Print

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

[ChaosRed]

I am going to offer a newb's perspective on this. I thought it might be interesting to read how a neophyte digests an article like this (on the other hand it might not be, if you aren't interested in a completely uneducated opinion, skip this post).

The reason I think it might be interesting is you guys are all writing to an audience. That audience, often includes newbs like me, and so it might be worthwhile to read their reaction to it. I am not here to debate, you're all far more educated than me with this game, I am here merely to reflect what the uneducated can mine from an article such as this.

ARTICLE STRUCTURE
There was some commentary about the article's structure, particularly the use of "tiers". As a newb, I like articles like this. Newbies are craving analysis of cards, and not just one card, but an examination of a collection of cards and comparing them and contrasting them is precisely the type of reading we seek. In many ways its the "basics" we seek, the more elite strategies and the discussion of simulators or refining a particular strategy are still largely over our head.

A more general comparison of Ambassador vs. Chapel however is something we understand. We find ourselves in games with a 4/3 split with Ambassador and Chapel on the board and unsure which one is better. I know that answer can often be contextual, but still, a basic read of a group of cards over another is really useful to us.

ChapelEveryone knows about chapel. It kind of transcends all lists of anything.

It's my favorite card of the game. In games where you can "draft" the board, I always pick Chapel first. I love density, I obsess over it too much, because it pleases me to count cards and density enables that.

I have never seen a situation in which more than one Chapel was needed though and I always grab a silver on the second turn when I buy Chapel, and a second silver after the second shuffle (on the hand that does not produce a Chapel of course).

It works for me, I'd say in games against another new players on Isotropic or BoardGameArena, I win most often with Chapel on the board. I think because newer players think trashing is counter-intuitive. In fact, I've learned to hate copper and obsess a lot about trashing it or upgrading it (I love Mine), probably to my detriment.

Ambassador -If you glance through the rest of this list, you’ll see that practically all of the cards either attack or trash. Ambassador does both!

I have now had two games using Ambassador based on this article. I won one, lost the other. The one I lost was because I gravitated to Ambassador INSTEAD of Chapel on turn 1. Chapel was just faster at trashing, slimming and enabling a dense deck with lots of money in it.

In the other game, I did really well. It was one of those games where my use of Ambassador was so effective, the opponent wound up buying the card later on to counter it. By then it was too late. This article got me a win on Isotropic in other words, so I am very grateful for it.

Masquerade Masquerade offers a slightly different approach to opening than ambassador. While ambassador is for slow games, masquerade is astoundingly fast. Drawing 2 cards and trashing 1 gives a lot of cycling power

I've tried Masquerade a few times. Against good players, they seem to see I've picked it early and it never bothers them. It seems to slow (and a little random) to really hurt them. Against weaker opponents, I've had some success with Masquerade, my beef with the card is it is a rather slow trasher, I often wind up with two cards in my hand (after passing one) that I'd like to trash, but can only trash one.

My terribly uninformed opinion, believes this card is ranked too high.

Sea HagWhen you first start playing dominion, the cards that excite you are the ones that do cool things for your deck. But then you run into sea hag. Sea hag does absolutely nothing for your deck, yet is still one of the strongest opening terminals in the game.

I hate this card and veto it when I get the chance. I am not that found of curse attacks, but I of course play them when they are on the board, because I find curse cards are an arms race. Sea Hag infuriates me, because its an arms rate with no other real benefit.

I find games with Sea Hag in them are slooooooooooow and since I love density, I have to abandon my favorite way to play and embrace a "game of junk" that takes over 20 turns to finish. I can see its a great card, but I still hate it. Do other players have emotional reaction to cards like I do? Has it adversely affected their game (as it does with mine)?

Young Witch

Yet to play a game with this card, no comment.

SalvagerSalvager is one of my favorite opening terminals, because it is one of the few that retains its usefulness into late game.

I love this card. I would rank it as one of the best in the game. I never hesitate to buy it as soon as I can. Am I wrong?

Remake - There are some strategies that involve heavy remaking all game, but even outside of those, remake is a very strong opener.

Meh. I like trashers but its the "exactly +1" constraint that puts me off. I like how I just get a trash when there is no "exactly +1, but so often there's some crappy card that is "exactly +1" that stops the trashing in the later game. If its the only trasher in the game, I'll grab it, but otherwise I do not like this card much.

