things that could happen to them later if the board lends itself.

[werothegreat]

but what if they got that hand too?

What if we both buy the exact same cards, and our shuffles are completely identical in every way?

[Deadlock39]

but what if they got that hand too?

What if we both buy the exact same cards, and our shuffles are completely identical in every way?

First player advantage becomes even more relevant?

[Chris is me]

If you get Chapel-Silver-Copper-Copper-Copper against a similarly skilled opponent, haven't you basically already lost?

Here's a shitty idea I'm just theorycrafting - what if you buy another Chapel on that hand?

The idea is, you're BEHIND. You are gonna hit, GENEROUSLY, $3 on the other hand that shuffle (presumably another Silver), and you are one card less thin. If you bought another Chapel, you could potentially trash as many as 7 cards next shuffle, or as few as 1 card (in the nightmare Silver Silver Chapel Chapel Junk hand).

You always trash the one Chapel with the other if able. This just gives you that outside chance of thinning it all out in turns 6-7 and clawing your way back into it. Even if both Chapels land on 1 silver, that's still six more junk cards out in that shuffle, leaving just 1 Copper (and the other Chapel) left. Even if the Chapels collide, it's not significantly worse than just being behind with 1 Chapel (you'll have trashed 4-6 junk cards + the Chapel, which is not much different than the position you'd be in if you bought nothing)

Thoughts?

This is bad, right? Thoughts?

[4est]

If you get Chapel-Silver-Copper-Copper-Copper against a similarly skilled opponent, haven't you basically already lost?

Here's a shitty idea I'm just theorycrafting - what if you buy another Chapel on that hand?

The idea is, you're BEHIND. You are gonna hit, GENEROUSLY, $3 on the other hand that shuffle (presumably another Silver), and you are one card less thin. If you bought another Chapel, you could potentially trash as many as 7 cards next shuffle, or as few as 1 card (in the nightmare Silver Silver Chapel Chapel Junk hand).

You always trash the one Chapel with the other if able. This just gives you that outside chance of thinning it all out in turns 6-7 and clawing your way back into it. Even if both Chapels land on 1 silver, that's still six more junk cards out in that shuffle, leaving just 1 Copper (and the other Chapel) left. Even if the Chapels collide, it's not significantly worse than just being behind with 1 Chapel (you'll have trashed 4-6 junk cards + the Chapel, which is not much different than the position you'd be in if you bought nothing)

Thoughts?

This is bad, right? Thoughts?

My gut instinct is to say, yes, this is definitely bad. 

It seems like it's probably worse than buying nothing most of the time (especially in the case of collision, "nightmare hand" or not, since the extra Chapel could have been another junk card to trash).  I'd assume that only VERY rarely will this result in efficient enough trashing during the second shuffle to "catch up" with a more efficient-trashing opponent (at the cost of an extra junk card, Chapel, which you'll have to trash later), but it's hard to say how rare that best case scenario is, and thus how worth going for it is if you're behind.

Sounds like a job for the simulators. 

[xyz123]

Interesting that this thread has been created as over the weekend I played a board where this edge case may have cropped up. I made a note of the kingdom for that very reason. The board was:

- Provinces/Estates
- Obelisk (Wishing Well)

- Chapel
- Fool's Gold
- Ratcatcher
- Settlers/Bustling Village
- Wishing Well
- Golem
- Count
- Embassy
- Royal Carriage
- Tribute

I know that Fool's Gold and Chapel usually don't mix but that is because the Chapel buy and trashing turns means passing up opportunities to gain FGs. Here there is no way to gain more than 1 FG per turn so that disadvantage is minimised. I think that opening Chapel/FG and on early Chapel turns keeping 2 to spend so you can still buy a Fool's Gold can work. Even if you do lose the split 4-6 being thin and picking up an Embassy still gives you a good chance of lining up your FGs.

If I am mistaken about this I would be interested in hearing why.

[Cave-o-sapien]

If you get Chapel-Silver-Copper-Copper-Copper against a similarly skilled opponent, haven't you basically already lost?

Here's a shitty idea I'm just theorycrafting - what if you buy another Chapel on that hand?

