Print

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

[RisingJaguar]

I understood that, and I know there is a ton of variance that can produce crazy results with TR/X.  BUT, you now have to compare it to other 4/4 results.  MV/MV, tournament/coppersmith both produce platinums.  Navigator by itself can produce T4 Gold.  Then if we think about smithy/TR, it's actually not that strong, pretty sure TR/Masq would be better.  Cursers get no boost with TR.  Better chances just buying two sea hags. 

So with the higher results of TR/X in 4/4, the bar for 4/4 is also just higher overall.  So my point was that it will not create a huge influx of TR/X players because really, 4/4 is pretty strong. 

I could be wrong of course, and a huge influx of TR/X comes about with 4/4.  But the upside with TR/X seems like a moot point with the potential of a 4/4 start.  TM/TM seems like the biggest change. 

[jomini]

TR/Masq is a six card hand with two of the cards being among the worst in play between you and your opponent (assuming respectable opponent, that means you get their worst card and a card no better than their second worst card). You might be able to snag a gold, but it won't show until T4 and to do so comes at the opportunity cost of trashing something. In short, virtually of the 3 (or lower) high variance openings are weak with only chancellor/TR being really high variance and having the skew needed to beat x/x.

If smithy/tr (when it hits) isn't powerful, I don't know what is. It gets you a gold. It cycles the entire deck (11 out of 12 cards on T3) or let's you go for other high power cards. This is a pretty huge boost for a BM type deck.

Cursers can get a boost with TR. TR/Curser can drop two curses into this shuffle (e.g. P2 plays TR/Curse on T3, P1 plays same on T3 or T4); curser/curser cannot put two curses in before the shuffle.

TR/YW would be better than YW/YW. You have a 36% of having YW's collide in your starting hand and the latter being just as dead as a TR without an action. You then have a 29% chance of colliding your YW's during the draw. All told, YW/YW has an almost even collision chance in a draw deck and sifts only 2 cards. In short, in the first shuffle you'd expect to give out 1.45 curses; you'd expect TR/YW to give out 1.36. So, like with other cards, YW/YW has a higher mean, its distribution is not as wide as TR/YW.

So again, I'm just saying that TR/X has to be considered here when looking at the variance 4/4 introduces. Yes MV/MV can be a plat, however MV/TR can be a plat and a TR for later use. It is another reason that 4/4 can be more powerful than 4/3. And yes, TM/TM is the biggest change.

[O]

So again, I'm just saying that TR/X has to be considered here when looking at the variance 4/4 introduces. Yes MV/MV can be a plat, however MV/TR can be a plat and a TR for later use. It is another reason that 4/4 can be more powerful than 4/3. And yes, TM/TM is the biggest change.

TR/MV doesn't allow you to trash mining village twice.

[Cheese]

Like RJ touched on with Sea Hag/Sea Hag vs TR/Sea Hag, there are other considerations than just how early you can get a gold.

I think TR/X looks attractive when it is analyzed in the short term, which is normally pretty reasonable, because big gains early lead to stronger decks mid and then late. But I don't think that adequately shows what's going on, because after the next reshuffle you now have 2 more cards in your deck, making collision less likely. Every card you add to your deck makes X/X better while making TR/X worse.

And TR/Masq...you do have a seven card hand instead of the nine with TR/Smithy, but you are also very likely to end up with two fewer estates than you started with. Now your deck has Silver instead of Gold, but two fewer estates. It's probably comparable chances for hitting $6 next hand, but because your deck is trimmed, every Gold you add is more useful. Now you can continue to trim your deck and even toss some coppers. So it's probably better. But even if you don't think it is, TR/Oracle is more similar to TR/Smithy and nobody does that.

[blueblimp]

These examples only convince me further that TR/X is awful.

TR/Baron: Okay, in the unlikely event that you draw TR/Baron/Copper/2xEstate, then you get a plat. The probability of this is really low though: only 2 * (1 * 1 * (7 choose 1) * (3 choose 2) / (12 choose 5)) = 5.3% to draw this on either T3 or T4. Given that if you don't draw TR/Baron/2xEstate/X, your TR is a dead card, this does not seem like a good bet even in 4-player.

TR/Coppersmith: Even if this works and gets a platinum, you now have a TR and a Coppersmith in your deck in addition to that plat. I think I'd rather have silver/silver/gold on most boards.

TR/Navigator: Has the same chances of playing a T4 gold as Navigator/Silver. (If TR is played on the Navigator, it's only giving you $2.)

TR/Smithy: Even if these collide before the 2nd reshuffle, this is not a good opening for big money, because TR is awful for big money! To have this outperform Smithy/Silver, you'd not only need good shuffle luck in the first reshuffle, but for subsequent reshuffles too (to have Smithy and TR continue to collide).