Militia
Militia is the standard hand-size reduction attack. Hand-size reduction is a nice kind of attack, because it scales well as the game goes on.

I don't sweat Militia much. I really don't. I never buy it. It's a good card, but I don't like it at as an opening buy (there's usually something better) and while sometimes Militia slows me down, I rarely find the attack utterly devastating.

Cutpurse

Never played with this card, no comment.

Swindler Swindler is a kind of swingy card, as its attack can range from actually helping your opponent (discard an estate from the top of their deck) to completely killing them (turn their witch into a duchy).

This is a stupid card, that I never buy. The thing is though, its burned me more than a few times. So maybe it isn't that stupid? To me, its just too random to be effective, but when luck strikes I curse this damn card. I swear I'll never buy it though, just out of spite.

BishopBishop is kind of a hard card to rate. It can net you a healthy pile of VP chips, but it doesn’t offer much in the way of purchasing power, and it helps your opponents slim their decks.

I like this card the late middle rounds, when the game is close. I've noticed a lot of games can come down to +/- two victory points and this situation is evident as the rounds progress. In those "tight" games, I might buy it in hopes it can help me get past a tie-break. I often try to focus on getting 7 points ahead, so the opponent must do more than buy the last province to win. Sometimes they can do that of course, but I continually try to get to that position as the mid-game progresses to the end-game and this card might get me there?

How awful is my reaction to this card I wonder? Because I have to confess, its not a good card, it just seems like a compelling way to try and bust out of a very close game.

Monument
Monument is the only card on this list that neither trashes nor attacks, and it may not come to mind immediately when you think of strong openings, but it’s a pretty good choice for an opening terminal even if you’re not going for some sort of mass monument strategy.

Meh. I have no use for this card. What am I missing?

Steward
Actually, this is a bit low for steward -- it probably belongs above bishop and monument, and is potentially competitive with the attacks, depending on how crucial trashing is to your strategy. But thematically it falls down here.

LOVE this card! I use it to trash early and use it to gain an extra card later on, if its really late (and the victory cards are ruining my money density), then I just use the +2 (mid-game though +2 card is almost always worth more than 2 gold).

Great versatile card to my eyes, especially early in the game.

Moneylender
Moneylender is a nice trasher because, like masquerade or salvager, it allows you to trash without cannibalizing your turn. However, it’s trashing ability is pretty lackluster.

Here's what I'll say about Moneylender. In neophyte games, money is most-often your avenue to victory. Newer players tend to focus on +card +action cards, focus on developing an engine. It takes them (usually) at least 7 or 8 turns to really get their engine going and THEN they focus on money.

This card often lets me race ahead with a tighter, denser deck full of cash. I like getting two provinces under my belt...while my opponent is still drawing 5$ a turn. I get into this position a lot and it serves me well. I'll agree there's lots of other cards better than it, but I'll tell you, this card is always appealing to me in turn 1, almost always. If there is no Mine, no Chapel or other good trasher, I'm probably buying it.

Island
Technically it’s not a trasher (hence the quotes in the tier name), but Island does remove a card from your deck. You can (kind of) think of an early island as a one-shot bishop that gives one more VP, one less coin and no benefit to your opponent.

My reaction to Island is "meh".

Sorry my comments are so clearly uninformed...but to the author and others I thought you might get a kick out of how the "rabble" out there react to an article like this.

[rinkworks]

ChaosRed:  Thanks for this post!  It's indeed interesting to see your perspective.  I've attempted to argue for some of the cards you were down on:

Masquerade -

I've tried Masquerade a few times. Against good players, they seem to see I've picked it early and it never bothers them. It seems to slow (and a little random) to really hurt them. Against weaker opponents, I've had some success with Masquerade, my beef with the card is it is a rather slow trasher, I often wind up with two cards in my hand (after passing one) that I'd like to trash, but can only trash one.

This one took me a while to appreciate as well.  It might still be the one I understand the nuances of least.  You're right that it often doesn't hurt opponents (though when it does, it's bad).  You're right that it trashes slowly -- just one card at a time.  It's even poor as a drawer, drawing only 2 cards.  The secret to how good it is is that it does all three of these things at once for only $3.  No other card draws, trashes, AND attacks.

