Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All

Author Topic: Empires cards I still don't get  (Read 14708 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 735
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +1003
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2017, 05:00:19 pm »
+2


Not both of those are true at the same time though. If you rid yourself of the Estate, the Triumph was not strictly better than Duchy. It was $5 for 2 VP, although you paid those $5 over 2 turns.

But if you trash the Duchy then it was $5 for 0 VP, so it's still strictly better in this situation. You can't really compare trashing it to not trashing it like that. The only ways it's not strictly better that I can think of is when the cost of the card matters, cost reduction or Goons type triggers. It's also important to note that this is pretty much the floor on Triumph.

In the midgame situation Triumph is kind of like Distant lands where you can start to green without hurting your deck too much but you have to trash the Estate rather than playing the Distant lands.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #26 on: December 01, 2017, 05:11:57 pm »
0


Not both of those are true at the same time though. If you rid yourself of the Estate, the Triumph was not strictly better than Duchy. It was $5 for 2 VP, although you paid those $5 over 2 turns.

But if you trash the Duchy then it was $5 for 0 VP, so it's still strictly better in this situation. You can't really compare trashing it to not trashing it like that. The only ways it's not strictly better that I can think of is when the cost of the card matters, cost reduction or Goons type triggers. It's also important to note that this is pretty much the floor on Triumph.

In the midgame situation Triumph is kind of like Distant lands where you can start to green without hurting your deck too much but you have to trash the Estate rather than playing the Distant lands.

Yes, you're right. That was a faulty statement from me. It's strictly better than a Duchy. But it's still $5 for 2 VP and having to trash a card, so it's pretty bad. Distant Lands on the other hand is $5 for 4 VP, although you have to pay it all upfront and it's terminal while some trashers might not be.
I'm still not getting it, for all the reasons I wrote.

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 735
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +1003
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #27 on: December 01, 2017, 05:58:36 pm »
0


Not both of those are true at the same time though. If you rid yourself of the Estate, the Triumph was not strictly better than Duchy. It was $5 for 2 VP, although you paid those $5 over 2 turns.

But if you trash the Duchy then it was $5 for 0 VP, so it's still strictly better in this situation. You can't really compare trashing it to not trashing it like that. The only ways it's not strictly better that I can think of is when the cost of the card matters, cost reduction or Goons type triggers. It's also important to note that this is pretty much the floor on Triumph.

In the midgame situation Triumph is kind of like Distant lands where you can start to green without hurting your deck too much but you have to trash the Estate rather than playing the Distant lands.

Yes, you're right. That was a faulty statement from me. It's strictly better than a Duchy. But it's still $5 for 2 VP and having to trash a card, so it's pretty bad. Distant Lands on the other hand is $5 for 4 VP, although you have to pay it all upfront and it's terminal while some trashers might not be.
I'm still not getting it, for all the reasons I wrote.

Like I said, it's important to note that this is one of the worst cases for Triumph. It needs a little bit of support but it's not uncommon to be able to get 3VP+ Triumphs, at which point the comparison to Distant Lands starts looking okay. I don't think anyone is saying that 2 VP Triumph is very good, just that in it's worst case it's still pretty much better than Duchy.
Logged

aku_chi

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 622
  • Shuffle iT Username: aku chi
  • Respect: +1435
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #28 on: December 01, 2017, 06:04:07 pm »
0

But anyway, it's exactly this kind of situation that I don't get, when you only gain a few cards and then buy Triumph midgame. People keep saying this is good, but I just don't see it. As I said before, when do you want a Duchy after having gained two cards, leaving yourself in debt so that you impede continued building next turn?

Why do you keep assuming that you're in debt after buying Triumph?  You can pay off the debt the turn you buy it if it's important to to avoid debt.  Also, I'm not sure if anyone is recommending regularly buying Triumph in the midgame.

In an engine with plentiful +buy, it's usually going to pay to keep building and not slow down for Triumphs midgame.  I would usually only buy Triumph if I could threaten to end the game on the following turn.  Triumph is the dominant way to get VP on these boards.  Buying Provinces can't compete.

