Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Scout  (Read 41876 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2644
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3388
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #25 on: July 26, 2012, 08:01:35 pm »
0

And yet, most people would probably agree it's still better than Transmute...

I don't agree, although I think it's a close contest between the two, and Thief, and Adventurer.

Transmute gets the nod ahead of Scout for me because of the basic case where you get Potion because want Familiar of Alchemist or something, and you don't draw Potion with enough treasure to buy these things. And there are a few exceedingly edge cases where Transmute can be effective for you, more often than Scout.

FWIW I agree that Scout's best use is with Scrying Pool or Vineyards. But that's all, really.

99% of the time, a Scout-inclusive engine is either too weak to win, or strong enough to win without Scout.
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

Jfrisch

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 200
  • Respect: +166
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #26 on: July 26, 2012, 08:03:49 pm »
+1

adventurer is much, much better than scout. Adventurer is merely over-priced, most of the time, scout is actively bad for your deck.
Logged

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #27 on: July 27, 2012, 12:13:11 am »
+1

And yet, most people would probably agree it's still better than Transmute...

I don't agree, although I think it's a close contest between the two, and Thief, and Adventurer.

Transmute gets the nod ahead of Scout for me because of the basic case where you get Potion because want Familiar of Alchemist or something, and you don't draw Potion with enough treasure to buy these things. And there are a few exceedingly edge cases where Transmute can be effective for you, more often than Scout.

FWIW I agree that Scout's best use is with Scrying Pool or Vineyards. But that's all, really.

99% of the time, a Scout-inclusive engine is either too weak to win, or strong enough to win without Scout.

Yeah, I'd strongly disagree that Transmute is worse than Scout.  Sue, you buy Transmute less often (in my case not much less often at all) because it's a terminal with an awkward cost, but it can be good and even sometimes great- most commonly with Familiar and Vineyards.  Scout is never great; it's a marginal buy and a supporting player even in the most favorable of circumstances.

FWIW I think Thief is the clear worst, with Scout, Adventurer, and Counting House battling it out for #2.  I'm not sure Transmute is even in my bottom ten, the dregs of the $4 and $5 cards are worse in my mind, and PStone is probably better but just barely.  (None of the $2s and $3s are bottom 10 material.)
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

clb

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 424
  • Respect: +182
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #28 on: July 27, 2012, 12:29:22 am »
0

I would like to see a list, similar to what Qvist did, of what everyone things is the rank of the cards, irrespective of price. Maybe that is too much work, so just everyone's top 10 (excluding things like colony, province) and bottom 10? Just an idle thought; I suspect it won't happen just now. I might bring it back up once we have settled down after Dark Ages but before we are salivating too heavily over Guilds.
Are the horrible $4s and $5s worse than all of the $2s and $3s simply because they are $4 and $5 (that is, if they also cost $2 or $3 they wouldn't be any better, but you wouldn't mind as much)?
Logged

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2012, 01:04:56 am »
0

Are the horrible $4s and $5s worse than all of the $2s and $3s simply because they are $4 and $5 (that is, if they also cost $2 or $3 they wouldn't be any better, but you wouldn't mind as much)?

The bad $4s are cards which have narrow, marginal uses and which are actively bad for your deck upwards of 80 percent of the time.  Cards like Thief and Scout and Pirate Ship (let's assume 2p or 3p for the moment) and Talisman would be bottom-of-the-barrel cards at any price, and are generally as expensive as they are to guard against opening two of them.  (Scout/Scout would utterly break the game if it was allowed, obviously.)

The bad $5s are mostly narrow cards, too, but they tend to be less narrow, or more powerful, and also you have to remember that the gap between $4 and $5 is larger than any gap between lower price levels.  At this level, the cost matters, and as a general rule they'd seem (and be) a lot better if their effects were attached to cheaper cards: compare Explorer with JoaT and Bureaucrat, for instance.  JoaT is probably still a better card than a $4 Explorer because of attacks, but not by all that much.  And a $5 Explorer is worse than B-crat, but a $4 Explorer would completely outclass it.

