Print

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

[Voltaire]

For instance in a Witch/Cultist match I suspect you want to buy cultist on your first 2 fives and then alternate duchy cultist after that otherwises the curses will kill you when piles run (they will)

I haven't gotten in on that debate in the other threads, but I am quite convinced that you'll want to buy a Witch before Cultist.

Why?  Cultists chaining is nice (so you can give out junk more quickly).  It also depends if there's a trasher, because once Ruins are low/out, you can trash Cultists for a nice benefit as well, likely putting yourself in position for a Province buy.

Though my game also had Mountebank buying out curses, Cultist collision was very rare, even though I was buying many of them and had some sort of sifter. I think the "You may play enother" can't be treated as the primary part of the card - it'll be very rare except in the smallest of kingdoms.

[Beyond Awesome]

For instance in a Witch/Cultist match I suspect you want to buy cultist on your first 2 fives and then alternate duchy cultist after that otherwises the curses will kill you when piles run (they will)

I haven't gotten in on that debate in the other threads, but I am quite convinced that you'll want to buy a Witch before Cultist.

Why?  Cultists chaining is nice (so you can give out junk more quickly).  It also depends if there's a trasher, because once Ruins are low/out, you can trash Cultists for a nice benefit as well, likely putting yourself in position for a Province buy.

I would also go for Cultist first for the chaining aspect. Going for Witch first means that by the time you do go Cultist, your deck will start to get junked up and you are less likely to chain your own Cultists.

[WanderingWinder]

For instance in a Witch/Cultist match I suspect you want to buy cultist on your first 2 fives and then alternate duchy cultist after that otherwises the curses will kill you when piles run (they will)

I haven't gotten in on that debate in the other threads, but I am quite convinced that you'll want to buy a Witch before Cultist.

Why?  Cultists chaining is nice (so you can give out junk more quickly).  It also depends if there's a trasher, because once Ruins are low/out, you can trash Cultists for a nice benefit as well, likely putting yourself in position for a Province buy.

I would also go for Cultist first for the chaining aspect. Going for Witch first means that by the time you do go Cultist, your deck will start to get junked up and you are less likely to chain your own Cultists.

But going witch first means you get a lead, which is really big and important when piles are running out NOW. I mean, you probably go cultist with good trashing, but otherwise, in the mirror, I am pretty sure I'm going witch.

[Varsinor]

Why?  Cultists chaining is nice (so you can give out junk more quickly).  It also depends if there's a trasher, because once Ruins are low/out, you can trash Cultists for a nice benefit as well, likely putting yourself in position for a Province buy.

What you say is true, these are reasons to buy Cultists over Witch and there are obviously cases where I would want to do that - particularly when there are trash-for-benefit cards which you can use on your Cultists or when your opponents buy lots of Knights, Tricksters and/or Saboteurs. In these cases, the on-trash-benefits of Cultist get quite important.
(I just chose to not include a remark about board-dependentness in my previous posting... )

The chaining aspect is nice of course, but it seems to me that many people overrate that. Remember that it probably doesn't take too long before the Ruins run out, particularly if the players chain their Cultists. And after that, chaining Cultists becomes much less of a benefit. Furthermore, the more Ruins and Curses clog up your deck, the less likely you'll be able to chain them.

On the other hand, the advantage of Witch over Cultist should be clear I think: The benefit Witch has over Cultist is that Curses are much worse than Ruins. It is not only the -1 point (although that is important enough particularly in slow games with Curses and Ruins in which there may likely be a Duchy run), it is also the fact that the action parts of the Ruins make them considerably better than dead cards during the game.

All in all, I think that I'll buy Witch before Cultist on considerably more boards than the other way around (at least when we are talking about random boards and not about All-Dark-Ages-boards with a higher probability that the on-trash-benefit of the Cultists is relevant).

[rinkworks]

If you think Peddler is a strong 4, what are your thoughts on Junk Dealer?

That question wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway.  I say it's a solid card, competitive with Treasury, Market, Bazaar, and Highway, and possibly the best of these more often than not.  I regularly play with a fan card of my own that costs $1 less and offers +1 Buy instead of +$1.  It's a powerful opener, much stronger than you'd think.  But it's a big jump to $5, so Junk Dealer has a higher bar to clear.