In an engine with limited gaining, Triumph needs to be evaluated against the other VP options.  It's conceivable that there are some boards where it can make sense to use Triumph in a similar manner to Distant Lands (e.g. Bandit Camp draw engine without +buys, with trashing), but I don't expect these boards to be common.

In moneyish games, Province is almost certainly going to be worth more points than Triumph, but it isn't uncommon for Triumph to be better than a Duchy.  If there's any gaining (e.g. Treasure Trove, Bandit, Jester, Butcher, Transmogrify, Magpie), you gain at least 3 VP from a Triumph buy, and you can even afford it if you have < $5.  Triumph isn't a superstar in these games, but it's still more valuable than most Alt VP.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #29 on: December 01, 2017, 07:13:00 pm »
0

But anyway, it's exactly this kind of situation that I don't get, when you only gain a few cards and then buy Triumph midgame. People keep saying this is good, but I just don't see it. As I said before, when do you want a Duchy after having gained two cards, leaving yourself in debt so that you impede continued building next turn?

Why do you keep assuming that you're in debt after buying Triumph?  You can pay off the debt the turn you buy it if it's important to to avoid debt.  Also, I'm not sure if anyone is recommending regularly buying Triumph in the midgame.

Well, for one, that's the only way it's strictly better than Duchy if you gain 1 card, which someone said. Second, to gain 2 or more cards and then go for Triumph midgame, I assume the most common scenario would be to take some of it as debt.

Yes, people were talking about Triumph being good midgame, better than Distant Lands etc. What can I say, go check.

Chappy7

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 542
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chappy7
  • Respect: +660
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #30 on: December 03, 2017, 02:16:19 pm »
0

But anyway, it's exactly this kind of situation that I don't get, when you only gain a few cards and then buy Triumph midgame. People keep saying this is good, but I just don't see it. As I said before, when do you want a Duchy after having gained two cards, leaving yourself in debt so that you impede continued building next turn?

Why do you keep assuming that you're in debt after buying Triumph?  You can pay off the debt the turn you buy it if it's important to to avoid debt.  Also, I'm not sure if anyone is recommending regularly buying Triumph in the midgame.

Well, for one, that's the only way it's strictly better than Duchy if you gain 1 card, which someone said. Second, to gain 2 or more cards and then go for Triumph midgame, I assume the most common scenario would be to take some of it as debt.

Yes, people were talking about Triumph being good midgame, better than Distant Lands etc. What can I say, go check.

I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who mentioned distant lands, and I didn't actually say anything about mid-game.  I'm just saying the point total compares favorably in many games.  I'm not even saying that it is better than distant lands (although I'm not sure that it isn't) I was just comparing it to an alt VP that is considered very good.

I do occasionally like to buy it mid game though, if I have tons of gains in a turn via Ironworks, magpie, etc.  But usually I agree with you that it isn't worth it to sacrifice your next turn by having debt.
Logged

Chris is me

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3457
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #31 on: December 03, 2017, 06:14:32 pm »
0


Not both of those are true at the same time though. If you rid yourself of the Estate, the Triumph was not strictly better than Duchy. It was $5 for 2 VP, although you paid those $5 over 2 turns.

But if you trash the Duchy then it was $5 for 0 VP, so it's still strictly better in this situation. You can't really compare trashing it to not trashing it like that. The only ways it's not strictly better that I can think of is when the cost of the card matters, cost reduction or Goons type triggers. It's also important to note that this is pretty much the floor on Triumph.

In the midgame situation Triumph is kind of like Distant lands where you can start to green without hurting your deck too much but you have to trash the Estate rather than playing the Distant lands.

Yes, you're right. That was a faulty statement from me. It's strictly better than a Duchy. But it's still $5 for 2 VP and having to trash a card, so it's pretty bad. Distant Lands on the other hand is $5 for 4 VP, although you have to pay it all upfront and it's terminal while some trashers might not be.
I'm still not getting it, for all the reasons I wrote.

