Print

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

[Simon Jester]

In the latest I have noticed something that I can't help but think is a bit odd: People are starting to ignore Chapel more and more, and not in case of other strong trashers as Donate or Cathedral, just the other game some fella chose Ratcatcher instead. I don't think that they're ignorant players who don't know the true strength of Chapel (in this case they did pretty good anyway, lost only in the very end so no newb there I don't think) but I can't really wrap my head about this. I wished I could log it better, but I feel like at least five times recently I have seen Chapel ignored without a good reason. Is there just a streak of experimental plays I have been met against or is thee possibly something going on in the meta-view of the card?

To make this a legit thread and not only a confused rant: Have you been noticing some new trends in the style of playing or in the valuation of cards that you find odd/incorrect or perhaps interesting even for expert levels? Not really talking of things like the overvaluation of Pirate Ship in P2 or similar that has been known for ages but rather tings that is relatively new. 

[Chappy7]

In the latest I have noticed something that I can't help but think is a bit odd: People are starting to ignore Chapel more and more, and not in case of other strong trashers as Donate or Cathedral, just the other game some fella chose Ratcatcher instead. I don't think that they're ignorant players who don't know the true strength of Chapel (in this case they did pretty good anyway, lost only in the very end so no newb there I don't think) but I can't really wrap my head about this. I wished I could log it better, but I feel like at least five times recently I have seen Chapel ignored without a good reason. Is there just a streak of experimental plays I have been met against or is thee possibly something going on in the meta-view of the card?

To make this a legit thread and not only a confused rant: Have you been noticing some new trends in the style of playing or in the valuation of cards that you find odd/incorrect or perhaps interesting even for expert levels? Not really talking of things like the overvaluation of Pirate Ship in P2 or similar that has been known for ages but rather tings that is relatively new.

Sometimes I opt out of buying Chapel when there are other trashers simply because I think Chapel is not a lot of fun compared to many of the other trashers.  Not because I think it is the right play necessarily. 

[Holunder9]

In the latest I have noticed something that I can't help but think is a bit odd: People are starting to ignore Chapel more and more, and not in case of other strong trashers as Donate or Cathedral, just the other game some fella chose Ratcatcher instead. I don't think that they're ignorant players who don't know the true strength of Chapel (in this case they did pretty good anyway, lost only in the very end so no newb there I don't think) but I can't really wrap my head about this.

This is hard to answer in general but the interesting question is rather, why was Chapel relatively bad in this Kingdom. Quick trashing (and junking) is usually best but if you have good draw or sifting trashing quickly becomes less important.
I still doubt that he played what was best. Chapel is simply much faster than Ratcatcher (you often need 2 or 3 Ratcatchers to thin quickly). What can make sense though is Chapel PLUS Ratcatcher.

[Awaclus]

Eh, I don't know if I would ever go for Ratcatcher over Chapel but single-card trashers are a lot easier to play correctly than Chapel since it's so easy to make the mistake of trashing too much too early with Chapel, and the best single-card trashers (e.g. Cathedral or Masquerade) can even match or surpass Chapel's strength because of their contribution to your early economy. Maybe that's why some people have had games where ignoring Chapel has been the winning play.

[greybirdofprey]

I've had a lot of games where noone would buy the one very strong attack card, until the first person did it.

Probably because people dislike being constantly attacked by strong attacks.

[Holunder9]

I've had a lot of games where noone would buy the one very strong attack card, until the first person did it.

Probably because people dislike being constantly attacked by strong attacks.

You provided an irrational reason. In the case of junkers, the rational reason for buying a junkers once the opponent did it has something to do with the distribution of the junk pool. The strength of junkers always depends on whether somebody else has it.

Suppose there is a Kingdom in which Marauder is only moderately good. Nobody goes for it. But once Alice gains one, the prospect of having to deal with 15 Ruins doesn't look too appealing so Bob and Carol also get one.

More technically, Bob and Carol thought that the dominant strategy in this Kingdom is to get no Marauder which is why they did not buy one. But after Alice got one, the strength of Marauder increases and the best reaction to what they considered as suboptimal move is to also go for one. It is basically a prisoner's dilemma but with varying opinions about the payoffs of the Marauder respectively no-Marauder equilibria (only one player getting a Marauder is not stable).

[Simon Jester]

In the latest I have noticed something that I can't help but think is a bit odd: People are starting to ignore Chapel more and more, and not in case of other strong trashers as Donate or Cathedral, just the other game some fella chose Ratcatcher instead. I don't think that they're ignorant players who don't know the true strength of Chapel (in this case they did pretty good anyway, lost only in the very end so no newb there I don't think) but I can't really wrap my head about this.