TR/Curser is the only TR opening that seems reasonable to me (because sneaking in two curses before your opponent's second reshuffle is nice), but even then your TR is going to draw dead often as your deck fills with curses, so I'm really not convinced it's any better than Curser/Curser.

[RisingJaguar]

My point was horribly written earlier so I'll keep this short.

If the RELATIVE variance (variance from TR/4 to 4/4 and TR/3 to 4/3) doesn't change, because 4/4 is so strong when TR gets a boost, then there's no reason to think there's going to be a sudden influx of new people trying out TR/4 that wouldn't have tried TR/3. 

I will say your examples only consider the first shuffles.  Take your T3 Gold but your throne room is a super dead card which offsets the upside of the cycled through T3 Gold.  All your examples are like that, and the throne room still operates like a dead card (if played like BM).  So the early bonus, isn't as pretty now.  Again, relative variance hasn't really changed (at least from what I see). 

I know Jomini doesn't actually think TR/X is playable.  He's just trying to argue that TR/X causes more variance btw which is a relatively fair point, i just don't think it'll become a problem.

[blueblimp]

I know Jomini doesn't actually think TR/X is playable.  He's just trying to argue that TR/X causes more variance btw which is a relatively fair point, i just don't think it'll become a problem.

It's just that I'm not even convinced it causes damaging variance. For that to be true, then roughly, the best case for TR/X should be quite a bit better than the best case for X/X or Silver/X. But in fact the best cases usually seem similar.

(Also, if the best case for TR/X is less likely than an opening buy missing the second reshuffle, then it's probably not unacceptably high variance.)

[chesskidnate]

I feel I should note that wishing well/ coppersmith can allow you to buy a platinum with the same speed as throne room/ coppersmith and doesn't have a possibly dead throne room

[DStu]

Throne Room: For most of its life this card cost 3. My feeling was that you didn't want to buy two on turns 1 and 2, and probably didn't want to buy one on either of those turns (except with the Feast combo). Later in the game it doesn't matter as much whether it costs 3 or 4. So why not 3? In general, if a card can be cheaper, I make it cheaper. I want the cards as cheap as possible without breaking the game, rather than as expensive as possible without going unplayed. So, I knew Throne Room was good, but it seemed like 3 was okay.

Well late in development there was a game where no-one fought me for the Throne Rooms and I had a turn where I chained 6 of them. "I play Throne Room. First I Throne Room a Throne Room; for that one first I Throne Room a Smithy, then a Throne Room; for that one first I Throne Room a Throne Room..." I had a big cloud of actions on the table (we use a binary tree in these ridiculous situations). It's not just powerful; it's messy. I thought, hmm, maybe this could stand being 4 after all. It makes it just a bit harder to get a million of them; you don't go, "Market, buy two Throne Rooms" nearly as often. There was some worry that now there weren't enough 3's, but we decided we could live with just having four. There's Silver at 3, so it's fine to sometimes deal out a random 10 and not get a 3.

[jomini]

Well, as thrilling as this is, I remain unconvinced that TR/X doesn't greatly increase variance. I get that TR/X (3 or 4) are both crappy strategies in the main. I'm not actually saying I'd play a TR/X strategy unless we are talking scenarios where my odds of winning have dipped below 20% in a mirror, but it does increase the variance.

Yes I know, there are currently high variance strats, like TR/Chancellor, I'll even play them from 4th position if I lose the distribution (e.g. I have an opponent or two ahead of me who hit 5/2 with a witch out and I get 4/3). There just aren't as many of them.

Now BB makes a good point, if we compare the best outcome from X/X or silver/X; TR/X needs to be substantially ahead. I think he's wrong in downweighting the play the big card sooner aspect of things; we pay 2 coin more for a royal seal which saves us, on average 2x as many hands till play as a forced shuffle. Half the jump from a 3 coin treasure to a 5 coin treasure is nothing to dismiss. Also, note that while I'm using golds & plats as handy big value cards, there are other ones out there that can have more pronounced effects - e.g. bank, goons, hoard (say with great halls), forge, etc.


We can disagree about how much variance TR/X adds to the game, but it is there and it is another thing that makes 4/4 openings higher variance than 4/3.

[RisingJaguar]

We can disagree about how much variance TR/X adds to the game, but it is there and it is another thing that makes 4/4 openings higher variance than 4/3.

I'm not going to add any more arguments here.  Just going to say that I also disagree with second portion that TR/$4 adds more variance than TR/$3.  Just because the payoff is higher doesn't mean there's higher variance. 

Edit: realized that second portion relates to first portion, so i just disagree overall. 

[mDuo13]

Dismissing talk of Throne Room for now...

obv. most combinations of the top $4 cards (maybe not especially Jack?) makes for a pretty broken opening. Tournament/Monument, Monument/Sea Hag, etc. 2x Remake is peculiar. If we're talking an actual $4/$4 opening, it's great because if they collide you can turn one into a $5. If we're talking Remake costs $3, then who knows.

