Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?  (Read 7160 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« on: January 01, 2013, 10:52:58 pm »
0

I haven't gotten to spend anywhere close to the amount of time I want with Dark Ages, but I've played quite a bit with Catacombs.  It seems really bad, to be honest, and like it really has little to no niche.  Like it seems as weak as Explorer.

3 Situations

No trash - Catacombs is bad in notrash because you can't use the clause, so it's just an improved Smithy.  You can play it as a big money terminal, but after all our expansions there's fewer and fewer big money terminal boards, and you usually can find a better terminal than Catacombs too. 
Trash for no benefit - You don't want Catacombs at all because now you don't need to sift, your deck doesn't have many bad cards to discard off the top.  The when trashed clause is still nearly useless, except for a stray 1 VP in some corner cases.
Trash for benefit - Ok, now you can use the clause, sure.  But trash for benefit hits Estates, so it doesn't make much sense to play BM Catacombs.  Estates were the only thing you were dumping off the top besides other terminals (Coppers are not bad for dead draw), so now the difference between Catacombs and Smithy is diminished even further. 

So you say, ok, well I'll use the trash for benefit on Estates and then use Catacombs as an engine card, and I can dump Coppers off the top because now Coppers are bad.  And that's the most common use I can see.  But I'm rather concerned that even after you have trash for benefit and only trash for benefit, and you want an engine, some stars still have to align, because Catacombs is not at the engine-support-card cost.  It's at the engine-premiere-effect cost, 5$.  If the reason you want to build an engine on that board is Highway, then 5$ purchases are Highways, if your motivation is Torturer, that's what your getting.  And so on.  Bridge is a notable exception. 
If there is no powerful 5$ card that is making  you all excited about your engine, and you want play a "First Game" style engine, then Catacombs is an expensive Smithy, because the "First Game" deck draws all of its cards, sifting is irrelevant.  Ok, not totally irrelevant, it slightly decreases the odds you fizzle after the first Village into Catacombs, but mostly irrelevant.

I compare it to Explorer because it seems a similar quality BM terminal, and because it seems like it's main saving grace is alt VP, and even then it's tough.  Alt VP amps up both Explorer and Catacomb's quality as a BM+X terminal.  So Silk Road, Gardens, and Feodum, those could work.  Explorer Gardens definitely find boards it cannot dominate though and I think Catacombs would have a similar difficulty in consistently fulfilling the niche. 
Logged

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2941
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2466
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2013, 10:54:37 pm »
0

In general, Catacombs isn't all that great, but it does help you get to engine components quicker thanks to its sifting. But, for $5 many other better cards often compete with it.
Logged

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2400
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4085
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2013, 11:05:00 pm »
+2

You will see soon where it ranks in the Best Cards List, but just a few notes FWIW.

I think you have to focus more on the action part as on the on-trash ability.
Let's compare it to some other terminal draw cards for $5, no matter if you use the draw for BM or an engine.

Margrave - it draws the same amount, attacks and gives +Buy. I think Margrave is generally better.
Council Room - it draws one card more, gives +Buy, but your opponent draws a card. I think Catacombs is generally better.
Rabble - it draws the same amount and attacks. Now were getting to get a card which is comparable. I think Catacombs is better in BM while Rabble is stronger in engines where you want to pin your opponent.
Embassy - I think this is the card which you should compare it to, not Explorer. Both do some sort of sifting, Embassy is way better in sifting while Catacombs draws a card more. Embassy is IMO way better, but that's why it has the silver clause.

The on-trash ability is mainly not for trash-for-benefit cards in my opinion. It's a defense against trashing attacks like Swindler, Knights, Saboteur etc.
If you're going BM with such cards on the board and there's another terminal draw on the board, Catacombs on-trash ability is pretty useful.

jsh357

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2577
  • Shuffle iT Username: jsh357
  • Respect: +4340
    • View Profile
    • JSH Gaming: Original games
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2013, 11:16:49 pm »
+2

What?  Catacombs is great!  It's an excellent Big Money enabler ala Oracle, only a little more powerful for you and with no attack.  Cycling 6 cards can be very significant (That's more than Cartographer and Embassy)  I have not used it much in engine, but if was a draw option I'd always consider it.  3 cards is 3 cards, and $5 is a good price for that + a bonus. 