The idea is, you're BEHIND. You are gonna hit, GENEROUSLY, $3 on the other hand that shuffle (presumably another Silver), and you are one card less thin. If you bought another Chapel, you could potentially trash as many as 7 cards next shuffle, or as few as 1 card (in the nightmare Silver Silver Chapel Chapel Junk hand).

You always trash the one Chapel with the other if able. This just gives you that outside chance of thinning it all out in turns 6-7 and clawing your way back into it. Even if both Chapels land on 1 silver, that's still six more junk cards out in that shuffle, leaving just 1 Copper (and the other Chapel) left. Even if the Chapels collide, it's not significantly worse than just being behind with 1 Chapel (you'll have trashed 4-6 junk cards + the Chapel, which is not much different than the position you'd be in if you bought nothing)

Thoughts?

This is bad, right? Thoughts?

I'd like to see the simulations, too.

Related question: I'd love to see the games where the winning player purposefully gained more than one Chapel (not counting Landmark effects such as Obelisk). Is it ever something other than a case of desperation by the losing player?

[AJD]

Related question: I'd love to see the games where the winning player purposefully gained more than one Chapel (not counting Landmark effects such as Obelisk). Is it ever something other than a case of desperation by the losing player?

In this game ages ago I opened Chapel/Silver and drew EEECC turn 3, so I shrugged and bought another Chapel, and I think the slightly quicker trashing helped me get my engine off the ground first.

[O]

This "analysis" (it's really just stating is as some kind of incontrovertible answer) ignores any and all possibilities that your 5$ buy 1) Speeds up your future chapelling in itself or 2) slows down your enemies chapelling. It only assumes that you want it for some future theoretical engine (it even goes into talking about 5$ splits as if I was suggesting buying a minion). This is true for none of the examples i listed

It also still fails to present the fact that once you open CCC-CH-S you are at a significant disadvantage and need some substantial luck to catch up to a player with a more optimal chapel hand. You would have to demonstrate that the "comeback odds" versus a deck is ahead is less with the 5$ than with chapelling. It is not merely sufficient to show that if two players open CCC CH S, the one who chapels has a better win % than the one who buys the 5$. If you know for certain your opponent starts turn 3 with 4 golds in their deck to your none, you would open Treasure Map/Treasure map (say bakers on the board) over silver/silver, despite it probably being a far inferior opening in the head to head.

I could very well be wrong. But the OP here is entirely irrelevant to the posts in the original thread because of this, in fact it doesn't even attempt to make an argument.

[Awaclus]

This "analysis" (it's really just stating is as some kind of incontrovertible answer) ignores any and all possibilities that your 5$ buy 1) Speeds up your future chapelling in itself or 2) slows down your enemies chapelling.

Trashing three Coppers speeds up your future Chapeling three times as much as Laboratory does, plus it also speeds up your current Chapeling by three Coppers. There is no card in the game that comes even close in that regard — Chapeling as much as you can is always better than buying a $5.

As far as luck is concerned, sure, you're behind if you draw that hand, but that's not a reason to put you almost another full shuffle worth of tempo behind by not taking full advantage of the Chapel when you draw it.

[O]

This "analysis" (it's really just stating is as some kind of incontrovertible answer) ignores any and all possibilities that your 5$ buy 1) Speeds up your future chapelling in itself or 2) slows down your enemies chapelling.

Trashing three Coppers speeds up your future Chapeling three times as much as Laboratory does, plus it also speeds up your current Chapeling by three Coppers. There is no card in the game that comes even close in that regard — Chapeling as much as you can is always better than buying a $5.

As far as luck is concerned, sure, you're behind if you draw that hand, but that's not a reason to put you almost another full shuffle worth of tempo behind by not taking full advantage of the Chapel when you draw it.

Archive and Hunting Party both set up your next chapel to hit more estates. Mountebank substantially hampers the enemies trashing as soon as it hits.  You are a full shuffle of chapel tempo, which is incredibly different than a shuffle full of tempo unless your gameplan is "trash into pure copperless engine", in which case yea I would not be considering the 5$.

Your comparisons fall short because they keep trying to oversimplify the situation way too much.

[Awaclus]

This "analysis" (it's really just stating is as some kind of incontrovertible answer) ignores any and all possibilities that your 5$ buy 1) Speeds up your future chapelling in itself or 2) slows down your enemies chapelling.

