Print

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

[Morgrim7]

Mountebank, like any other curser, is one of those few cards that you would actually open Feast for. Unlike any other curser, it doesn't quickly lose its value. Mountebank is one of those cards that the more times you play it, the less amount of times it gets effective. Because, the more times you play it, the more curses your opponent gets, the more likely it is he will have a curse in his hand to discard. Lets say your opponents deck consisted of: 8 Coppers, 3 Estates, 2 Mountebanks, 1 Silver, and 1 Curse. Now imagine that you played Mountebank. There are 17 cards in his deck, five of which he has in his hand. The probability of him having a curse in his hand is  0.38. Not so bad. Now lets add some curses and coppers. His deck is now 9 Coppers, 2 Curses, 3 Estates, 2 Mountebanks, and 1 Silver. There are now 19 cards in his deck, and with 5 in the hand, the probability has increased to .6. Do it again, and it increases to .8. So you see, the more it is played, the less effect it has. So, for the curses to run out, you will have to either have perfect luck, or wait a bit for the decks to fatten. Thus, in many Mountebank games, instead of going quickly like games with Witch, the curses slowly trickle out and might not even empty at all by the time the game is over.

Coppers?
Many of the decisions made when playing with Mountebank revolves around whether or not you want the extra coppers. In games with cards that don't care about coppers, such as Loan, Counting House, Cache, PhilStone, and Gardens, the coppres might not matter as much, and may, in fact, be beneficial. In these types of games, if the curses are gone, when given the choice on whether to discard a Curse or not, do not discard the curse. The copper isn't harmful.

In games where the copper would not be beneficial, such as with heavy trashing, Mountebank is still somewhat of an attack, and shoud be avoided, but remember, in junking games, Copper is a card which can be quite helpful, and whose aid is not to be despised.

Copper provides one more thing: Bigger Decks. A good counter to any Mountebank strat is Gardens. You get a bloated deck, can greatly increase the value of Gardens, you get an abunance of Coppers, and you get a pre-depleted pile: Curses. What is not to like?

Playing with Mountebank
What is the point of a curser?
To get curses into your opponents deck.

Why is this so hard to do with Mountebank?
Bcause of the easy avoiding of the attack. Just discard a curse.

So how can I get the curses into my opponents deck?
You should play Mountebank more. Like this:

1) More in general. There are many ways to do this, some enablers include Inn, Scheme, and some good cyclers like Warehouse. It is also easier to do with Hunting Party. A very good way to ensure playing Mountebank alomst consistently each turn is to buy one, and load up on Hunting Parties. The Hunting Parties skip over the junk, and will almost reliaby get a Mountebank into your hand every turn. 

2) More per turn. If you can play Mountebank at least twice in one turn, it is highly likely that the second will suceed. So how can you play it more than once per turn? This is alot harder. One of the obvious answers is KC/TR, and if you can get to KC early in the game, great. TR is different. It only costs 4. Easy to get to. So buy it often, buy some Mountebanks, and you are pretty home free.
Another answer is some Villages. And maybe some +Cards. Like Tactician. If you can play a Tactician earlier in the game, and play at least two or three Mountebanks, you are likely to get some junk in his deck, which will not only start to waste the curses, but make his Tacticians (or Villages) less likley to synergize with his Mountebanks.

Mountebank is the card that, IMO, slows games down the most. The onslaught of junk, the duration of the emptying of piles, and the ability to junk even after the curses are gone make it so. This card, along with Ambassador, Torturer, and Possession are one of the few cards that can make people quit Dominion.

Works with:
Tactician
Cyclers
Scheme
Inn
Throne Room/King's Court
Villages
Itself
Counting House
Loan
Heavy trashing
PhilStone
Gardens

Conflicts with:
Ambassador (duh)
Masquerade (duh)
Other strategies you want to play but are ruined by this card.
Hand-Size Reducers
Edit: Oh, yeah, Trader. 

[DStu]

I wouldn't list Counting House etc. in "works with". Counting House works with opponents Mountebanks, and is actually a pretty good counter to Mountebank.

[Eevee]

I wouldn't list Counting House etc. in "works with". Counting House works with opponents Mountebanks, and is actually a pretty good counter to Mountebank.