It's worth comparing to Upgrade, despite that Junk Dealer is a trasher and Upgrade ostensibly a Remodel variant.  I say ostensibly, because although some great tricks (Upgrade an Upgrade to Grand Market; Upgrade Forge to Province) are possible with Upgrade that Junk Dealer can't do, usually you use Upgrade as a trasher, converting Estates to Silvers and Coppers/Curses to nothing.  In this regard, Junk Dealer is clearly better.  It's conditionally not as good as Upgrade for trashing Estates (+$1 vs. gaining a Silver), but Junk Dealer is clearly superior when trashing Coppers, Curses, Ruins, and usually Shelters.

I think the only time you wouldn't want a Junk Dealer is if you're also using some other trasher that is aggressive.  If you've got nothing to trash, Junk Dealer is a dead card, whereas any other Peddler-with-a-bonus would be better.

[dghunter79]

P.S. Rene Deathcart

Cogito Ergo Thum.

[HiveMindEmulator]

I'm going to go on record and say that I expect ironmonger to be a top-5 $4 card.
If it always gave you the village-with-a-filter, that would be a $4 (albeit a pretty weak one); the peddler-with-filter would be a very very strong 4 - I think regular peddler is a strong 4; and lab-with-THAT-filter would be a strong $5. Now, you do have the unreliability concern, but I just don't see this being anything worse than very very strong.
Spy is weak because ALL it does is a piddling little filter (albeit for your opponent too, though that bit doesn't stack as well).

Top 5?? I forget what you had at #5, but that seems a bit high. Top 10 maybe, but the current general consensus for top 5 are Tournament, Remake, Jack, Hag, and Young Witch. Some people argued Monument or Bishop were up there... I can't imagine Ironmonger actually being better than any of these. It's lab-like in action-light decks, which is good but not great, and probably not even as good in action-heavy decks, where it seems it will be too unreliable to be your primary village. Don't get me wrong, it's going to be a generally good card, but not that good. It's closer to Caravan power level than Jack power level.

[WanderingWinder]

I'm going to go on record and say that I expect ironmonger to be a top-5 $4 card.
If it always gave you the village-with-a-filter, that would be a $4 (albeit a pretty weak one); the peddler-with-filter would be a very very strong 4 - I think regular peddler is a strong 4; and lab-with-THAT-filter would be a strong $5. Now, you do have the unreliability concern, but I just don't see this being anything worse than very very strong.
Spy is weak because ALL it does is a piddling little filter (albeit for your opponent too, though that bit doesn't stack as well).

Top 5?? I forget what you had at #5, but that seems a bit high. Top 10 maybe, but the current general consensus for top 5 are Tournament, Remake, Jack, Hag, and Young Witch. Some people argued Monument or Bishop were up there... I can't imagine Ironmonger actually being better than any of these. It's lab-like in action-light decks, which is good but not great, and probably not even as good in action-heavy decks, where it seems it will be too unreliable to be your primary village. Don't get me wrong, it's going to be a generally good card, but not that good. It's closer to Caravan power level than Jack power level.

Looks about on par with tournament to me, in all seriousness, and that is the basis for my comparison. Edit: Eh, I guess that makes this #6 most likely? But closer to 5 than 7.

[Varsinor]

Top 5?? I forget what you had at #5, but that seems a bit high.

Maybe #5 after the current top 4.
But I'd be more likely to put Ironmonger on #6 or #7.
I'd rank it ahead of the current #7 Bishop (and all lower cards and also all other new $4 cards), though.

[Insomniac]

Why?  Cultists chaining is nice (so you can give out junk more quickly).  It also depends if there's a trasher, because once Ruins are low/out, you can trash Cultists for a nice benefit as well, likely putting yourself in position for a Province buy.

What you say is true, these are reasons to buy Cultists over Witch and there are obviously cases where I would want to do that - particularly when there are trash-for-benefit cards which you can use on your Cultists or when your opponents buy lots of Knights, Tricksters and/or Saboteurs. In these cases, the on-trash-benefits of Cultist get quite important.
(I just chose to not include a remark about board-dependentness in my previous posting... )

The chaining aspect is nice of course, but it seems to me that many people overrate that. Remember that it probably doesn't take too long before the Ruins run out, particularly if the players chain their Cultists. And after that, chaining Cultists becomes much less of a benefit. Furthermore, the more Ruins and Curses clog up your deck, the less likely you'll be able to chain them.