Okay, it is fairly rare in a standard engine deck that you gain only 1 (other) card and then buy Triumph, sure. It’s not something you just casually do all the time. That is a really narrow case provided only for example to show how little Triumph has to do to be better than the gold-standard of non-Province VP, and isn’t itself a strategy. What it does show is that just getting a couple of gains allows you the flexibility of either scoring while building, or threatening a megaturn later, or both, which is very powerful.

Beyond that, if you can’t see the utility of Triumph, and you’re still stuck after looking up a couple of streams or YouTube videos where it clearly changes the pace of the game, I don’t know what else to tell you. It’s like arguing that the sky is blue.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 06:16:03 pm by Chris is me »
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

pm me if you wanna do stuff for the blog

they/them

ehunt

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1528
  • Shuffle iT Username: ehunt
  • Respect: +1855
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #32 on: December 03, 2017, 09:01:21 pm »
+1

I buy Annex in sloggy games when I am hopelessly losing and can't afford the Duchy. I think I have always lost these games anyway, but not because of the decision to buy Annex.
Logged

aku_chi

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 622
  • Shuffle iT Username: aku chi
  • Respect: +1435
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #33 on: December 03, 2017, 10:02:55 pm »
+1

vsiewnar and I used Annex in this League match:



So, Mission turns are one edge-case for Annex value.  It's a pretty limited event.
Logged

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #34 on: December 03, 2017, 10:30:33 pm »
+6

OK, I found an actual use case for Annex - Rebuild games. Not that rebuild needs the help, but it's nice to get another duchy and get to your rebuilds again faster.
Logged

Chris is me

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3457
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2017, 08:10:24 am »
0

Rebuild is probably the best case for Annex. Plenty of times to buy it there, especially at a certain point where carrying Debt just isn’t a problem.

Rarely, you can use Annex in Duke / Duchy games to get a critical Duchy when you would otherwise lose the split, but it’s a bit of a risky desperation play there as the debt will almost definitely mean you don’t hit $5 next turn.

Slogs are probably what it was meant for. It can nicely clean up a slog deck for one shuffle, which can absolutely be worth it, especially if it lets you take another swing with Mountebank or if you get to play gainers again or something.

All in all, very narrow and situational, but I mean, that’s events for you. They don’t need to be good that often.
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

pm me if you wanna do stuff for the blog

they/them

ben_king

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 190
  • Shuffle iT Username: ben.king
  • formerly grsbmd
  • Respect: +612
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2017, 08:36:35 am »
0

I find Annex to be most useful in sloggish-good stuff type decks where reliability is the limiting factor.  Annex isn't the primary goal, but in the mid-to-late game, Annex can make you much more likely to kick off next turn.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2017, 10:23:35 am »
0

I think the Triumph discussion is going nowhere, so I was not going to reply, but...

I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who mentioned distant lands, and I didn't actually say anything about mid-game.  I'm just saying the point total compares favorably in many games.  I'm not even saying that it is better than distant lands (although I'm not sure that it isn't) I was just comparing it to an alt VP that is considered very good.

I do occasionally like to buy it mid game though, if I have tons of gains in a turn via Ironworks, magpie, etc.  But usually I agree with you that it isn't worth it to sacrifice your next turn by having debt.

1) Distant Lands is good because you buy it midgame and get it out, deck staying stable. Any comparison with DL has to consider that or it's just silly. 2) Gazbag and Aku_chi also compared to it, so stop feeling alone. But Aku_chi brought it up to mostly agree with me.

Okay, it is fairly rare in a standard engine deck that you gain only 1 (other) card and then buy Triumph, sure. It’s not something you just casually do all the time. That is a really narrow case provided only for example to show how little Triumph has to do to be better than the gold-standard of non-Province VP, and isn’t itself a strategy. What it does show is that just getting a couple of gains allows you the flexibility of either scoring while building, or threatening a megaturn later, or both, which is very powerful.