Trashing three Coppers speeds up your future Chapeling three times as much as Laboratory does, plus it also speeds up your current Chapeling by three Coppers. There is no card in the game that comes even close in that regard — Chapeling as much as you can is always better than buying a $5.

As far as luck is concerned, sure, you're behind if you draw that hand, but that's not a reason to put you almost another full shuffle worth of tempo behind by not taking full advantage of the Chapel when you draw it.

Archive and Hunting Party both set up your next chapel to hit more estates. Mountebank substantially hampers the enemies trashing as soon as it hits.  You are a full shuffle of chapel tempo, which is incredibly different than a shuffle full of tempo unless your gameplan is "trash into pure copperless engine", in which case yea I would not be considering the 5$.

Your comparisons fall short because they keep trying to oversimplify the situation way too much.

Archive and Hunting Party set up your next Chapel to hit 1 extra card. Trashing three coppers now sets up your Chapel to hit 3 extra cards immediately. The Mountebank isn't going to hit until your next shuffle, at which point your opponent has already gotten in 2 Chapel turns most likely, which makes it pretty trivial for him to trash the rest of his junk too, and if he gets a Mountebank at that point, you're screwed because you spent your early game gaining more stop cards instead of trashing junk so you're going to have a very hard time even connecting the Chapel efficiently (also he's playing the Mountebank much more often than you're playing yours because his deck is thinner).

[O]

Trashing three coppers now sets up your Chapel to hit 3 extra cards immediately.

this is immediately and obviously misleading, since it removes those from the chances to chapel for the next shuffle aswell. It's not the same as setting up future shuffles.

[Awaclus]

Trashing three coppers now sets up your Chapel to hit 3 extra cards immediately.

this is immediately and obviously incorrect.

It is not in comparison with skipping that trashing and buying something like Hunting Party.

[Kirian]

So OK, let's consider a very simple scenario in which both players' first four hands are identical, and the only action cards of interest in the early game are Chapel and Lab, but there's a Market and enough other stuff to make a killer engine.

They both open Chapel/Silver on 3/4.  T3, both draw CCCEE and buy Silver.  T4, both draw Chapel-SCCC.

Turn 4:
P1 Chapels 3 Coppers.
P2 buys a Lab

Turn 5:
P1 draws CE and 3 of Chapel-SSCCCEE (8 cards)
P2 draws CE and 3 of Chapel-Lab-SSCCCCCCEEE (12 cards)

One thing we see immediately is this:  P1 will get to play Chapel again on either T5 or T6.  Their deck has 10 cards.  P2... might not see their Chapel until T7.  But hey!  Let's just assume best-case scenario for P2 and worst-case for P1.  So:

Turn 5:
P1 draws CCEEE and buys nothing
P2 draws Chapel-CEEE and dumps four cards.

Turn 6:
P1 draws Chapel-SSCC, dumps the Coppers.  Buying another Silver would be counterproductive at this point.
P2 draws Lab-SCCC, then draws CC and buys a Gold (or, say, a $5 with +Buy, like Market).

At this point, our status is this:

P1's deck is Chapel-SSCCEEE
P2's deck is Lab-Chapel-GSSCCCCCC, and is guaranteed to draw SC plus three other cards next turn.

P2 likely has an edge here because they got rid of all their Estates and P1 failed to get rid of any, but the chance of P1 not getting rid of some in the next few turns is pretty low.

So if we give our trasher the worst possible outcome and our buyer the best possible outcome, the buyer comes out ahead.

What about the reverse?

Turn 5:
P1 draws Chapel-CEEE and trashes it all.
P2 draws SCCCE and buys another Lab, or a Market perhaps.

Turn 6:
P1 draws SSCCC and buys a Lab
P2 draws SCCEE and... probably should skip another Silver buy.

P1's deck is now Lab-Chapel-SSCCC
P2's deck is now Lab-Chapel-Market-SSCCCCCCCEEE

P2 is guaranteed to draw Lab-Chapel-CC and will definitely finally get to trash some cards on T7.  But their deck is 15 cards thick, and P1's deck will hit $6 or better until they start greening.