It's a good early buy, even if the attack doesn't ever amount to anything.  Getting to draw and trash is great for the early game, because you can slim down without sacrificing your buying power that turn to do it.   On certain boards, the attack becomes potent later in the game (and particularly in the wake of a hand-reduction attack, and/or in Chapel games where there is less likely to be junk to pass around), which is all gravy, as the card will have already given back the $3 you put into it by that point.

Remake -

Meh. I like trashers but its the "exactly +1" constraint that puts me off. I like how I just get a trash when there is no "exactly +1, but so often there's some crappy card that is "exactly +1" that stops the trashing in the later game. If its the only trasher in the game, I'll grab it, but otherwise I do not like this card much.

Mostly what you want to trash costs $0 (Coppers and Curses) or $2 (meaning that Silver is always a good card to Remake into).  How often do you use Chapel, your favorite card, on anything but those three?  Remake trashes at half the speed (still faster than most other trashers) but gives you free Silvers for the Estates.  Pretty great trade-off, even if you never use Remake again after the initial starting cards are gone.  Which is likely.  But lots of times you never use Chapel after that point either.

Swindler -

This is a stupid card, that I never buy. The thing is though, its burned me more than a few times. So maybe it isn't that stupid? To me, its just too random to be effective, but when luck strikes I curse this damn card. I swear I'll never buy it though, just out of spite.

It takes some forward thinking to use Swindler well -- or, perhaps more accurately, to make a good decision about whether to use it at all or not.  You want to do a quick survey of the board to see what cards at what costs are available.  For example, if Minion and Duke are on the board, and your opponent dives into the Minions, Swindler might very well stop that Minion engine dead.  Alternately, if your opponent goes for Duchy and Duke, and there's a good $5 target for those -- say, Outpost -- once again Swindler becomes strong.

Even lacking golden opportunities like those, it may be worth picking up early and just turning Coppers into Curses with it.  And if you miss a Copper and catch your opponent's opening $5 buy, poof, that Mountebank is now a Duchy, and you're back in the game.  True, often Swindler pretty harmless, but is the average that counts, not any particular play of the card.  If Swindler hits really good just once -- or, alternately, Coppers a few times -- then it's probably earned its keep in your deck.  It only cost you $3, after all.

Another thing is that you can't dismiss the +$2 as just an extra.  Swindler is equal in cost to Silver, which yields the same amount of cash.  Swindler's attack power need only be good enough to offset the need to spend an action to play it.  On some boards, actions are scarce; on others, you wind up with an excess, making Swindler over Silver a no-brainer.

Bishop -

...Because I have to confess, its not a good card, it just seems like a compelling way to try and bust out of a very close game.

Bishop is situational.  It can be bad in situations where your opponent can really benefit from the trashing -- but that's not always the case.  If he opens Chapel or tries rushing Gardens, just to pick two examples, Bishop becomes quite strong.  Even in less obvious situations, it can be pretty potent.  It's definitely more than a simple tiebreaker card.

Some things you can do with Bishop:

- Trash an Estate and GAIN a VP instead of losing one.
- Trash a Duchy for equal VP value, while getting the dead card out of your deck.
- Trash a Province for net -1 VP.  If you do this early enough, the small deck-slimming benefit is plenty good enough to compensate.
- Toward the end of the game, trash your engine cards and golds for obscene amounts of VP.  Trashing a Gold this way is +4 VP, quite substantial.  If you'd trashed two Estates or Coppers earlier in the game, that's already a Province.  Moreover, a Province that doesn't slow down your deck!  Take a couple more $5 and $6 cards out, and that's more than another one.  Two Provinces is quite a bit more than a tiebreaker.
- More specialized situations, but: trashing a Peddler provides way more value in VP than you'll ever get from the card itself.  If Hoard is on the table, you'll probably wind up with more Estates/Duchies than you want and more Golds than you need.  Bishops can crunch this stuff down for obscene amounts of VP.

Again, Bishop is not always a good card.  But it's good a lot and great often.

Monument -

Meh. I have no use for this card. What am I missing?

Probably just the right circumstances for it.  You can set up a +actions/+cards engine that will draw it almost every turn and have the spare actions to play it.  That means +1 VP every turn thereafter.  If you can play it with Throne Room or King's Court, even better.  And again, don't dismiss the +$2.

But yeah, usually it's not a critical buy but something you get when you've got your engine set up and want a kicker.  Nothing wrong with that.

Island -

My reaction to Island is "meh".