The on-trash effect is very situational, I'll give you that, but it can be good when you're being attacked by Knights and such.  Like Qvist says, I don't think this ability should be the main focus when analyzing the card.

In any case, Catacombs is nowhere near the tier of Explorer.  Not one of the best $5 actions, but definitely in the top half.
Logged
Join the Dominion community Discord channel! Chat in text and voice; enter dumb tournaments; spy on top players!

https://discord.gg/2rDpJ4N

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2013, 01:40:33 am »
0

As far as trash-for-benefit goes, Catacombs makes a fantastic Develop target. Other than that, the on-trash ability is most useful as a defense against trashing attacks, as Qvist mentioned.
Logged

Stealth Tomato

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 507
  • Dorkneel
  • Respect: +480
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2013, 10:59:08 am »
+2

Explorer is fine, why do people even complain about Explorer. They can't all be the best $5 ever.
–Donald X.
Logged

HiveMindEmulator

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • Respect: +2118
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2013, 12:07:36 pm »
+1

I don't think it's even close. Catacombs is a very good card simply because it draws 3 cards. The comparison to Embassy is reasonable. It's going to be a little worse than Embassy for BM because of the order of the sift and draw, but probably better for engines because it nets more total cards.
Logged

Forge!!!

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 248
  • Respect: +128
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2013, 12:28:13 pm »
0

Catacombs is one of my favorite DA cards, it's very good. The ability to sift through 6 cards at once is (I believe) unmatched.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #8 on: January 02, 2013, 01:09:54 pm »
0

Catacombs is one of my favorite DA cards, it's very good. The ability to sift through 6 cards at once is (I believe) unmatched.

Storeroom.

EDIT: Actually, nevermind. Storeroom usually only gets you through 4 cards. It's only 8 cards when what you care about is discarding Tunnels.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2013, 01:43:36 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

Tdog

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +133
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #9 on: January 02, 2013, 02:25:19 pm »
0

I consider Catacombs to be one of the best $5 non cursing big money cards. It also has a great use in an engine as card draw as you can sift and draw at the same time.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2013, 02:54:26 pm »
0

Catacombs is one of my favorite DA cards, it's very good. The ability to sift through 6 cards at once is (I believe) unmatched.

Storeroom.

EDIT: Actually, nevermind. Storeroom usually only gets you through 4 cards. It's only 8 cards when what you care about is discarding Tunnels.

Play Storeroom - discard 4 Tunnels, draw 4 Tunnels, Discard 4 Tunnels. $4 to spend and 8 Gold in your deck!

Actually, Madman would be the one other card that can sift for more.

Well, Storeroom and Cellar can also, if you start with a large enough hand.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2013, 02:55:33 pm by GendoIkari »
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #11 on: January 02, 2013, 03:39:39 pm »
+1

Catacombs is one of my favorite DA cards, it's very good. The ability to sift through 6 cards at once is (I believe) unmatched.

Storeroom.

EDIT: Actually, nevermind. Storeroom usually only gets you through 4 cards. It's only 8 cards when what you care about is discarding Tunnels.

How are you defining this?

If you pitch the hand, Catacombs pulls off 6 cards from the top of the deck. 

From a hand of 5, Storeroom only draws 4 cards, never 8.  Even if you choose to discard everything twice, the second discard isn't drawing anything new.  At most, you pull off 4 cards from the top of the deck.

Of course, it gets better if you can increase hand size (same as Cellar).
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #12 on: January 02, 2013, 03:42:21 pm »
0

Catacombs is one of my favorite DA cards, it's very good. The ability to sift through 6 cards at once is (I believe) unmatched.

Storeroom.

EDIT: Actually, nevermind. Storeroom usually only gets you through 4 cards. It's only 8 cards when what you care about is discarding Tunnels.

How are you defining this?

If you pitch the hand, Catacombs pulls off 6 cards from the top of the deck. 

From a hand of 5, Storeroom only draws 4 cards, never 8.  Even if you choose to discard everything twice, the second discard isn't drawing anything new.  At most, you pull off 4 cards from the top of the deck.

Of course, it gets better if you can increase hand size (same as Cellar).