Yeah, counting house gets stronger by mountebank, not the other way around.

[Captain_Frisk]

I can also right a mountebank article:

Buy it.

[Eevee]

I can also right a mountebank article:

Buy it.

I can do better:

Buy two of them, sometimes three or four.

[Fabian]

I can also right a mountebank article:

Buy it.

Good article, nothing left.

[Voltgloss]

I can also right a mountebank article:

Buy it.

Good article, nothing left.

Even with Trader on the board?

[Captain_Frisk]

Sorry for being a wiseass.  Yes - even trader isn't necessarily enough for me to skip it, although you do have to think twice.

[DG]

Treasuries and alchemists are probably worth a mention for their vulnerability to mountebanks. Fortune tellers and rabbles can also backfire if they constantly put mountebank defense into your opponent's next hand. Similarly, courtyards and mandarins can retain curses from one hand to the next.

Cards that get value from hand size can be weaker if you're discarding curses from your hand. Warehouses and vaults might still be useful but not as useful as they would be against a sea hag.

Deck expansion is the biggest part of the mountebank attack. A deck can spin out of control very quickly and it can become impossible to control drawing enough to manipulate or repair the deck. As mentioned in the article, a deck can saturate with curses making it more difficult to add more with mountebank attacks. If you keep trashing other poor cards out of your deck, such as copper and estates, the curses saturate the smaller deck sooner and form a better defense.

[shraeye]

Similarly, courtyards and mandarins can retain curses from one hand to the next.

Havens too, but that is too expensive a way to try to counter Mountebank

[Insomniac]

Similarly, courtyards and mandarins can retain curses from one hand to the next.

Havens too, but that is too expensive a way to try to counter Mountebank

Haven doesn't work the card isn't in your hand until your turn so when your opponent plays mountebank you dont have the curse you havened

[shraeye]

That is a true statement, Insomniac.  I was incorrect.

[jomini]

Mountebank is weaker against alt-vp. Silk roads and gardens don't mind the copper flood as much (and with all the gardens, each play of Mtb after you've given out all the curses is +.8 VP), if there are strong enablers on the board (e.g. horse traders), then mountebank is just begging to be beaten down by a quick rush.

Ambassador can beat Mtb, yeah reflecting the curses gives him more chances to load you down with copper, but you can return those too (with a relative size change of 3 cards).

Other cards that conflict with or mitigate Mtb are apothecary (you can get more +3 coin/ +1 action apothecaries, you can engineer reshuffles to increase your odds of having a curse in hand, and you can cycle faster to your own attack) and watchtower (in addition to trashing inbound curses/coppers, you can also discard curses in order to increase your draw).

[Voltgloss]

How does Mountebank fare in a Hunting Party world?  Conceptually, it feels like a wash to me - on the one hand, Mountebank is an excellent +$2 terminal to round out your Copper-Silver-Gold if running a HP stack; on the other hand, if you are running a HP stack you're already set up to draw past the flood of Coppers and Curses.

Maybe a better question is:  with HP and Mountebank on the board, when do you buy a Mountebank?  (compared to when you start/continue buying HP's)

[D Bo]

Maybe a better question is:  with HP and Mountebank on the board, when do you buy a Mountebank?  (compared to when you start/continue buying HP's)

Personally I would always buy Mountebank before the Hunting Parties. As you said, it guarantees you +2 which would give you a better chance of getting to 5 in a subsequent turn. And I would just be afraid that if my opponent goes Mountebank before me, my deck will start to accumulate the extra coppers/curses before I have a chance to hit him. Once I have my Mountebank I'm free to binge on the HPs.

[ehunt]

How does Mountebank fare in a Hunting Party world?  Conceptually, it feels like a wash to me - on the one hand, Mountebank is an excellent +$2 terminal to round out your Copper-Silver-Gold if running a HP stack; on the other hand, if you are running a HP stack you're already set up to draw past the flood of Coppers and Curses.

Maybe a better question is:  with HP and Mountebank on the board, when do you buy a Mountebank?  (compared to when you start/continue buying HP's)

seems like MB on the first shuffle then HP every five after, not certain.