On the other hand, the advantage of Witch over Cultist should be clear I think: The benefit Witch has over Cultist is that Curses are much worse than Ruins. It is not only the -1 point (although that is important enough particularly in slow games with Curses and Ruins in which there may likely be a Duchy run), it is also the fact that the action parts of the Ruins make them considerably better than dead cards during the game.

All in all, I think that I'll buy Witch before Cultist on considerably more boards than the other way around (at least when we are talking about random boards and not about All-Dark-Ages-boards with a higher probability that the on-trash-benefit of the Cultists is relevant).

The collision makes them NEARLY as good as labs with the side effect of you can only play cultists, and buying a bunch of labs is strong enough on its own. they collide reasonably often even in cursing games.

[dondon151]

In the absence of other noticeable cards in the kingdom, I would hazard Witch over Cultist as well. Cultist will only deal out Ruins marginally faster than Witches will deal out Curses (you're banking on the Cultist collision to deal out junk cards faster, but both will be head to head on the first 3-4 plays when the Cultist player either has 1 or 2 Cultists in a deck of >15 cards). But Curses being -1 VP makes Witch so much better. I recall earlier that someone simulated what would happen if Curse was a +1 VP card instead: Witch-BM started losing to Smithy-BM by a high margin.

I'd think where Cultist would actually be very good is if there is a strong engine to transition into. A 2-Cultist chain increases your handsize by the same amount as a Smithy (but has further reach), and because there will almost definitely be a trasher in such a kingdom, Cultist's on-trash ability will also see use.

[Insomniac]

Ok here is my full thoughts.

on dondons -1vp +1vp change on curse, thats not really the relevant thing here we are giving 0VP instead we aren't giving estates.

WITCH-BM wants 2 witches.

Cultist wants as many cultists as it can and minor money, but in the matchup I think you opt to only buy silver early.

My general approach for cultist on a 4/3 right now looks something like this

Open Silver Silver
First 2 or 3 5's buy cultist. after this rotate between cultist and duchy.
Once you have 4/5 cultists start buying silver when you miss 5 (don't buy anything else before this ruins up your collision chance)

In the scenario witch-BM obviously has to switch gears into duchy's as well because the piles will run out long before provinces matter (although if either deck has the option it should obviously buy a province)

So what it comes down to is IF you collide your cultists early, even ONE collision of your cultists can be game altering because you get that one extra bad card into witch causing a snowball while you continue to buy VP and cultists

Edit: TBH I would love to run my cultist strategy into a simulator as there isn't THAT much human decision involved.

Edit2: A small script for when cultist is implemented into dominate

Code: [Select]

{
  name: 'DoubleCultist'
  requires: ['Cultist']
  gainPriority: (state, my) -> [
    "Colony"
    "Province"
    "Cultist" if my.countInDeck("Cultist") < 2
    "Duchy" if my.countInDeck("Duchy") < my.countInDeck("Cultist")
    "Cultist"
    "Estate" if 0 < state.gainsToEndGame() <= 2
    "Platinum"
    "Gold"
    "Silver"
  ]
}


I'd also write it for geronimoo's simulator but I can't seem to right a condition for buying if you have less of it then another card in your deck.

[dondon151]

on dondons -1vp +1vp change on curse, thats not really the relevant thing here we are giving 0VP instead we aren't giving estates.

What? Of course it's relevant! If Curses gave 1 VP instead of -1 VP, then it makes Witch-BM a weak strategy. If Curses were Ruins instead, then Witch-BM would still be significantly weaker.

[Insomniac]

on dondons -1vp +1vp change on curse, thats not really the relevant thing here we are giving 0VP instead we aren't giving estates.

What? Of course it's relevant! If Curses gave 1 VP instead of -1 VP, then it makes Witch-BM a weak strategy. If Curses were Ruins instead, then Witch-BM would still be significantly weaker.

Of course if curses gave 1vp theyd be weaker, but ruins don't give 1vp they give 0vp, so a 2VP difference is not the same as a 1VP difference. If Witch-BM gave curses worth 0vp im willing to bet it'd beat smithy bm,

[Varsinor]

on dondons -1vp +1vp change on curse, thats not really the relevant thing here we are giving 0VP instead we aren't giving estates.