Yes, you are absolutely correct. My brain incorrectly told me that Storeroom cycled through 8 cards, when what it really does is discard 8 cards, which mostly matters for Tunnel. This is all assuming hand of 5 cards, of course.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2013, 03:45:04 pm »
0

Explorer is fine, why do people even complain about Explorer. They can't all be the best $5 ever.
–Donald X.

I wasn't complaining.  Explorer is one of my favorite cards.  It is a weak card though.  *shrug*.

Likewise, if Catacombs is as bad as Explorer, that's ok.


I don't think it's even close. Catacombs is a very good card simply because it draws 3 cards. The comparison to Embassy is reasonable. It's going to be a little worse than Embassy for BM because of the order of the sift and draw, but probably better for engines because it nets more total cards.
The issue with being a little bit worse than Embassy for BM is that that causes a drastic drop in ability to enable BM.  Embassy is about at the cutoff line of where BM cards start to be too weak to enable BM strategies on the board they show up on.  On the BM+X terminals ranking, Embassy is followed by Rabble, Envoy, and Smithy.  I think it's generous to say Catacombs is as good as Rabble, Embassy's first runner up, and how often do you come upon a board that BM+Rabble dominates?  It's not that common.  I would even expect that there's a gap RIGHT beneath Embassy with a significant quality drop where BM cards just don't cut it anymore.  The cards above Embassy are ones that you'll see win a board all the time.  Directly above it is Masquerade.  Above that is Vault.  And Embassy itself, of course, enables BM plenty of times.

And yeah Catacombs is better than Embassy for engines but man that is not saying much.  Embassy is a 5$ moat for engines.  It is really terrabysmal for engines.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2013, 03:46:28 pm by popsofctown »
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2013, 04:12:03 pm »
+1

I will take a +3 cards any day of the week in an engine, and the ability to pitch 3 cards if I don't like them is icing on the cake.
Logged

HiveMindEmulator

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • Respect: +2118
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2013, 04:21:22 pm »
0

I don't think it's even close. Catacombs is a very good card simply because it draws 3 cards. The comparison to Embassy is reasonable. It's going to be a little worse than Embassy for BM because of the order of the sift and draw, but probably better for engines because it nets more total cards.
The issue with being a little bit worse than Embassy for BM is that that causes a drastic drop in ability to enable BM.  Embassy is about at the cutoff line of where BM cards start to be too weak to enable BM strategies on the board they show up on.  On the BM+X terminals ranking, Embassy is followed by Rabble, Envoy, and Smithy.  I think it's generous to say Catacombs is as good as Rabble, Embassy's first runner up, and how often do you come upon a board that BM+Rabble dominates?  It's not that common.  I would even expect that there's a gap RIGHT beneath Embassy with a significant quality drop where BM cards just don't cut it anymore.  The cards above Embassy are ones that you'll see win a board all the time.  Directly above it is Masquerade.  Above that is Vault.  And Embassy itself, of course, enables BM plenty of times.

And yeah Catacombs is better than Embassy for engines but man that is not saying much.  Embassy is a 5$ moat for engines.  It is really terrabysmal for engines.

I haven't played a ton of Dark Ages games, but I have played one where Catacombs BM was the best strategy on the board. It's still in the realm of "good" BM cards. If there is no engine support around, you can go Catacombs BM. And if there is engine support, then you go Catacombs engine. (Since it nets 3 cards, it's a really solid draw card for engines. And the filter can help avoid some bad draws.) All in all, it seems you'd want to go Catacombs more often than Embassy.
Logged

Mic Qsenoch

  • 2015 DS Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1709
  • Respect: +4329
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2013, 06:26:27 pm »
0


The issue with being a little bit worse than Embassy for BM is that that causes a drastic drop in ability to enable BM.  Embassy is about at the cutoff line of where BM cards start to be too weak to enable BM strategies on the board they show up on.  On the BM+X terminals ranking, Embassy is followed by Rabble, Envoy, and Smithy.  I think it's generous to say Catacombs is as good as Rabble, Embassy's first runner up, and how often do you come upon a board that BM+Rabble dominates?  It's not that common.  I would even expect that there's a gap RIGHT beneath Embassy with a significant quality drop where BM cards just don't cut it anymore.  The cards above Embassy are ones that you'll see win a board all the time.  Directly above it is Masquerade.  Above that is Vault.  And Embassy itself, of course, enables BM plenty of times.