P1's best case scenario is hugely better than P2's best case for moving into an engine.
P1's worst case scenario is certainly better than P2's worst case, though likely not by as much.

P1's average case, then, is better than P2's average case.

[O]

So OK, let's consider a very simple scenario in which both players' first four hands are identical, and the only action cards of interest in the early game are Chapel and Lab, but there's a Market and enough other stuff to make a killer engine.

They both open Chapel/Silver on 3/4.  T3, both draw CCCEE and buy Silver.  T4, both draw Chapel-SCCC.

Turn 4:
P1 Chapels 3 Coppers.
P2 buys a Lab

Turn 5:
P1 draws CE and 3 of Chapel-SSCCCEE (8 cards)
P2 draws CE and 3 of Chapel-Lab-SSCCCCCCEEE (12 cards)

One thing we see immediately is this:  P1 will get to play Chapel again on either T5 or T6.  Their deck has 10 cards.  P2... might not see their Chapel until T7.  But hey!  Let's just assume best-case scenario for P2 and worst-case for P1.  So:

Turn 5:
P1 draws CCEEE and buys nothing
P2 draws Chapel-CEEE and dumps four cards.

Turn 6:
P1 draws Chapel-SSCC, dumps the Coppers.  Buying another Silver would be counterproductive at this point.
P2 draws Lab-SCCC, then draws CC and buys a Gold (or, say, a $5 with +Buy, like Market).

At this point, our status is this:

P1's deck is Chapel-SSCCEEE
P2's deck is Lab-Chapel-GSSCCCCCC, and is guaranteed to draw SC plus three other cards next turn.

P2 likely has an edge here because they got rid of all their Estates and P1 failed to get rid of any, but the chance of P1 not getting rid of some in the next few turns is pretty low.

So if we give our trasher the worst possible outcome and our buyer the best possible outcome, the buyer comes out ahead.

What about the reverse?

Turn 5:
P1 draws Chapel-CEEE and trashes it all.
P2 draws SCCCE and buys another Lab, or a Market perhaps.

Turn 6:
P1 draws SSCCC and buys a Lab
P2 draws SCCEE and... probably should skip another Silver buy.

P1's deck is now Lab-Chapel-SSCCC
P2's deck is now Lab-Chapel-Market-SSCCCCCCCEEE

P2 is guaranteed to draw Lab-Chapel-CC and will definitely finally get to trash some cards on T7.  But their deck is 15 cards thick, and P1's deck will hit $6 or better until they start greening.

P1's best case scenario is hugely better than P2's best case for moving into an engine.
P1's worst case scenario is certainly better than P2's worst case, though likely not by as much.

P1's average case, then, is better than P2's average case.

We've already established that 1: There are cards that help way more than lab and 2: average case comparison is not quite relevant when you already need a swing in luck.

[Chris is me]

This "analysis" (it's really just stating is as some kind of incontrovertible answer) ignores any and all possibilities that your 5$ buy 1) Speeds up your future chapelling in itself or 2) slows down your enemies chapelling.

Trashing three Coppers speeds up your future Chapeling three times as much as Laboratory does, plus it also speeds up your current Chapeling by three Coppers. There is no card in the game that comes even close in that regard — Chapeling as much as you can is always better than buying a $5.

As far as luck is concerned, sure, you're behind if you draw that hand, but that's not a reason to put you almost another full shuffle worth of tempo behind by not taking full advantage of the Chapel when you draw it.

Archive and Hunting Party both set up your next chapel to hit more estates. Mountebank substantially hampers the enemies trashing as soon as it hits.  You are a full shuffle of chapel tempo, which is incredibly different than a shuffle full of tempo unless your gameplan is "trash into pure copperless engine", in which case yea I would not be considering the 5$.

Your comparisons fall short because they keep trying to oversimplify the situation way too much.

Okay what board are you buying Chapel on that you don't want to transition to a "pure copperless" deck? That's every Chapel board. That's the whole point of Chapel.

Trust literally everyone posting here - even the swingy outside Chance crazy luck scenarios at best barely benefit the player skipping Chapel trashes. It's just the wrong move. There's no single $5 buy that immediately undoes trashing 3-4 cards or enables trashing 3-4 more cards.