As with Swindler and Monument, don't overlook the baseline benefit.  Imagine a card that sits between Estate and Duchy.  It costs $4 and is worth 2 VP at the end of the game.  You'd probably wish the cost of $3.5 (mid-way between an Estate and Duchy) was rounded down rather than up, but since in practice the difference between $3 and $4 isn't much, you'd probably have to concede that such a card wouldn't be THAT overpriced and might be very important late in the game when your deck is winding down and you get a $4 turn -- maddeningly short of affording a Duchy.

Suddenly Island looks a lot better, because it does exactly that, except that it can get itself AND another VP card (or Copper, Curse, or other junk card) out of your deck in the process.  Now not only is it just as good as a late $4 hand, but earlier on it's likely preferable to Duchy, since the small deck acceleration it provides can (over)compensate for the 1 less VP it provides.

I'm not saying Island is a great card you want to binge on (though it's one of my personal favorites, just because I think the idea is cool), but one in the early game can produce a subtle but significant benefit, and a couple more in the mid-late game and do that too.  Three total equal a Province.  Your opponent has to match that somehow.

[Epoch]

What happens if you measure by #games played, rather than straight up #players?  Presumably the players who play the most tend to also be the best..

I don't have any access that I'm aware of to summing up number of games played, but just a slide down the leaderboard is instructive.  There are a very significant number of level 0 players who have played hundreds of games.  I noticed a level 7 player with 1300.

It's obviously the case that the number of games trends upwards as you move up the leaderboard, and there are a lot of level 0 folks with just a handful of games.  But I don't think it balances out the gigantic numerical disparity.

[HiveMindEmulator]

ARTICLE STRUCTURE
There was some commentary about the article's structure, particularly the use of "tiers". As a newb, I like articles like this. Newbies are craving analysis of cards, and not just one card, but an examination of a collection of cards and comparing them and contrasting them is precisely the type of reading we seek. In many ways its the "basics" we seek, the more elite strategies and the discussion of simulators or refining a particular strategy are still largely over our head.

This is basically what I was going for. As long as you don't take the the tiers too strictly and refuse to buy something because a card 1 tier higher exists, it should give some useful information. I'm glad you liked it.

Some comments on your post:

I always grab a silver on the second turn when I buy Chapel, and a second silver after the second shuffle (on the hand that does not produce a Chapel of course).

I kind of tried to make this point, but not maybe not clearly enough about chapel: You don't need to go chapel/silver. You can get it *along with* another terminal. Whether you draw chapel with silver or chapel with militia, there is hardly any difference (unless there is some $2 card you want), since either way you trash 3 cards and move on. And you only play chapel 2-3 times, at which point it acts more like an estate than a terminal action. So there are no really meaningful terminal collisions with chapel and another terminal.

I've tried Masquerade a few times. Against good players, they seem to see I've picked it early and it never bothers them. It seems to slow (and a little random) to really hurt them. Against weaker opponents, I've had some success with Masquerade, my beef with the card is it is a rather slow trasher, I often wind up with two cards in my hand (after passing one) that I'd like to trash, but can only trash one.

When you look at the masquerade card, the card passing is the first thing that jumps out, because it's different from other cards, but in most situations, it is the *least* important part. A card giving "+2 cards, you may trash a card from your hand" would be just as good in most situations. It doesn't trash fast, but it lets you buy good stuff (instead of nothing) on your trashing turns. If you compare it to steward's removing 2 bad cards, removing 1 bad and adding 1 (very) good is generally better, enabling faster strategies.

I love this [salvager]. I would rank it as one of the best in the game. I never hesitate to buy it as soon as I can. Am I wrong?

I don't think so, but some people apparently do

Meh. I like trashers but its the "exactly +1" constraint that puts me off. I like how I just get a trash when there is no "exactly +1, but so often there's some crappy card that is "exactly +1" that stops the trashing in the later game. If its the only trasher in the game, I'll grab it, but otherwise I do not like this card much.

There are no cards that cost $1, so you always trash coppers and curses for nothing. And having 3 silvers from your 3 estates is usually not a terrible thing...

[Swindler] is a stupid card, that I never buy. The thing is though, its burned me more than a few times. So maybe it isn't that stupid? To me, its just too random to be effective, but when luck strikes I curse this damn card. I swear I'll never buy it though, just out of spite.