I don't understand the reasoning here: "worse than Embassy --> a lot worse than Embassy". Why can't Catacombs just be a little bit worse than Embassy and still quite strong for BM? Not to mention the fact that there are many boards where Smithy/Envoy/Rabble BM is a competitive strategy (well I can't count the number of boards but in my experience its a non-negligible amount).
 
Quote
And yeah Catacombs is better than Embassy for engines but man that is not saying much.  Embassy is a 5$ moat for engines.  It is really terrabysmal for engines.

Sure Embassy isn't great if you are using it just for draw in your engine, but who uses Embassy just for draw in their engine? That sifting sure is important, and is definitely still useful in engines, especially in the absence of good trashing.
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2013, 06:43:02 pm »
0

Rabble-BM seems bad because Rabble has a built-in attack which makes engines more viable, whereas its near neighbors Smithy, Envoy, Embassy etc. don't have that.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #18 on: January 02, 2013, 07:12:24 pm »
0


The issue with being a little bit worse than Embassy for BM is that that causes a drastic drop in ability to enable BM.  Embassy is about at the cutoff line of where BM cards start to be too weak to enable BM strategies on the board they show up on.  On the BM+X terminals ranking, Embassy is followed by Rabble, Envoy, and Smithy.  I think it's generous to say Catacombs is as good as Rabble, Embassy's first runner up, and how often do you come upon a board that BM+Rabble dominates?  It's not that common.  I would even expect that there's a gap RIGHT beneath Embassy with a significant quality drop where BM cards just don't cut it anymore.  The cards above Embassy are ones that you'll see win a board all the time.  Directly above it is Masquerade.  Above that is Vault.  And Embassy itself, of course, enables BM plenty of times.

I don't understand the reasoning here: "worse than Embassy --> a lot worse than Embassy". Why can't Catacombs just be a little bit worse than Embassy and still quite strong for BM? Not to mention the fact that there are many boards where Smithy/Envoy/Rabble BM is a competitive strategy (well I can't count the number of boards but in my experience its a non-negligible amount).
 
Quote
And yeah Catacombs is better than Embassy for engines but man that is not saying much.  Embassy is a 5$ moat for engines.  It is really terrabysmal for engines.

Sure Embassy isn't great if you are using it just for draw in your engine, but who uses Embassy just for draw in their engine? That sifting sure is important, and is definitely still useful in engines, especially in the absence of good trashing.

Smithy/Envoy/Rabble boards aren't negligible, I'm definitely not saying that.  And they definitely outnumber Explorer quite a bit so I've already changed my opinion a bit.  But I think there's like, 3 times as many Embassy boards as there are Envoy boards.  I feel like there's a big drop in the curve right below Embassy. 

I'm about to head off to a party and play some Domiinion, but I hear councilroom is up now, so someone prove me wrong and see if they have as many Smithy BM wins on record as Embassy BM wins.

I don't think the attack on Rabble actually does much to make it enginey.  Envoy and Smithy can rarely compete with Village strategies these days, so Rabble's attack's stackiness doesn't matter much.
Logged

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #19 on: January 02, 2013, 07:15:54 pm »
0

I don't think the attack on Rabble actually does much to make it enginey.  Envoy and Smithy can rarely compete with Village strategies these days, so Rabble's attack's stackiness doesn't matter much.

Whaaaaaaat?!!?

You are crazy. Rabble attack stacking destroys big money.
Logged

Mic Qsenoch

  • 2015 DS Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1709
  • Respect: +4329
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #20 on: January 02, 2013, 07:46:53 pm »
0

The issue with being a little bit worse than Embassy for BM is that that causes a drastic drop in ability to enable BM.  Embassy is about at the cutoff line of where BM cards start to be too weak to enable BM strategies on the board they show up on.  On the BM+X terminals ranking, Embassy is followed by Rabble, Envoy, and Smithy.  I think it's generous to say Catacombs is as good as Rabble, Embassy's first runner up, and how often do you come upon a board that BM+Rabble dominates?  It's not that common.  I would even expect that there's a gap RIGHT beneath Embassy with a significant quality drop where BM cards just don't cut it anymore.  The cards above Embassy are ones that you'll see win a board all the time.  Directly above it is Masquerade.  Above that is Vault.  And Embassy itself, of course, enables BM plenty of times.