Beyond that, if you can’t see the utility of Triumph, and you’re still stuck after looking up a couple of streams or YouTube videos where it clearly changes the pace of the game, I don’t know what else to tell you. It’s like arguing that the sky is blue.

If you go back you'll see that I do see uses for Triumph. I was simply saying that I don't see the use for it midgame after a turn with a couple of gains, and gave several reasons. So far nobody has addressed that, except Aku_chi and Chappy7 (and now you) mostly agreeing with me that you don't usually stop midgame to buy Triumph.

As I've said before, comparing it to buying Duchy only makes sense if you're actually greening, because otherwise you wouldn't buy Duchy. When you're greening and you would consider Duchy, it's because you can't afford Province. How often in those cases did you gain several cards earlier in the turn? If you gained 1 card and have $5, buying Duchy or Triumph is the same. If you have less than $5, Triumph is "strictly better" (because you can still buy it), but it means having debt for next potential Province turn. So Triumph is only good if you gained 2 cards and you have $5 but not $8. With less than $5, it's a judgment call.

Chappy7

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 542
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chappy7
  • Respect: +660
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2017, 10:43:05 am »
0

I think the Triumph discussion is going nowhere, so I was not going to reply, but...

I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who mentioned distant lands, and I didn't actually say anything about mid-game.  I'm just saying the point total compares favorably in many games.  I'm not even saying that it is better than distant lands (although I'm not sure that it isn't) I was just comparing it to an alt VP that is considered very good.

I do occasionally like to buy it mid game though, if I have tons of gains in a turn via Ironworks, magpie, etc.  But usually I agree with you that it isn't worth it to sacrifice your next turn by having debt.

1) Distant Lands is good because you buy it midgame and get it out, deck staying stable. Any comparison with DL has to consider that or it's just silly. 2) Gazbag and Aku_chi also compared to it, so stop feeling alone. But Aku_chi brought it up to mostly agree with me.

Okay, it is fairly rare in a standard engine deck that you gain only 1 (other) card and then buy Triumph, sure. It’s not something you just casually do all the time. That is a really narrow case provided only for example to show how little Triumph has to do to be better than the gold-standard of non-Province VP, and isn’t itself a strategy. What it does show is that just getting a couple of gains allows you the flexibility of either scoring while building, or threatening a megaturn later, or both, which is very powerful.

Beyond that, if you can’t see the utility of Triumph, and you’re still stuck after looking up a couple of streams or YouTube videos where it clearly changes the pace of the game, I don’t know what else to tell you. It’s like arguing that the sky is blue.

If you go back you'll see that I do see uses for Triumph. I was simply saying that I don't see the use for it midgame after a turn with a couple of gains, and gave several reasons. So far nobody has addressed that, except Aku_chi and Chappy7 (and now you) mostly agreeing with me that you don't usually stop midgame to buy Triumph.

As I've said before, comparing it to buying Duchy only makes sense if you're actually greening, because otherwise you wouldn't buy Duchy. When you're greening and you would consider Duchy, it's because you can't afford Province. How often in those cases did you gain several cards earlier in the turn? If you gained 1 card and have $5, buying Duchy or Triumph is the same. If you have less than $5, Triumph is "strictly better" (because you can still buy it), but it means having debt for next potential Province turn. So Triumph is only good if you gained 2 cards and you have $5 but not $8. With less than $5, it's a judgment call.

Man, I was not necessarily trying to disagree with you, just discussing.  Anyway, I buy triumph usually just one or two times, towards the end of the game.  When I do buy it mid game, I usually have a good way to use or trash the estates, so it still is kinda similar to distant lands.  You get roughly 4 points out of it, and you can get rid of the estate. 
Logged

aku_chi

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 622
  • Shuffle iT Username: aku chi
  • Respect: +1435
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #39 on: December 04, 2017, 11:11:10 am »
+2

1) Distant Lands is good because you buy it midgame and get it out, deck staying stable. Any comparison with DL has to consider that or it's just silly. 2) Gazbag and Aku_chi also compared to it, so stop feeling alone. But Aku_chi brought it up to mostly agree with me.