As for $6... the cost is obviously the main issue.  Adventurer can be a good thing to have for sure in the right decks.  The problem is that it always has to compete with Gold, and it wins that comparison so, so rarely.
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

Adrienaline

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
  • Respect: +17
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2012, 01:33:18 am »
0

Again, some of the key points missed?

Scout works well when it collides with a few other action cards as well. Most obviously Vault/Secret Chamber/Tactitian/Crossroads, but less obviously Baron/Explorer/Tournament. I have heard the comment made on other boards discussing Scout that replacing the fourth tournament with a scout may be good play. The interactions with Baron and Explorer may be more hypothetical, and less useful in practice, mind, though I'd honestly say buying one, and just not playing it if they don't collide may not be a bad idea.

On the other hand, to say Scout actually makes your deck worse is a huge call. At the worst, your better cards miss the next reshuffle because you used it with less than 3 cards in your deck and they are all gold. Could easily say the same thing about Cartographer/Council Room, and no one says you have to play the Scout each time. It gives less green cards in your next hand. There are usually better things you could be doing, but this doesn't make your deck worse, does it?
Logged

HiveMindEmulator

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • Respect: +2118
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #31 on: July 27, 2012, 01:37:42 am »
0

On the other hand, to say Scout actually makes your deck worse is a huge call. At the worst, your better cards miss the next reshuffle because you used it with less than 3 cards in your deck and they are all gold. Could easily say the same thing about Cartographer/Council Room, and no one says you have to play the Scout each time. It gives less green cards in your next hand. There are usually better things you could be doing, but this doesn't make your deck worse, does it?
You also don't have to play Curse every time you draw it, but most people would agree that it usually makes your deck worse. It's a card that takes up space while often providing little-to-no benefit.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #32 on: July 27, 2012, 01:42:04 am »
0

Again, some of the key points missed?

Scout works well when it collides with a few other action cards as well. Most obviously Vault/Secret Chamber/Tactitian/Crossroads, but less obviously Baron/Explorer/Tournament. I have heard the comment made on other boards discussing Scout that replacing the fourth tournament with a scout may be good play. The interactions with Baron and Explorer may be more hypothetical, and less useful in practice, mind, though I'd honestly say buying one, and just not playing it if they don't collide may not be a bad idea.

On the other hand, to say Scout actually makes your deck worse is a huge call. At the worst, your better cards miss the next reshuffle because you used it with less than 3 cards in your deck and they are all gold. Could easily say the same thing about Cartographer/Council Room, and no one says you have to play the Scout each time. It gives less green cards in your next hand. There are usually better things you could be doing, but this doesn't make your deck worse, does it?

Scout+Tournament can be hurtful just as often as it is helpful.  Sure, sometimes you can pull in a Province to match your tournament.  But sometimes you might pull a Province into a hand without Tournament, when it would have matched up in the next hand.  The easy solution is to not play Scout in those cases, but then it's just an expensive Curse (as pointed out by HME above).
Logged

clb

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 424
  • Respect: +182
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #33 on: July 27, 2012, 01:46:53 am »
0

Are the horrible $4s and $5s worse than all of the $2s and $3s simply because they are $4 and $5 (that is, if they also cost $2 or $3 they wouldn't be any better, but you wouldn't mind as much)?

The bad $4s are cards which have narrow, marginal uses and which are actively bad for your deck upwards of 80 percent of the time.  Cards like Thief and Scout and Pirate Ship (let's assume 2p or 3p for the moment) and Talisman would be bottom-of-the-barrel cards at any price, and are generally as expensive as they are to guard against opening two of them.  (Scout/Scout would utterly break the game if it was allowed, obviously.)

