Print

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

[aku_chi]

Re why is Tracker so low: topdecking cards is quite strong. Having to buy a terminal Copper + random Boon to do so isn't that strong. Part of the problem with Tracker is that it comes with Pouch, so you have a +Buy card for free, which pushes you towards an engine, which would often rather spend its terminal space on something other than Tracker.

I think Tracker is a lot better in an engine than a moneyish strategy, so Pouch and Tracker both nudge in the same direction.  In a moneyish strategy that doesn't increase handsize, a terminal that might only provide $1 makes it harder to hit $8.  In an engine with draw, topdecking your newly gained draw is great for consistency.  Tracker is probably at its strongest in draw engines that would be unreliable if not for Tracker's topdecking.  Also, the Pouch enables opening with Tracker + other card + card sometimes.

[GendoIkari]

Tax is like spending $2 and a buy now to make the opponent spend $2 later, in a way they can control to some extent. Not a great trade-off.

Yes, but it's better than buying nothing.

Not always though. I don't have any experience with Tax, but I would think that at least sometimes you would just end up screwing yourself? It's not common that there's a card that your opponent wants but you don't want, is it? In which case you are relying on your opponent buying it before you do, which could depend on their draws next turn, etc.

[Awaclus]

Tax is like spending $2 and a buy now to make the opponent spend $2 later, in a way they can control to some extent. Not a great trade-off.

Yes, but it's better than buying nothing.

Not always though. I don't have any experience with Tax, but I would think that at least sometimes you would just end up screwing yourself? It's not common that there's a card that your opponent wants but you don't want, is it? In which case you are relying on your opponent buying it before you do, which could depend on their draws next turn, etc.

It's not uncommon that there's a card that you both want and only you have it already, and sometimes it's good enough if you manage to delay your opponent's purchase by a shuffle.

[faust]

Tax is like spending $2 and a buy now to make the opponent spend $2 later, in a way they can control to some extent. Not a great trade-off.

Yes, but it's better than buying nothing.

Not always though. I don't have any experience with Tax, but I would think that at least sometimes you would just end up screwing yourself? It's not common that there's a card that your opponent wants but you don't want, is it? In which case you are relying on your opponent buying it before you do, which could depend on their draws next turn, etc.

It is about worsening your best-case outcome in favor of making the worst-case outcome better. Say I have a Cultist and my opponent doesn't. I put Tax on Cultist. Now if my opponent doesn't reach $5 on their next turn, then that is great for me, as they will continue not having a Cultist for longer. Then it may well be that I buy a second Cultist on my next turn and have to take the debt. But it's fine as I am already in a good position. But if they DO reach $5, then they are more dangerous to me, and the Tax buy succeeded in crippling them.

[Chappy7]

Tax is like spending $2 and a buy now to make the opponent spend $2 later, in a way they can control to some extent. Not a great trade-off.

Yes, but it's better than buying nothing.

Exactly! And that is something that many $2s can't say.  Tax is almost never bad to buy.  For a $2, that seems decent to me.  As others have said, there are many harmful cards that belong below Tax, even if Tax isn't ever very powerful

[Awaclus]

there are many harmful cards that belong below Tax, even if Tax isn't ever very powerful

Well, not very many. I think Tax should be above Beggar but that's pretty much it.

[werothegreat]

With Tax, it's the setup that irks me most.

[Chappy7]

there are many harmful cards that belong below Tax, even if Tax isn't ever very powerful

Well, not very many. I think Tax should be above Beggar but that's pretty much it.

I think it is at least more impactful than quest and pearl diver. 

[Chris is me]

there are many harmful cards that belong below Tax, even if Tax isn't ever very powerful

Well, not very many. I think Tax should be above Beggar but that's pretty much it.

I think it is at least more impactful than quest and pearl diver.

I definitely buy those two more than Tax.

Most of what I see in Tax is scrub players wasting a turn on buying it, and not even really slowing me down much. Remember, you're using a gain and two money to make them lose two money whenever they choose to get that card nexf. That's already a losing proposition, you gave up more than they did.

[Chappy7]

there are many harmful cards that belong below Tax, even if Tax isn't ever very powerful

Well, not very many. I think Tax should be above Beggar but that's pretty much it.

I think it is at least more impactful than quest and pearl diver.

I definitely buy those two more than Tax.

Most of what I see in Tax is scrub players wasting a turn on buying it, and not even really slowing me down much. Remember, you're using a gain and two money to make them lose two money whenever they choose to get that card nexf. That's already a losing proposition, you gave up more than they did.

I also buy Pearl Diver more than Tax, but what I said was more impactful.  Pearl diver, imo, does something useful less often than tax.  I can definitely see an argument either way though.  Quest though, I almost never buy that. 

[Awaclus]

Quest makes the biggest impact out of those three the occasional time when you do buy it though (unless you're buying it just for the lulz and discarding 6 Coppers or something). Pearl Diver's effect is not as bad as many people seem to think; if it saves a good card from missing the shuffle, it's actually pretty significant.