[Captain_Frisk]

How does Mountebank fare in a Hunting Party world?  Conceptually, it feels like a wash to me - on the one hand, Mountebank is an excellent +$2 terminal to round out your Copper-Silver-Gold if running a HP stack; on the other hand, if you are running a HP stack you're already set up to draw past the flood of Coppers and Curses.

Maybe a better question is:  with HP and Mountebank on the board, when do you buy a Mountebank?  (compared to when you start/continue buying HP's)

seems like MB on the first shuffle then HP every five after, not certain.

This would be my guess.  I might even not buy gold until the HPs are gone - because the curses are going to make finding your HP chains harder.

[HiveMindEmulator]

This would be my guess.  I might even not buy gold until the HPs are gone - because the curses are going to make finding your HP chains harder.

I would think you might want to have the opposite reaction. Since it's going to be harder to pull off HP chains, you should make HPs a lower priority, not a higher one. Probably get a second MB before even starting on HPs, and always prefer Gold to HP.

[ehunt]

i don't think it is significantly harder to pull off hunting party chains in a mountebank game, as long as you're willing to commit to having a boring deck. the presence of curse hurts the stacking a little (especially if you've just discarded one to fend off a mountebank), and then the extra junk decrease the probability that you start the turn with a hunting party in hand. but once you have one, you're pretty much good to go. I think I agree with preferring hunting party to gold basically till the hunting party stack is empty (after the first mountebank).

[hobo386]

From my experience, HP/Mountebank works best when I get 1 hunting party first, then mountebanke, then all the other HPs.

Also. Jack is another counter to mountebanke, due to the trashing, the +draw, and the lack of reliance on actions.

[Morgrim7]

Did you guys even read my article? I did mention HP (if only briefly) and how I would play it. Guess I should add some more HP in...

[HiveMindEmulator]

Did you guys even read my article? I did mention HP (if only briefly) and how I would play it. Guess I should add some more HP in...

I don't think talking specifically about Hunting Party in the article is important. It's just that someone made a comment, and people have different opinions on the right way to play it. It's more of the subject for a simulation challenge or something than the Mountebank article, since it's not a particularly strong combo.

I think the main thing missing from the article is something about how Mountebank affects the game as a whole. Since it gives 2 junk cards instead of 1, it is nearly impossible to trash your way out, so it kills hopes of engines dead more than any of the other cursers. But on the flip side, it's not as strong as them in BM, since it eventually starts to miss (since in BM you don't trash the curses), and since the Coppers aren't all that bad.

[DG]

Hunting party isn't so special. Using labs to drive through a deck and play mountebanks can work too.

[blueblimp]

Since it gives 2 junk cards instead of 1, it is nearly impossible to trash your way out, so it kills hopes of engines dead more than any of the other cursers.

Yes. I have killed myself so many times trying to build an engine against Mountebank. An engine must be very very good to survive Mountebank. (On the other hand, if you do survive, it's lights out for your opponent once you start multi-Mountebanking every turn. Well, assuming there are enough VPs left. Colonies help.)

[Fabian]

I'm just annoyed nobody +1'd my awesome joke grrr

[ehunt]

I'm just annoyed nobody +1'd my awesome joke grrr

hmmm... as a compromise, I will +1 this post, expressing dismay about it, because when do you see genuine human emotion these days?

[GendoIkari]

I you can play a Tactician earlier in the game, and play at least two or three Mountebanks, you are likely to get some junk in his deck, which will not only start to waste the curses, but make his Tacticians (or Villages) less likley to synergize with your Mountebanks.

A couple typos... "If", not "I"; and "his Mountebanks", not "your Mountebanks."

[Morgrim7]

I you can play a Tactician earlier in the game, and play at least two or three Mountebanks, you are likely to get some junk in his deck, which will not only start to waste the curses, but make his Tacticians (or Villages) less likley to synergize with your Mountebanks.

A couple typos... "If", not "I"; and "his Mountebanks", not "your Mountebanks."

Oops, sorry about that, posting from a kindle.
Will fix...

[J.Co.]

I've recently won a Mountebank game (IRL) by ignoring it, instead going with Ambassador. Masquerade might work, too. It takes a little luck, sure. But since your opponent is going Mountebank, he likely won't get Ambassador until it's too late (which is why I won).

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet or not, but Watchtower often makes me and least think about not getting Mountebank.