Could you expound on this point a bit? If Scout cost 3, and I open Scout/Scout - how does that break the game? Is it because of the near-guarantee of a $5 hand? Silver/Silver is the same, with a chance of $6. Maybe I am thinking about it narrowly, but I am missing the obvious way in which a double-Scout opening breaks the game.
Thanks for the explanation - everything else you said clicked well.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #34 on: July 27, 2012, 01:49:32 am »
+5

Are the horrible $4s and $5s worse than all of the $2s and $3s simply because they are $4 and $5 (that is, if they also cost $2 or $3 they wouldn't be any better, but you wouldn't mind as much)?

The bad $4s are cards which have narrow, marginal uses and which are actively bad for your deck upwards of 80 percent of the time.  Cards like Thief and Scout and Pirate Ship (let's assume 2p or 3p for the moment) and Talisman would be bottom-of-the-barrel cards at any price, and are generally as expensive as they are to guard against opening two of them.  (Scout/Scout would utterly break the game if it was allowed, obviously.)

Could you expound on this point a bit? If Scout cost 3, and I open Scout/Scout - how does that break the game? Is it because of the near-guarantee of a $5 hand? Silver/Silver is the same, with a chance of $6. Maybe I am thinking about it narrowly, but I am missing the obvious way in which a double-Scout opening breaks the game.
Thanks for the explanation - everything else you said clicked well.

My guess:

Player A opens double-Scout.
Player B guaranteed win.

:)
Logged

clb

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 424
  • Respect: +182
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #35 on: July 27, 2012, 01:50:56 am »
0

Are the horrible $4s and $5s worse than all of the $2s and $3s simply because they are $4 and $5 (that is, if they also cost $2 or $3 they wouldn't be any better, but you wouldn't mind as much)?

The bad $4s are cards which have narrow, marginal uses and which are actively bad for your deck upwards of 80 percent of the time.  Cards like Thief and Scout and Pirate Ship (let's assume 2p or 3p for the moment) and Talisman would be bottom-of-the-barrel cards at any price, and are generally as expensive as they are to guard against opening two of them.  (Scout/Scout would utterly break the game if it was allowed, obviously.)

Could you expound on this point a bit? If Scout cost 3, and I open Scout/Scout - how does that break the game? Is it because of the near-guarantee of a $5 hand? Silver/Silver is the same, with a chance of $6. Maybe I am thinking about it narrowly, but I am missing the obvious way in which a double-Scout opening breaks the game.
Thanks for the explanation - everything else you said clicked well.

My guess:

Player A opens double-Scout.
Player B guaranteed win.

:)

lol! Fair enough - but is it worse than opening Estate-Estate? Or Duchy-Estate on a 5/2?
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #36 on: July 27, 2012, 01:53:13 am »
0

Are the horrible $4s and $5s worse than all of the $2s and $3s simply because they are $4 and $5 (that is, if they also cost $2 or $3 they wouldn't be any better, but you wouldn't mind as much)?

The bad $4s are cards which have narrow, marginal uses and which are actively bad for your deck upwards of 80 percent of the time.  Cards like Thief and Scout and Pirate Ship (let's assume 2p or 3p for the moment) and Talisman would be bottom-of-the-barrel cards at any price, and are generally as expensive as they are to guard against opening two of them.  (Scout/Scout would utterly break the game if it was allowed, obviously.)

Could you expound on this point a bit? If Scout cost 3, and I open Scout/Scout - how does that break the game? Is it because of the near-guarantee of a $5 hand? Silver/Silver is the same, with a chance of $6. Maybe I am thinking about it narrowly, but I am missing the obvious way in which a double-Scout opening breaks the game.
Thanks for the explanation - everything else you said clicked well.

My guess:

Player A opens double-Scout.
Player B guaranteed win.

:)

lol! Fair enough - but is it worse than opening Estate-Estate? Or Duchy-Estate on a 5/2?

At least you have some VP with those?

Or maybe newbies don't fall for that trap as they might for a shiny action card like Scout, that handsome devil.
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #37 on: July 27, 2012, 01:56:39 am »
+1

Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #38 on: July 27, 2012, 02:00:33 am »
0

Logged

clb

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 424
  • Respect: +182
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #39 on: July 27, 2012, 02:16:10 am »
0

Or maybe newbies don't fall for that trap as they might for a shiny action card like Scout, that handsome devil.