[O]

This "analysis" (it's really just stating is as some kind of incontrovertible answer) ignores any and all possibilities that your 5$ buy 1) Speeds up your future chapelling in itself or 2) slows down your enemies chapelling.

Trashing three Coppers speeds up your future Chapeling three times as much as Laboratory does, plus it also speeds up your current Chapeling by three Coppers. There is no card in the game that comes even close in that regard — Chapeling as much as you can is always better than buying a $5.

As far as luck is concerned, sure, you're behind if you draw that hand, but that's not a reason to put you almost another full shuffle worth of tempo behind by not taking full advantage of the Chapel when you draw it.

Archive and Hunting Party both set up your next chapel to hit more estates. Mountebank substantially hampers the enemies trashing as soon as it hits.  You are a full shuffle of chapel tempo, which is incredibly different than a shuffle full of tempo unless your gameplan is "trash into pure copperless engine", in which case yea I would not be considering the 5$.

Your comparisons fall short because they keep trying to oversimplify the situation way too much.

Okay what board are you buying Chapel on that you don't want to transition to a "pure copperless" deck? That's every Chapel board. That's the whole point of Chapel.

Trust literally everyone posting here - even the swingy outside Chance crazy luck scenarios at best barely benefit the player skipping Chapel trashes. It's just the wrong move. There's no single $5 buy that immediately undoes trashing 3-4 cards or enables trashing 3-4 more cards.

Do you think you are achieving productive discussion by removing the word "engine" from "pure copperless engine?

You are buying chapel in many, many games that don't involve straight engines. Copper has varying negative utility, and in games without straight engines copper often has less negative utility. I am not trying to suggest that copper has positive utility in chapel games. 

I'd be more likely to "trust the majority" of you here if you didn't try and treat this as some "gotcha" rhetorical contest instead of a discussion.

[drsteelhammer]

This "analysis" (it's really just stating is as some kind of incontrovertible answer) ignores any and all possibilities that your 5$ buy 1) Speeds up your future chapelling in itself or 2) slows down your enemies chapelling.

Trashing three Coppers speeds up your future Chapeling three times as much as Laboratory does, plus it also speeds up your current Chapeling by three Coppers. There is no card in the game that comes even close in that regard — Chapeling as much as you can is always better than buying a $5.

As far as luck is concerned, sure, you're behind if you draw that hand, but that's not a reason to put you almost another full shuffle worth of tempo behind by not taking full advantage of the Chapel when you draw it.

Archive and Hunting Party both set up your next chapel to hit more estates. Mountebank substantially hampers the enemies trashing as soon as it hits.  You are a full shuffle of chapel tempo, which is incredibly different than a shuffle full of tempo unless your gameplan is "trash into pure copperless engine", in which case yea I would not be considering the 5$.

Your comparisons fall short because they keep trying to oversimplify the situation way too much.

Okay what board are you buying Chapel on that you don't want to transition to a "pure copperless" deck? That's every Chapel board. That's the whole point of Chapel.

Trust literally everyone posting here - even the swingy outside Chance crazy luck scenarios at best barely benefit the player skipping Chapel trashes. It's just the wrong move. There's no single $5 buy that immediately undoes trashing 3-4 cards or enables trashing 3-4 more cards.

Do you think you are achieving productive discussion by removing the word "engine" from "pure copperless engine?

You are buying chapel in many, many games that don't involve straight engines. Copper has varying negative utility, and in games without straight engines copper often has less negative utility. I am not trying to suggest that copper has positive utility in chapel games. 

I'd be more likely to "trust the majority" of you here if you didn't try and treat this as some "gotcha" rhetorical contest instead of a discussion.

O, have you ever opened Chapel/Banquet? Or t3 Banquet on an Engine board?

[O]

no, probably respectively

unfortunately example 1 is still well within the realm of "comparisons that really don't work"

[drsteelhammer]

i think it's as close as we can get. gaining additional Coppers and refusing to trash your own is more similar than our intuition suggests.

[O]

shuffle 1 vs shuffle 2 and 7-4  coppers vs 7-9 coppers, greatly increasing the chance of chapel missing the shuffle for your second shuffle to 4/15.