This is hard to answer in general but the interesting question is rather, why was Chapel relatively bad in this Kingdom. Quick trashing (and junking) is usually best but if you have good draw or sifting trashing quickly becomes less important.
I still doubt that he played what was best. Chapel is simply much faster than Ratcatcher (you often need 2 or 3 Ratcatchers to thin quickly). What can make sense though is Chapel PLUS Ratcatcher.

It was a no +buy/gain kingdom and Fountain was there, but they did actually not save the coppers so Fountain couldn't really be the reason as a whole. I suspect some players might have been burned by over trashing and hesitates to use Chapel, if you only want to trash estates and a spare copper when you have no estates in your starting hands, Chapel might actually be worse than Ratcatcher. I don't think a single buy kingdom is reason enough to go that route though..

Still, my core instinct was for so long to always go Chapel and I would assume that is how weaker player thinks still today - ah, but very well, they might very well be experimenting and deliberately choose to avoid Chapel to see what happens so eh, but to see it a couple of times (I don't recall losing any of these games where I was the only Chapel-player) in a short time is still a little confusing..

[greybirdofprey]

I've had a lot of games where noone would buy the one very strong attack card, until the first person did it.

Probably because people dislike being constantly attacked by strong attacks.

You provided an irrational reason. In the case of junkers, the rational reason for buying a junkers once the opponent did it has something to do with the distribution of the junk pool. The strength of junkers always depends on whether somebody else has it.

It's not within game-theoretic rationality, no. It functions more like mass cooperation in a prisoner's dilemma. Noone attacks and noone gets curses. Everyone attacks and everyone gets curses.

[Holunder9]

It was a no +buy/gain kingdom and Fountain was there, but they did actually not save the coppers so Fountain couldn't really be the reason as a whole. I suspect some players might have been burned by over trashing and hesitates to use Chapel, if you only want to trash estates and a spare copper when you have no estates in your starting hands, Chapel might actually be worse than Ratcatcher. I don't think a single buy kingdom is reason enough to go that route though..

Hard to say without knowing the entire Kingdom but without the possibility to gain more than one card per turn this smells a lot like a boring Chapel-money strategy would be dominant. So I guess your hunch that your opponent just wanted to do something more funky is right.

[Simon Jester]

It was a no +buy/gain kingdom and Fountain was there, but they did actually not save the coppers so Fountain couldn't really be the reason as a whole. I suspect some players might have been burned by over trashing and hesitates to use Chapel, if you only want to trash estates and a spare copper when you have no estates in your starting hands, Chapel might actually be worse than Ratcatcher. I don't think a single buy kingdom is reason enough to go that route though..

Hard to say without knowing the entire Kingdom but without the possibility to gain more than one card per turn this smells a lot like a boring Chapel-money strategy would be dominant. So I guess your hunch that your opponent just wanted to do something more funky is right.

Yeah, that's most likely it if they were reasonably experienced. If the trend only is that Chapel is considered all the more boring and overused so well, I'm not there yet, but guess one can't be surprised that some people just can't stand it anymore. Can't complain for semi-free wins after all.

[NoMoreFun]

I've noticed more than a few informal "Gentleman's Agreements" around Rebuild where both players choose to ignore it.

[Simon Jester]

I've noticed more than a few informal "Gentleman's Agreements" around Rebuild where both players choose to ignore it.

Oh, oh, and I have gotten questions about banning Swindler a couple of times which annoys me slightly, I love that card (but can very much understand the hate, the taste is like the butt, divided.)

When it comes to Rebuild I'm getting scared for it nowadays. Whenever I go for it alone I'm getting beaten and whenever I try to beat it I'm getting smashed. Something is up with that card and it's not at all boring nowadays to me, just a legit nightmare. Would politely refuse Rebuild-bans future on.

[Commodore Chuckles]

When it comes to Rebuild I'm getting scared for it nowadays. Whenever I go for it alone I'm getting beaten and whenever I try to beat it I'm getting smashed. Something is up with that card and it's not at all boring nowadays to me, just a legit nightmare. Would politely refuse Rebuild-bans future on.

Weird, I feel the same way. It might be because the card is so simple that you can lose by pure luck. I guess there's a bit of strategy; do I buy another Rebuild or a Duchy, things like that. In the end though, Rebuild is something I don't want to bother getting good at anyway. More than fine with banning.

[buckets]

weird strat because ratcatcher could trash chapel when it becomes dead, then sit in the tavern drowning his sorrows for the rest of the game