I don't see a point in arguing your taste in men, but I can say that, at the least, Scout is always good for a laugh.
I think Baron might be jealous of the attentions Scout is getting here. (I don't know how to link to a discrete comment in a thread, but see reply #422 and #423 of the awesome thread. http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1204.422)
Logged

Kahryl

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 323
  • Respect: +155
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #40 on: July 27, 2012, 11:04:04 am »
+2

My Dominion circle overbought Baron almost all the time, mainly because his picture is all "look, we both know you're gonna buy me, so let's skip the foreplay"
Logged

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #41 on: July 27, 2012, 12:49:17 pm »
0

Ok edited the article quite a bit.  Hopefully it reads better now.
Logged
A man on a mission.

dghunter79

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 279
  • Respect: +319
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #42 on: July 30, 2012, 02:17:49 am »
0

99% of the time, a Scout-inclusive engine is either too weak to win, or strong enough to win without Scout.

http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120713-195219-c6ef8676.html

I posted it before, but here'e the only game I've seen where Scout was a must-buy.  Not only did it improve your deck, the improvement was of an order of magnitude.  Scrying Pool and Vineyard were part of it.

Forge, Great Hall, Nomad Camp, Potion, Scout, Scrying Pool, Silk Road, Trade Route, Treasure Map, Vineyard, and Witch
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120713-195219-c6ef8676.html

Silk Road, 2 Coppers, and 2 Scouts was a you'll-draw-your-deck type hand.

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #43 on: July 30, 2012, 09:49:25 am »
0

I don't know much about Dominion. Let's see what councilroom's supply_win thinks.

Case-by-case evaluation

Case 1: http://councilroom.com/supply_win?&targets=scout&interaction=great%20hall%2Cnobles%2Charem%2Cisland&nested=true&unconditional=true. Island makes Scout worse. (Makes sense, since it is often used to remove green from your deck.) Even conditioned on two of these dual-type cards, the best win-rate given any gain (hereafter WGAG) possible is 0.99 +/- 0.02, with GH+Nobles.

Case 1A: http://councilroom.com/supply_win?&targets=scout&interaction=ironworks%2Cgreat%20hall&nested=true&unconditional=true. With both Ironworks and Great Hall present, Scout manages a WGAG of 1.01 +/ 0.02.

Case 1B: http://councilroom.com/supply_win?&targets=scout&interaction=crossroads%2Cgreat%20hall&nested=true&unconditional=true. With both Crossroads and Great Hall, Scout still has only a WGAG of 0.99 +/- 0.03.

Case 2/2A: http://councilroom.com/supply_win?&targets=scout&interaction=tunnel%2Cvault&nested=true&unconditional=true. With Tunnel present, WGAG is only 0.90 +/- 0.01. Having both Tunnel and Vault together has a WGAG of 0.88 +/- 0.05, ranking lower than unconditioned WGAG.

Case 3: http://councilroom.com/supply_win?&targets=scout&interaction=silk%20road&nested=true&unconditional=true. WGAG decreases to 0.88 +/- 0.01 when Silk Road is present.

Case 4: http://councilroom.com/supply_win?&targets=scout&interaction=rabble%2Cfortune%20teller%2Cbureaucrat%2Cghost%20ship%2Cspy%2Cscrying%20pool&nested=false&unconditional=true. The best possible WGAG singly-conditioned on one of these attacks is Ghost Ship, at 0.91 +/- 0.01.

Other interactions

http://councilroom.com/supply_win?&targets=scout&interaction=true&nested=false&unconditional=false: when singly-conditioning, Scout never has a WGAG better than 0.94 +/- 0.01.