[eHalcyon]

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet or not, but Watchtower often makes me and least think about not getting Mountebank.

Why not?  They won't have Watchtower in every hand.

[Morgrim7]

I've recently won a Mountebank game (IRL) by ignoring it, instead going with Ambassador. Masquerade might work, too. It takes a little luck, sure. But since your opponent is going Mountebank, he likely won't get Ambassador until it's too late (which is why I won).

Most Cursers can be ignored with Ambassador on the board.

[qmech]

Mountebank is one of the hardest to ignore as it junks your deck up as fast as you can clear it, and faster if you aren't so far gone that you're drawing 2 Curses at a time.

[DStu]

I you can play a Tactician earlier in the game, and play at least two or three Mountebanks, you are likely to get some junk in his deck, which will not only start to waste the curses, but make his Tacticians (or Villages) less likley to synergize with your Mountebanks.

A couple typos... "If", not "I"; and "his Mountebanks", not "your Mountebanks."

There's also an Alot hiding in the text...

[ftl]

Alot of Mountebanks.

Now that's a scary creature.

[cayvie]

Alot of Mountebanks.

Now that's a scary creature.

Dawww... he's wearin a lil cloak and wide-brim hat...

[methods of rationality]

Another thing about mountebank: Since your opponent is giving you tons of copper and curses, your deck will be much thicker. A thicker deck can support more terminals. I would say: up to around 5 or 6 even with no villages? or maybe that's a bit too much, at least 4 though. I don't know, what does everyone else think?

[mnavratil]

Good Article! I'm surprised it took this long for someone to write it, honestly.

Some of minor points:
You mentioned Cache in the Copper strategy section. I gues I don't see the relevance here. If you are already flooded with coppers, I don't think you'll be wanting that Cache and 2 more coppers. Maybe I am missing something.
Also, Maybe mention Philosopher's Stone as a counter.  With enough coppers/curses flying around those things can get to be pretty valuable. Similar to Counting House, this is one of the rare instances where this card can shine.
In the game below, each pstone gets up to $7:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120725-091613-426d22a6.html

[HiveMindEmulator]

You mentioned Cache in the Copper strategy section. I gues I don't see the relevance here. If you are already flooded with coppers, I don't think you'll be wanting that Cache and 2 more coppers. Maybe I am missing something.

I think the idea is that the downside of Cache is that typically adding the Coppers will degrade your deck value by adding bad cards. But in a Mountebank game, Copper won't be that far below your average card since you have a lot of Coppers and Curses. And 2 extra cards isn't as significant an increase in deck size. So it may be worth taking that less significant hit to get the cheap Gold.

What I don't get is the following sentence:

In these types of games, if the curses are gone, when given the choice on whether to discard a Curse or not, do not discard the curse. The copper is helpful.

"Not that harmful" is not the same as "helpful".

[methods of rationality]

Well cache could be relavant if you buy a counting house, which you would never do if not for moutebank. See
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120617-090146-04fbe3e1.html          and
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120714-202825-86a8da8a.html

[Morgrim7]

So much feedback! Will edit.

[J.Co.]

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet or not, but Watchtower often makes me and least think about not getting Mountebank.

Why not?  They won't have Watchtower in every hand.

Nor would I have a Mountebank in every hand. And I mean more that I would try to incorporate a couple of Watchtowers in my strategy. If I don't defend, the chance of later being able to discard a curse with Watchtower in hand gives me +3 draw, which can sorta help mitigate some of the damage done. Yes, I know luck is required for that, but big draws and being able to put buys on top of decks in the same turn is fun (Colliding Mountebanks is bad, but colliding Watchtowers is pretty sweet).

I probably would stick with Mountebank, of course, but if the board is right, or if my opponent doesn't go beserk on Mountebanks either, I probably wouldn't hesitate to take my chances.

[Asklepios]

I'd add that Mountebank greatly increases the likelihood of a three pile ending. It slows down the game in terms of reachign provinces or colonies, but empties the curse pile rapidly by virtue of the fact that when its present, both (or all for multiplayer) players will almost invariably take it and use it lots.

One rule I always have for myself is that when Mountebanks are present, its a good idea to get 1 or 2 provinces as soon as you can, then after that, grab duchies like crazy. This is opposed to non-Mountebank games, where usually the time to get duchies is when 3-4+ provinces have gone.