Well, I think Ruins are closer to an Estate than to a 0 VP Victory card. Maybe even better: If you could choose between gaining a Ruin and gaining an Estate, you would probably take a ('generic') Ruin until the endgame most of the time (absent Baron and Silk Road, of course). They don't have a VP, but they can be used as actions and are thus better than dead cards.

[Varsinor]

First 2 or 3 5's buy cultist. after this rotate between cultist and duchy.

Why would you want to rotate between Cultists and Duchies?
I see no good reason why you should want to go back to buying Cultists after you started buying Duchies (as long as there are still Duchies). Unless you realize in the middle of the game you made a mistake by going Duchy too early, of course. But in an optimal strategy, why should you buy Cultists after starting to green?

[Varsinor]

Junk Dealer: Strong and solid; the Dark Ages equivalent of Lab.

It doesn't remind me of Lab at all. It even leaves you with a 4 card hand after playing it instead of the 6 card hand Lab gives you.

[Insomniac]

First 2 or 3 5's buy cultist. after this rotate between cultist and duchy.

Why would you want to rotate between Cultists and Duchies?
I see no good reason why you should want to go back to buying Cultists after you started buying Duchies (as long as there are still Duchies). Unless you realize in the middle of the game you made a mistake by going Duchy too early, of course. But in an optimal strategy, why should you buy Cultists after starting to green?

If you run the duchies then thats three piles, you keep buying cultists to keep your draw up. Even after the ruins are gone they give you a lab effect if you get them together and a 6 card hand otherwise (if they don't collide then you don't have any other actions in hand)

[Jorbles]

First 2 or 3 5's buy cultist. after this rotate between cultist and duchy.

Why would you want to rotate between Cultists and Duchies?
I see no good reason why you should want to go back to buying Cultists after you started buying Duchies (as long as there are still Duchies). Unless you realize in the middle of the game you made a mistake by going Duchy too early, of course. But in an optimal strategy, why should you buy Cultists after starting to green?

If you run the duchies then thats three piles, you keep buying cultists to keep your draw up. Even after the ruins are gone they give you a lab effect if you get them together and a 6 card hand otherwise (if they don't collide then you don't have any other actions in hand)

If your plan is to run out the Cultists pile wouldn't it make more sense to buy them all out first and then switch to Duchies? (also I don't think that's a very good plan)

[Insomniac]

First 2 or 3 5's buy cultist. after this rotate between cultist and duchy.

Why would you want to rotate between Cultists and Duchies?
I see no good reason why you should want to go back to buying Cultists after you started buying Duchies (as long as there are still Duchies). Unless you realize in the middle of the game you made a mistake by going Duchy too early, of course. But in an optimal strategy, why should you buy Cultists after starting to green?

If you run the duchies then thats three piles, you keep buying cultists to keep your draw up. Even after the ruins are gone they give you a lab effect if you get them together and a 6 card hand otherwise (if they don't collide then you don't have any other actions in hand)

If your plan is to run out the Cultists pile wouldn't it make more sense to buy them all out first and then switch to Duchies? (also I don't think that's a very good plan)

That is not the plan, the plan is curses/ruins/duchies with you having gained enough vp on extra duchies to beat the witch player

[Varsinor]

That is not the plan, the plan is curses/ruins/duchies with you having gained enough vp on extra duchies to beat the witch player

I don't see any convincing argument in what you wrote why you should plan to alternate between Cultists and Duchies.
If you want to three pile, buy Cultists until it is optimal to go green and after that buy Duchies with every $5 until they are gone.
If you instead buy Cultist after a Duchy, it would have been better to do it the other way round (unless Duchies are gone), because that might have given you an opportunity to use your additional Cultist instead of having a dead Duchy in your deck.

On a different note, I don't think it is good to not buy Cultists after starting Witch. I'd propose to usually buy one Witch and Cultists after that (assuming there are no other $5- cards that you want instead).

[Jorbles]

First 2 or 3 5's buy cultist. after this rotate between cultist and duchy.