I don't understand the reasoning here: "worse than Embassy --> a lot worse than Embassy". Why can't Catacombs just be a little bit worse than Embassy and still quite strong for BM? Not to mention the fact that there are many boards where Smithy/Envoy/Rabble BM is a competitive strategy (well I can't count the number of boards but in my experience its a non-negligible amount).
 

Smithy/Envoy/Rabble boards aren't negligible, I'm definitely not saying that.  And they definitely outnumber Explorer quite a bit so I've already changed my opinion a bit.  But I think there's like, 3 times as many Embassy boards as there are Envoy boards.  I feel like there's a big drop in the curve right below Embassy. 

You aren't understanding my point. Somebody said that Catacombs < Embassy for BM. Then you said that this means Catacombs << Embassy (that it's much worse, "big drop") for BM. Your explanation is that three other cards (Smithy/Envoy/Rabble) are much worse than Embassy and they appear below it on some list so Catacombs must be closer in power to those three than to Embassy. I don't see why there has to be an extreme discrete jump between Embassy and whatever is lower than Embassy, there's no reason Catacombs couldn't be just a little bit worse than Embassy in BM. Just because there was a gap in the cards before Catacombs was released doesn't mean Catacombs follows that gap.

And let's not forget that the list in question is generated by simulating head-to-head matchups without optimization for the particular matchup.
Logged

jomini

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
  • Respect: +766
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #21 on: January 02, 2013, 08:51:29 pm »
0

The thing to remember with catacombs is that it gets you to strong setups faster. Early on pitching any 3 cards will get your new engine components into deck (and out of discard) faster. Later in the game catacombs is REALLY good at fishing for the one "power" card you really need to hit a big turn. E.g. You have 4 golds, 2 actions - what do you want from your draw? To hit: a +buy/more coin or more +action/+cards to fish for the former. Being able to try SIX cards to find the ONE you really need is just huge; you can lose a LOT of engine games just by failing to find a +buy action on a key hand. This becomes even stronger with some power cards (e.g. Expand, Graverobber, Altar, Bank) that have high cost to buy and high impact to play.


In addition to defense against junking attacks, the on-trash benefit allows for the very important "gain more than six/twelve points on your final turn" scenario.
Logged

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #22 on: January 02, 2013, 09:07:17 pm »
+1

I haven't really played much with catacombs, but I've built enough engines with oracle as the main source of card draw that I think catacombs will be really strong in engines. Catacombs is more expensive and loses the attack portion, but 3 cards of discard/draw is miles better than 2 cards.
Logged

Forge!!!

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 248
  • Respect: +128
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #23 on: January 03, 2013, 01:10:15 am »
0

Starting 5/2 with Catacombs has been, in the game I've played in, pretty crazy. It's not completely unreasonable to be able to play the card turns 3, 4, and 6, getting 7 card hands each time (you might have to sacrifice decent 1st 3 cards for worse 2nd 3 cards, but eh) and putting those cards you bought with those 7 card hands into your hand more quickly. It jumpstarts your deck in a crazy way, and compared to Embassy, it gives you one more card and doesn't give your opponent a silver. It really might be my favorite DA card.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Catacombs - as bad as Explorer?
« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2013, 01:11:57 am »
0

I don't think the attack on Rabble actually does much to make it enginey.  Envoy and Smithy can rarely compete with Village strategies these days, so Rabble's attack's stackiness doesn't matter much.

Whaaaaaaat?!!?

You are crazy. Rabble attack stacking destroys big money.

My point was, Smithy stacking usually finds a way to destroy big money -anyway-.  Most BM smithy boards lack a village altogether.

@Mis Qsenoch - I understand you now.  I sort of stand corrected, there's no reason Catacombs might be right next to Embassy on the good side of the gap.  My guess so far is that is going to fall on the bad side of the gap, but it very well could be on the good side of the gap, especially with the good point made about the similar cycling power.

surprisingly I was ninja'ed.  I agree that 5/2 Catacombs is probably really good and better than Embassy.  5/2 is not the general case though.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All
 

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 21 queries.