Winning the duchy split very often wins mountebank games, in my experience.

[WheresMyElephant]

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet or not, but Watchtower often makes me and least think about not getting Mountebank.

Why not?  They won't have Watchtower in every hand.

Besides, the more Curses you block now, the less likely that you will be able to discard one later and avoid future Curses. In some games without +Action Mountebank reaches almost an equilibrium point where it very rarely works, and Watchtower won't really affect the equilibrium point so much as delay it, like Moat does for most Cursers.

Sometimes Mountebank doesn't run the Curses out at all. With most Cursers Watchtower depletes their ammunition, which is sometimes an advantage, but with Mountebank this might not even matter. And of course it's not going to deplete the Copper. (On the other hand if YOU'RE using Mountebanks too, you would probably prefer not to deplete the ammo and it's much more likely to matter.)

Obviously Watchtower is a pretty decent Reaction but Mountebank probably minds it less than any other Curser, at a guess.

[J.Co.]

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet or not, but Watchtower often makes me and least think about not getting Mountebank.

Why not?  They won't have Watchtower in every hand.

Besides, the more Curses you block now, the less likely that you will be able to discard one later and avoid future Curses. In some games without +Action Mountebank reaches almost an equilibrium point where it very rarely works, and Watchtower won't really affect the equilibrium point so much as delay it, like Moat does for most Cursers.

Sometimes Mountebank doesn't run the Curses out at all. With most Cursers Watchtower depletes their ammunition, which is sometimes an advantage, but with Mountebank this might not even matter. And of course it's not going to deplete the Copper. (On the other hand if YOU'RE using Mountebanks too, you would probably prefer not to deplete the ammo and it's much more likely to matter.)

Obviously Watchtower is a pretty decent Reaction but Mountebank probably minds it less than any other Curser, at a guess.

First of all, I'm a little confused as to which side you're arguing. First, you say that Watchtower only delays the equilibrium process, but then you mention how it depletes the ammunition, which actually decreases the saturation all together. Then you say that, with Mountebank, it doesn't even matter. If anything, it matters more.

I think part of what you're saying is that it's good to use curses as defenses, but I'd still take my chances with Watchtower. I'm okay with blocking early curses and not having them to discard later, even if it minimizes the draw power of Watchtower within the confines of an engine. I think Mountebank probably minds Watchtower MORE than other curse-giving cards because Watchtower can TRASH the curse and the copper. Other defenses (such as Moat or Lighthouse) prevent the curse from being dealt, which only delays the inevitable. Watchtower decreases the amount of opportunities for Mountebank to hand out curses.

If there isn't a +2 action, I'm okay with playing big money with little concern. If my Watchtowers collide, I can put newly acquired treasures on top. If they don't, I cycle well with decent draws.

Again, I'm not saying Watchtower is enough to negate Mountebank, but given the proper board, there are certainly situations when I wouldn't consider Mountebank as big a threat as usual.

[WheresMyElephant]

[quote author=WheresMyElephant link
First of all, I'm a little confused as to which side you're arguing. First, you say that Watchtower only delays the equilibrium process, but then you mention how it depletes the ammunition, which actually decreases the saturation all together. Then you say that, with Mountebank, it doesn't even matter. If anything, it matters more.

I'm saying,

1. if your opponent takes a Mountebank and you don't, without  +Actions a Watchtower is about the same as a Moat. Why? Without +Actions to play multiples, Mountebank's potency is going to drop off sharply once you once you have, say, 6-7 Curses in your deck. At that point it doesn't matter much whether the rest of the Curses are in the Trash or the Supply. "Depleting the ammo" seems irrelevant when the gun's jammed! (If you actually manage to block as many as 4 or 5 Curses you could maybe deplete the Curses while Mountebank was still dangerous, but that's unlikely). Never mind that even if the Curses did run out he could still give you Copper. Watchtower can delay the inevitable, the way Moat usually does, but we know that's not that strong.

2. If you DO retaliate with Mountebank, the Curses become more likely to run out. But like any Curser, if you retaliate you'd probably rather have Moat than Watchtower. If you have defenses and he doesn't, why do you want the ammo to run out? You're winning the fight!