Why would you want to rotate between Cultists and Duchies?
I see no good reason why you should want to go back to buying Cultists after you started buying Duchies (as long as there are still Duchies). Unless you realize in the middle of the game you made a mistake by going Duchy too early, of course. But in an optimal strategy, why should you buy Cultists after starting to green?

If you run the duchies then thats three piles, you keep buying cultists to keep your draw up. Even after the ruins are gone they give you a lab effect if you get them together and a 6 card hand otherwise (if they don't collide then you don't have any other actions in hand)

If your plan is to run out the Cultists pile wouldn't it make more sense to buy them all out first and then switch to Duchies? (also I don't think that's a very good plan)

That is not the plan, the plan is curses/ruins/duchies with you having gained enough vp on extra duchies to beat the witch player

This plan might beat DoubleWitch as it's programmed because it is programmed to go for Provinces, but wouldn't it make more sense to put it up against a DoubleWitch deck with its strategy adjusted to buy Duchies and go for a three pile? That more closely mimics what I suspect most humans would do. They'd have a 10 point lead because of the Curses in the DoubleCultist deck, which I think would give them a big advantage even with your strats ability to chain Cultists.

[RD]

Ironmonger is usually either a Village or a Laboratory or a Peddler and *additionally* has Jack's filter effect (which is certainly non-neglibile, it can be quite useful). There is another bonus in the fact that it is action cards which give +actions. If there is an action card on your deck, there should be an above-average probability that you can make use of the +action - you might well have another card to draw the action on top and Ironmonger gave you the action to play it as well.
All this is really decent for a $4 card!

Plus, the Action option in particular has great self-synergy in that a high Action density means you're more likely to get the free Action, and also more likely to have a use for it.

On the other hand Big Money still has a use for Peddler. And almost all decks can use a Lab with an impeccably-timed bonus filtering effect, but green-heavy decks most of all. Which is good because almost all decks have Victory cards at some point, but green-heavy decks most of all!

Someone mentioned that a benefit of Ironmonger over Tribute was that you can tailor your deck to get the effects you want. That's certainly true, especially in case of the +Actions option, but it looks as though you don't have to go too far out of your way; Ironworks will do a lot of the work for you. Obviously there are going to be many exceptions but the only major class I can think of is a nonterminal-heavy deck that doesn't need +Actions.

[dondon151]

Of course if curses gave 1vp theyd be weaker, but ruins don't give 1vp they give 0vp, so a 2VP difference is not the same as a 1VP difference. If Witch-BM gave curses worth 0vp im willing to bet it'd beat smithy bm,

And I'm willing to bet that it would just barely beat Smithy-BM instead of absolutely wrecking it like it should.

But this isn't about Witch-BM with 0 VP Curses vs. Smithy-BM; this is Witch-BM vs. Cultist-BM. If the game plan is to pile out on Duchies, Ruins, and Curses, then even a 5-3 Duchy split in favor of the Cultist-BM player will not overcome taking all 10 Curses. Heck, even a 6-2 Duchy split just barely puts the Cultist-BM player at a VP advantage.



On another note: played another Dark Ages game today with the WM finalists from Austria and Finland, and Procession makes for sick combos with some of the DA cards. Procession-Fortress gives you +4 actions, +2 cards, a free $5 action, and returns Fortress to your hand (so you can, say, play Procession-Fortress again). Procession-Cultist is great when there are $6 actions: it draws 7 cards and deals out 2 Ruins (though hard to match up, this is great for getting rid of your Cultists after the Ruins are gone).

I'd almost hazard to say that Procession-Fortress is a power combo in any kingdom that has good engine parts at $5; you can just keep on gaining those cards at virtually no penalty, and it gets easier and easier to match them up as you progress in the game.

Knights are swingy and very much a potential liability in a game with cards that have on-trash benefits. Hit Fortress? Free actions for opponent. Hit Hunting Grounds? 3 VP for opponent. Hit Cultist? Opponent starts turn with 8 cards. Opponent has a Market Square in hand? You might trash their Silver; they gain a Gold instead.

(Though I did get the fortune to buy Sir Vander, Procession'd him immediately for a Gold and a Hunting Grounds. Sir Vander is pretty cool.)

[Insomniac]

The reason I think you need to alternate I'd because you can gain cultists AND because you absolutely have to win the duchy war to make up for the fact your getting -10vp