Picking out the best cards from single-conditioning, then doubly-conditioning, we can find some interactions: http://councilroom.com/supply_win?&targets=scout&interaction=great%20hall%2Cnobles%2Cfairgrounds%2Cvineyard%2Cpirate%20ship%2Charem%2Cworker's%20village%2Cuniversity%2Ctreasure%20map%2Cquarry%2Cpossession%2Cbaron%2Cironworks&nested=true&unconditional=true. Scout gets a WGAG of at least 1 from Vineyard/University; Ironworks/Great Hall; Ironworks/Vineyard. Although it only has a WGAG of 1.01 +/- 0.03 when conditioned on both Vineyard and University, it has a solid win-rate per gain of 1.14 +/- 0.02.

Conclusions

Of the combos listed in the article, Scout/Ironworks/Great Hall is the only one supported by supply_win data. Scout/Vineyard/University and Scout/Vineyard/Ironworks are also recommended by supply_win.

I understand that the stats are terrible for Scout, and probably every combo.  This doesn't surprise me, as many players simply ignore Scout and think "it's awful" even if isn't.  I feel like new players buy scout when it isn't good to "try it out" which hurts the stats.  I'd be more interested in A) Simulator data or B) Game logs.

Sort by delta quality.  (I should make the sorting option a url param).

The per gain on vineyards baseline is really high.  Adding haggler makes it a bit worse.

Actually reading it right, a LOT of those are positive by statistics.
Logged
A man on a mission.

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #44 on: July 30, 2012, 11:02:22 am »
+2

I don't know much about Dominion. Let's see what councilroom's supply_win thinks.

Case-by-case evaluation

Case 1: http://councilroom.com/supply_win?&targets=scout&interaction=great%20hall%2Cnobles%2Charem%2Cisland&nested=true&unconditional=true. Island makes Scout worse. (Makes sense, since it is often used to remove green from your deck.) Even conditioned on two of these dual-type cards, the best win-rate given any gain (hereafter WGAG) possible is 0.99 +/- 0.02, with GH+Nobles.

Case 1A: http://councilroom.com/supply_win?&targets=scout&interaction=ironworks%2Cgreat%20hall&nested=true&unconditional=true. With both Ironworks and Great Hall present, Scout manages a WGAG of 1.01 +/ 0.02.

Case 1B: http://councilroom.com/supply_win?&targets=scout&interaction=crossroads%2Cgreat%20hall&nested=true&unconditional=true. With both Crossroads and Great Hall, Scout still has only a WGAG of 0.99 +/- 0.03.

Case 2/2A: http://councilroom.com/supply_win?&targets=scout&interaction=tunnel%2Cvault&nested=true&unconditional=true. With Tunnel present, WGAG is only 0.90 +/- 0.01. Having both Tunnel and Vault together has a WGAG of 0.88 +/- 0.05, ranking lower than unconditioned WGAG.

Case 3: http://councilroom.com/supply_win?&targets=scout&interaction=silk%20road&nested=true&unconditional=true. WGAG decreases to 0.88 +/- 0.01 when Silk Road is present.

Case 4: http://councilroom.com/supply_win?&targets=scout&interaction=rabble%2Cfortune%20teller%2Cbureaucrat%2Cghost%20ship%2Cspy%2Cscrying%20pool&nested=false&unconditional=true. The best possible WGAG singly-conditioned on one of these attacks is Ghost Ship, at 0.91 +/- 0.01.

Other interactions

http://councilroom.com/supply_win?&targets=scout&interaction=true&nested=false&unconditional=false: when singly-conditioning, Scout never has a WGAG better than 0.94 +/- 0.01.

Picking out the best cards from single-conditioning, then doubly-conditioning, we can find some interactions: http://councilroom.com/supply_win?&targets=scout&interaction=great%20hall%2Cnobles%2Cfairgrounds%2Cvineyard%2Cpirate%20ship%2Charem%2Cworker's%20village%2Cuniversity%2Ctreasure%20map%2Cquarry%2Cpossession%2Cbaron%2Cironworks&nested=true&unconditional=true. Scout gets a WGAG of at least 1 from Vineyard/University; Ironworks/Great Hall; Ironworks/Vineyard. Although it only has a WGAG of 1.01 +/- 0.03 when conditioned on both Vineyard and University, it has a solid win-rate per gain of 1.14 +/- 0.02.