Sea Hag/Sea Hag is probably brutal, although if they collide, you almost certainly have no real buying power that turn. Given how good double Ambassador openings are, I sorta doubt it matters much in the long run.

I agree that Talisman definitely gets a lot crazier at $3, although not necessarily that much BETTER.

I wonder if maybe Pirate Ship and Thief would be less terrible at $3 since both benefit from being used over and over again. Maybe if also in the presence of villages.

Trader/Trader is also a fascinating opening concept. Although if they're $3, you get one less silver when you Trader your Trader.

[MasterAir]

Thief/pirate ship at $3 could lead to some horrible situations in a 4 player game.  Pirate ship is already a very strong card on some multiplayer boards.  I don't think that would be a good idea.

[GendoIkari]

Trader/Trader is also a fascinating opening concept. Although if they're $3, you get one less silver when you Trader your Trader.

[blueblimp]

Trader/Trader is also a fascinating opening concept. Although if they're $3, you get one less silver when you Trader your Trader.

I like this. When drawing Trader/Trader/Estate/whatever, I'd play one Trader on the Estate, buy a Copper, and reveal the other Trader to gain a Silver. With Trader/Trader/3xCopper, could either Trader a Trader or trash a Copper and use the other Trader to gain a Silver.

[Ozle]

Trader/Trader is also a fascinating opening concept. Although if they're $3, you get one less silver when you Trader your Trader.

I like this. When drawing Trader/Trader/Estate/whatever, I'd play one Trader on the Estate, buy a Copper, and reveal the other Trader to gain a Silver. With Trader/Trader/3xCopper, could either Trader a Trader or trash a Copper and use the other Trader to gain a Silver.

And the award for using the word Trader the most times in a single post goes too....

[eHalcyon]

Thief/pirate ship at $3 could lead to some horrible situations in a 4 player game.  Pirate ship is already a very strong card on some multiplayer boards.  I don't think that would be a good idea.

If you were going to do that, I think double Pirate Ship would be better.  Opening Thief isn't all that attractive to me... I don't really want so much copper in my deck, especially if we're playing with Pirate Ships.  Using Thief is just making it harder for your Pirate Ship to hit, and making it easier for theirs.

[wildfire393]

Thief/pirate ship at $3 could lead to some horrible situations in a 4 player game.  Pirate ship is already a very strong card on some multiplayer boards.  I don't think that would be a good idea.

If you were going to do that, I think double Pirate Ship would be better.  Opening Thief isn't all that attractive to me... I don't really want so much copper in my deck, especially if we're playing with Pirate Ships.  Using Thief is just making it harder for your Pirate Ship to hit, and making it easier for theirs.

Pretty sure he meant double Thief or double Pirate Ship. Not opening Thief + Pirate Ship.

[GendoIkari]

I think this should be bumped now that Baker exists.

[Awaclus]

I think this should be bumped now that Baker exists.

I was about to reply to one of the old posts with "Duh, obviously we're talking about the 4/4 opening because that's actually possible". Then I read your post.

[zporiri]

one 4/4 opening that i don't think people talk about very often is marauder/marauder. what do you gys think of it? if they don't collide, you can give your opponents a junk card on turn 3+4, as well as getting 2 one-shot golds in your deck, pretty strong imo, but i could be wrong. if they collide, then that turn is pretty shot in terms of buying anything, buy you still get the spoils. if they miss the shuffle, it doesn't matter what you bought, you're probably in trouble hah

[florrat]

In my experience, when playing with Baker, a 5/3 opening is usually better than a 4/4 opening. A 6/2 opening could also be awesome in some cases, but I haven't had the opportunity yet to open 6/2 with strong 6's and 2's. So opening 4/4 can be very strong, but 5/3 is just stronger most of the times.

[Jorbles]

In my experience, when playing with Baker, a 5/3 opening is usually better than a 4/4 opening. A 6/2 opening could also be awesome in some cases, but I haven't had the opportunity yet to open 6/2 with strong 6's and 2's. So opening 4/4 can be very strong, but 5/3 is just stronger most of the times.

on 6/2:
You can always open Gold/strong $2. Gold/Lighthouse maybe on a Seahag board? It's that or Seahag/Lighthouse probably.

[sudgy]

In my experience, when playing with Baker, a 5/3 opening is usually better than a 4/4 opening. A 6/2 opening could also be awesome in some cases, but I haven't had the opportunity yet to open 6/2 with strong 6's and 2's. So opening 4/4 can be very strong, but 5/3 is just stronger most of the times.

on 6/2:
You can always open Gold/strong $2. Gold/Lighthouse maybe on a Seahag board? It's that or Seahag/Lighthouse probably.

Gold/Chapel would be good, on a Sea Hag board too.

[hsiale]

I think the strongest opening possible is Goons/Chapel.