Not infrequently, Triumph can do the Distant Lands thing better than Distant Lands.  But, Triumph is even better if you defer greening, so in practice you rarely take the Distant Lands approach to greening with Triumph.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 11:12:49 am by aku_chi »
Logged

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 735
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +1003
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2017, 11:54:27 am »
0

1) Distant Lands is good because you buy it midgame and get it out, deck staying stable. Any comparison with DL has to consider that or it's just silly. 2) Gazbag and Aku_chi also compared to it, so stop feeling alone. But Aku_chi brought it up to mostly agree with me.

I pretty much agree with what Aku_Chi said regarding this in his last post: Midgame Triumph is better than midgame Distant Lands with enough support, but in those games it's usually better to delay Triumph and keep building towards even bigger Triumphs. I was comparing Triumph to Distant Lands in my previous post as Distant Lands is widely considered to be a strong card, I wasn't saying that is the best use of Triumph, I should have made that clear.

As I've said before, comparing it to buying Duchy only makes sense if you're actually greening, because otherwise you wouldn't buy Duchy. When you're greening and you would consider Duchy, it's because you can't afford Province. How often in those cases did you gain several cards earlier in the turn? If you gained 1 card and have $5, buying Duchy or Triumph is the same. If you have less than $5, Triumph is "strictly better" (because you can still buy it), but it means having debt for next potential Province turn. So Triumph is only good if you gained 2 cards and you have $5 but not $8. With less than $5, it's a judgment call.

I disagree completely about the part where you only buy Duchy if you can't afford Province. In a big money game that's true for the most part but in most games there are countless endgame situations where you buy Duchies over Provinces - generally if you need to score points but lowering the Provinces let your opponent end the game. Also you seem to saying that having the option to buy it with less than $5 isn't good because the debt carries over or something, but giving the option to do that is good regardless of whether it's the correct thing to do in a given situation.
Logged

Limetime

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
  • Shuffle iT Username: limetime
  • Respect: +1179
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2017, 12:02:40 pm »
+1

The primary reason you get triumph mid game is if the estates are going to run out. You can even pile estates and get like two triumphs in order to ensure that you get the vp tokens.
Logged

ackmondual

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 463
  • Respect: +294
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #42 on: December 05, 2017, 12:04:29 am »
0

With trashers to get rid of the curses and an extra buy Ritual is great for trashing Colonies, Provinces, and late game Platinums for VP tokens. In particular, removing green cards from your deck without losing VP.
I've done this with Bishop vs. Estates, Duchies, and Provinces.  With Provinces, if the game has a ways to go I've found it worth it to lose a net of 1 pt to improve my deck efficiency.
Logged
Village, +2 Actions.  Village, +3 Actions.  Village, +4 Actions.  Village, +5 Actions.  Village, +6 Actions.  Village, +7 Actions.  Workers Village, +2 Buys, +8 Actions.  End Action Phase.  No Treasures to play.  No buy.  No Night cards to play

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #43 on: December 05, 2017, 12:05:33 am »
0

Also you seem to saying that having the option to buy it with less than $5 isn't good because the debt carries over or something, but giving the option to do that is good regardless of whether it's the correct thing to do in a given situation.

I was totally not saying that having the option to do something is bad. I was totally saying that it's usually bad to do it, so the fact that you have that option is only marginally relevant.

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 735
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +1003
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #44 on: December 05, 2017, 05:13:01 am »
0

Also you seem to saying that having the option to buy it with less than $5 isn't good because the debt carries over or something, but giving the option to do that is good regardless of whether it's the correct thing to do in a given situation.

I was totally not saying that having the option to do something is bad. I was totally saying that it's usually bad to do it, so the fact that you have that option is only marginally relevant.

So Triumph is only good if you gained 2 cards and you have $5 but not $8. With less than $5, it's a judgment call.