Conclusions

Of the combos listed in the article, Scout/Ironworks/Great Hall is the only one supported by supply_win data. Scout/Vineyard/University and Scout/Vineyard/Ironworks are also recommended by supply_win.

I understand that the stats are terrible for Scout, and probably every combo.  This doesn't surprise me, as many players simply ignore Scout and think "it's awful" even if isn't.  I feel like new players buy scout when it isn't good to "try it out" which hurts the stats.  I'd be more interested in A) Simulator data or B) Game logs.

Sort by delta quality.  (I should make the sorting option a url param).

The per gain on vineyards baseline is really high.  Adding haggler makes it a bit worse.

Actually reading it right, a LOT of those are positive by statistics.
There are two different questions here.

"Delta quality" helps with questions of the form: is Scout improved when Great Hall is present? The delta quality 2.72 suggests that the answer is yes.

"Any gain" helps with questions if the form: is it worth buying Scout when Great Hall is present? The WGAG of 0.94, being far below 1, suggests not.

There is some risk in interpreting these statistics, because there can be other factors in play, but it's a start.

Edit: The point being that there is a difference between a "nombo" and a "weak combo". Scout/Island is a nombo, because the Island removes green from your deck, making Scout less useful. Scout/GH is a weak combo, because although they work well together, the Scout still won't help your deck enough to be worth buying, unless more Scout-enablers are present.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 11:08:05 am by blueblimp »
Logged

jomini

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
  • Respect: +766
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #45 on: July 30, 2012, 03:01:19 pm »
+1

BB: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think WGAG might still miss a lot of complexity. For instance, opening scout is much, much worse for your game than adding it in late game with some enabling combo. Isn't WGAG heavily constrained by player timing - combos that might actually work in the  mid/late game getting overwhelmed by noobs with crappy openings seems to be an unavoidable distortion.

Suppose we looked at something like scout/tactician/secret chamber. Players who buy scout on turn 1 thinking "Scout + SC is awesome" is going to lose and bring down WGAG. A player who goes tactician first, then adds scout to a double tac/SC setup (so they can play double tac/Scout/Sc for the province/duchy) will do better. However, if most of the players who buy scout are noobs, we should expect WGAG to be dominated by folks who just buy it for the hell of it, not by someone with a plan. (Note I'm not disputing the rankings on scout or even saying that this is better than just a single-tac setup)

Further, a poorly timed scout buy seems like it would have a larger negative effective than a well timed buy will have a helping effect. I'm curios about this so, please let me know if my understanding is faulty.
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #46 on: July 30, 2012, 04:34:39 pm »
+1

You're right that WGAG is limited in what it can tell you. It's just one tool.
Logged

verikt

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 272
  • Respect: +65
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #47 on: July 31, 2012, 10:11:42 am »
0

Logged

Kahryl

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 323
  • Respect: +155
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #48 on: August 01, 2012, 01:44:01 pm »
+1

People think Thief is worse than it is because it scales so hard and isotropic people almost always play 2 player.

It's still a poor card but in 3 and 4 player games I've played it is much stronger.
Logged

DrFlux

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
  • Respect: +68
    • View Profile
Re: Scout
« Reply #49 on: August 01, 2012, 03:03:29 pm »
0

Here's a game where scout turned out useful
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201207/31/game-20120731-070846-e906d0ed.html

I agree scout was useful here, but I think you bought one too early, if you notice, your first two activations were completely dead.

Also, I'm not sure why you didn't focus on emptying out the duchies before hitting the provinces: you could have won the split like 6-2 and gotten way more points from dukes. Was there danger of piling that I didn't see? Actually on second thought you were probably worried about piling from pawn-island-duchy. Nevermind.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All
 

Page created in 0.193 seconds with 21 queries.