But on reflection, I was wrong to say the so-called "equilibrium point" won't be much affected. Actually since Curses basically act as Moats themselves, a Moat (or a Watchtower) is basically just like having one extra Curse. Thus his Mountebank should crap out approximately one Curse sooner. So that's surprisingly decent I guess; you could probably make the case you'd rather buy a Watchtower or a Moat now than get a Curse+Copper later. The original point of this comparison was that Moat sucks and thus Watchtower must too; but maybe they're both a little better than I thought. Especially Moat on a $2 turn (the Silver test is probably a tougher question).

And no, I wasn't really suggesting you should intentionally take Curses as a defense. Just that realistically you're going to get them sooner or later anyway.

Edit:

With Moat, the number of curses (thus, the number of chances Mountebank can give you a curse) stays the same. Watchtower decrease that number with the trashing ability. That's kind of a big deal.

I don't really want to clog up this thread by arguing excessively in more posts, but you seem to be overlooking the central issue of my point 1. That is: it does not matter if Watchtower trashes a few Curses, because a single player playing a single Mountebank per turn generally wouldn't use up all the Curses anyhow. We could easily play a game where I Watchtower 2 Curses, you give me 7, but then my Curse discards consistently nullify your Mountebanks and the tenth Curse remains in the supply until the end. The Mountebanks became almost toothless without even needing to deplete the Curse pile, so what is so great about the trashing ability?

With most other Cursers, of course you'd be right. Witch can easily hand out ten Curses, even against Moats, and so it is critically important to reduce the Curse supply (usually with my own Witch of course).

Of course you're right that Watchtower's positive benefits are almost uniformly superior to Moat's (although again, it has the additional burden of passing the Silver test). I'm just comparing their defensive powers, which seem to be the main point here.

[J.Co.]

[quote author=WheresMyElephant link
First of all, I'm a little confused as to which side you're arguing. First, you say that Watchtower only delays the equilibrium process, but then you mention how it depletes the ammunition, which actually decreases the saturation all together. Then you say that, with Mountebank, it doesn't even matter. If anything, it matters more.

I'm saying,

1. if your opponent takes a Mountebank and you don't, without  +Actions a Watchtower is about the same as a Moat. Why? Without +Actions to play multiples, Mountebank's potency is going to drop off sharply once you once you have, say, 6-7 Curses in your deck. At that point it doesn't matter much whether the rest of the Curses are in the Trash or the Supply. "Depleting the ammo" seems irrelevant when the gun's jammed! (If you actually manage to block as many as 4 or 5 Curses you could maybe deplete the Curses while Mountebank was still dangerous, but that's unlikely). Never mind that even if the Curses did run out he could still give you Copper. Watchtower can delay the inevitable, the way Moat usually does, but we know that's not that strong.

2. If you DO retaliate with Mountebank, the Curses become more likely to run out. But like any Curser, if you retaliate you'd probably rather have Moat than Watchtower. If you have defenses and he doesn't, why do you want the ammo to run out? You're winning the fight!

But on reflection, I was wrong to say the so-called "equilibrium point" won't be much affected. Actually since Curses basically act as Moats themselves, a Moat (or a Watchtower) is basically just like having one extra Curse. Thus his Mountebank should crap out approximately one Curse sooner. So that's surprisingly decent I guess; you could probably make the case you'd rather buy a Watchtower or a Moat now than get a Curse+Copper later. The original point of this comparison was that Moat sucks and thus Watchtower must too; but maybe they're both a little better than I thought. Especially Moat on a $2 turn (the Silver test is probably a tougher question).

And no, I wasn't really suggesting you should intentionally take Curses as a defense. Just that realistically you're going to get them sooner or later anyway.

1. Well, Watchtower's ability to place cards on top of the deck makes it much different than Moat. Without +actions, both on average will draw two cards. With Moat, the number of curses (thus, the number of chances Mountebank can give you a curse) stays the same. Watchtower decrease that number with the trashing ability. That's kind of a big deal. Again, I know Watchtower wouldn't be all that strong, especially if there aren't +actions to get an engine going, but if the board was conducive to that, that's different.

2. This is a different case than what was previously mentioned. If I do, in fact, go with Mountebank, and he doesn't pick up defenses, then yes, Moat might be better for the fact that the curses don't end up in the trash. But if he goes for Watchtowers, I at least would rethink building around a Mountebank strategy (which is what I originally said, though in all likelihood I would end up going Mountebank anyway).