Hmmmmm... Well the fact that you can buy cards for a pileout and then buy Triumph for $0 or buy 2 Triumphs when you have $5 is one of the best things about it, so now I disagree with you even more!
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #45 on: December 05, 2017, 10:04:20 am »
0

Hmmmmm... Well the fact that you can buy cards for a pileout and then buy Triumph for $0 or buy 2 Triumphs when you have $5 is one of the best things about it, so now I disagree with you even more!

This is getting tiresome. If you really think I was saying that you should avoid debt on your last turn, no wonder you disagree. I just replied to Chris Is Me, explaining that I'm not saying that I don't see uses for Triumph at all, but that I'm talking about specific situations. That's all I've been saying this whole thread, except for the original post.

See here. Chappy7 then argues against that post.
See here. Quote: "It's exactly this kind of situation that I don't get, when you only gain a few cards and then buy Triumph midgame."

I get that people are busy with their lives and don't want to invest a lot of time going back and seeing what someone is actually saying on a message board beyond the very last post, but that kind of means you're wasting that person's time instead (and everybody else's, posting pointless arguments.)

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5607
  • Respect: +3676
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #46 on: December 05, 2017, 10:17:54 am »
+1

Uh, Jeebus. Triumph is really really good. Maybe try buying it man. It's like pretty neat.
Logged
DM me for ideas on a new article, either here or on Discord (I check Discord way more often)

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #47 on: December 05, 2017, 10:19:57 am »
0

To get back to being constructive...

I've been hung up on some people saying that Triumph is good after gaining one or two cards midgame, which I still don't get. After gaining 2 cards, it's the same VP as Distant Lands, yes, but that includes keeping the Estate, which is very unlike Distant Lands.

However, if you gain 3 cards (not less) and then buy Triumph, you'll earn 4 VP after trashing the Estate. In that situation, it's comparable to Distant Lands. It costs the same (but Triumph's payment plan is better); for Distant Lands you need an action to play it, and for the Estate you need a trashing option; for both you need to get through your deck fast. The situation where you gain that many cards each turn on a regular basis and want to get Triumph points before the end of the game, still has to be a lot less common than situations where you want Distant Lands midgame though.

markus

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 291
  • Shuffle iT Username: markus
  • Respect: +434
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #48 on: December 05, 2017, 10:57:52 am »
0

The presence of Triumph has a significant impact on the way you build your deck / when you start greening. You'll have a hard time to get away with gaining 1 Province per turn, especially if you start too early, because you'll need 6-7 Provinces to beat an opponent who builds a lot and takes Triumph points.
Logged

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 735
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +1003
    • View Profile
Re: Empires cards I still don't get
« Reply #49 on: December 05, 2017, 11:25:12 am »
0

Hmmmmm... Well the fact that you can buy cards for a pileout and then buy Triumph for $0 or buy 2 Triumphs when you have $5 is one of the best things about it, so now I disagree with you even more!

This is getting tiresome. If you really think I was saying that you should avoid debt on your last turn, no wonder you disagree. I just replied to Chris Is Me, explaining that I'm not saying that I don't see uses for Triumph at all, but that I'm talking about specific situations. That's all I've been saying this whole thread, except for the original post.

See here. Chappy7 then argues against that post.
See here. Quote: "It's exactly this kind of situation that I don't get, when you only gain a few cards and then buy Triumph midgame."

I get that people are busy with their lives and don't want to invest a lot of time going back and seeing what someone is actually saying on a message board beyond the very last post, but that kind of means you're wasting that person's time instead (and everybody else's, posting pointless arguments.)

I've reread all of my posts and they seem reasonable enough to me, I'm sorry if you feel like I've wasted your time but if you didn't want to discuss this then I just don't get why you posted the topic to a discussion forum in the first place. You mentioned my name in the post so I assumed you would appreciate some further input, I won't involve myself next time.

Obviously the pileout example was a bit extreme, but my point still stands, what you said in the part I quoted was saying that it was only good if you don't let debt carry over, which is silly. If that isn't what you meant then we have no disagreement there, no problem.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All
 

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 21 queries.