[Vaivraza]

I countered a Mountebank strategy by buying gardens. At the end of the game, my deck was 63 cards with 4 gardens, 7 curses, some duchies and states. Simply I used DO NOT discard the curses. My oponent deck's was only 32 cards.

So, Mountebank doesnt work with Gardens.

[Morgrim7]

I countered a Mountebank strategy by buying gardens. At the end of the game, my deck was 63 cards with 4 gardens, 7 curses, some duchies and states. Simply I used DO NOT discard the curses. My oponent deck's was only 32 cards.

So, Mountebank doesnt work with Gardens.

DID YOU WIN?

[Markov Chain]

I countered a Mountebank strategy by buying gardens. At the end of the game, my deck was 63 cards with 4 gardens, 7 curses, some duchies and states. Simply I used DO NOT discard the curses. My oponent deck's was only 32 cards.

You should still have discarded the curses until they ran out.  Every curse you took cost you 1 VP, and gained you 0.2 VPs per Gardens, as well as making Gardens harder to get. Once the curses were out, gaining a copper is 0.1 VPs per garden and probably improves your deck, so you might as well take the benefit from the opponent's Mountebank.

[eHalcyon]

I countered a Mountebank strategy by buying gardens. At the end of the game, my deck was 63 cards with 4 gardens, 7 curses, some duchies and states. Simply I used DO NOT discard the curses. My oponent deck's was only 32 cards.

You should still have discarded the curses until they ran out.  Every curse you took cost you 1 VP, and gained you 0.2 VPs per Gardens, as well as making Gardens harder to get. Once the curses were out, gaining a copper is 0.1 VPs per garden and probably improves your deck, so you might as well take the benefit from the opponent's Mountebank.

If you have (or expect to have) 6 Gardens, you gain 1.2 VP and lose 1 from the Curse.

Gardens might be marginally harder to get from the Curse, but it's not that bad.  Gardens only costs $4...

[jomini]

Another thing that might be worth mentioning - discard -> mountebank is really vicious. Forcing your opponent to discard before playing the mountebank is a good way to get them to get rid of a curse (so they can keep playable cards) and then hit them with another curse. Because you really need a village to make that work, this is more an engine strat (though golem decks may like it as well) so things like ghost ship and margrave can set you up for a lot of nasty choices on the other side.

[AJD]

It's easy to not notice it, or not think of it this way, but Mountebank shares with Torturer the property of not being just a cursing attack but actually a "choose one: discard or take a curse" attack. Mountebank's cursing is a lot stronger than Torturer's, of course, and its discarding is a lot weaker, but there are certainly plenty of cases where the discard still feels like an attack.

[Asklepios]

It's easy to not notice it, or not think of it this way, but Mountebank shares with Torturer the property of not being just a cursing attack but actually a "choose one: discard or take a curse" attack. Mountebank's cursing is a lot stronger than Torturer's, of course, and its discarding is a lot weaker, but there are certainly plenty of cases where the discard still feels like an attack.

I'd certainly agree with that. Sometimes you just need cards in hand, even if they're curses (warehouse, embassy, vault etc.)

[Morgrim7]

Fun fact: my purpose in writing this article was to have one on a curser. Not normally done. In fact, if you look at my article list, never done until now. May as well have one.

[Powerman]

Fun fact: my purpose in writing this article was to have one on a curser. Not normally done. In fact, if you look at my article list, never done until now. May as well have one.

*Cough* Young Witch *Cough*
*Cough* Torturer *Cough*
*Cough* Ill-Gotten Gains *Cough*
*Cough* Sea Hag *Cough*
*Cough* Swindler *Cough*
 

[Morgrim7]

Fun fact: my purpose in writing this article was to have one on a curser. Not normally done. In fact, if you look at my article list, never done until now. May as well have one.

*Cough* Young Witch *Cough*
*Cough* Torturer *Cough*
*Cough* Ill-Gotten Gains *Cough*
*Cough* Sea Hag *Cough*
*Cough* Swindler *Cough*
 

Oh, wow, you're right. Ehhh, no we should write one on Witch.