It's definitely a veto-worthy card, because it's quite random, but it is very effective in 2-player as like 7-8% of the time it just wins one player the game when you they hit a $5 before it ever gets used. Avoiding it completely means you have to take these situations as losses but never get to take them as wins.

I like [bishop] the late middle rounds, when the game is close. I've noticed a lot of games can come down to +/- two victory points and this situation is evident as the rounds progress. In those "tight" games, I might buy it in hopes it can help me get past a tie-break. I often try to focus on getting 7 points ahead, so the opponent must do more than buy the last province to win. Sometimes they can do that of course, but I continually try to get to that position as the mid-game progresses to the end-game and this card might get me there?

Midgame bishop can be nice, when much of the trashing has been done, so your opponents don't reap the benefits of your bishop, but as an opening, there is a bit to worry about. Council room stats suggest that bishop is very effective, but this could just be because people tend to just not buy it at the wrong times, not that there are a lot of times in which it is good.

Meh. I have no use for [monument]. What am I missing?

Potentially a lot. As I wrote in the article, if there is nothing spectacular to be going for, the extra VPs are a big difference, as they add up to more than a duchy, which is often more than the margin of victory in a game with similar strategies. If you have a way of playing it more often (trashing, cycling), you can get tons of points.

Here's what I'll say about Moneylender. In neophyte games, money is most-often your avenue to victory. Newer players tend to focus on +card +action cards, focus on developing an engine. It takes them (usually) at least 7 or 8 turns to really get their engine going and THEN they focus on money.

This card often lets me race ahead with a tighter, denser deck full of cash. I like getting two provinces under my belt...while my opponent is still drawing 5$ a turn. I get into this position a lot and it serves me well. I'll agree there's lots of other cards better than it, but I'll tell you, this card is always appealing to me in turn 1, almost always. If there is no Mine, no Chapel or other good trasher, I'm probably buying it.

Moneylender is, I agree, a good trasher when there is nothing else good. But that's why it's near the bottom of the list. It's just good, not great. It is, for example, worse than monument in a big money situation, where +1 VP is better than having one less copper.

My reaction to Island is "meh".

That's a fair reaction. Island isn't exciting, but if there is really nothing good to open, it's nice to remove an estate and be a couple points ahead.

[ehunt]

Masquerade is not overrated. Here's a fun, if sobering, experiment: next time you have a board with masquerade, plan out a really cool strategy. Then don't execute that strategy at all. Instead, play big money masquerade, completely algorithmically:

open masquerade silver (or masquerade nothing with 5/2 - don't buy any 2's.) Buy money with <= 6, buy silver or gold whenever you can afford them, till there's only 5 provinces left, then start preferring duchy to silver. (you can buy royal seal, bank, hoard, or venture, but no talisman, quarry, or horn of plenty; definitely no actions, even if ... well, even if anything). Do not try to tweak big money masquerade. Instead, let big money masquerade tweak you.

I don't know why it works, just that it works. (of course, beware possession)

[HiveMindEmulator]

play big money masquerade, completely algorithmically:

I don't know why it works, just that it works.

If you think about it step-by step in cycles of the deck, it becomes quite clear. The first time through, if the masq doesn't fall to turn 5, you have $9 over 2 turns, which is practically guaranteed 2 silvers and a trashed estate. Then turn 5 you start with a 13 card deck that nearly draws in 2 turns with $13 total (masq, 3x silver, 7x copper, 2x estate). This practically guarantees a silver and a gold. Then starting turn 7, your deck has masq, gold, 4x silver, 6-7x copper 1-2x estate, for $17-18 total in 14 cards, so which draws in 2.5 turns. At this point, you're pretty much going to be able to afford gold or province almost every turn.

[Anon79]

Late to the party, but:

ChaosRed: Monument's Victory tokens are just like the tokens you get from Bishop, minus the density aspect. If you're the kind who likes to put yourself 7VP in the lead with one Province remaining, I'm surprised that this isn't one of your favourite cards!

[Fangz]

Monument really pisses me off. I usually ignore it, then I find myself losing in at the end despite being ahead in provinces, because the opponent has gained some silly amount of VP tokens. It's very annoying.

[Davio]

Monument really pisses me off. I usually ignore it, then I find myself losing in at the end despite being ahead in provinces, because the opponent has gained some silly amount of VP tokens. It's very annoying.

I'm a big fan of Monument, especially when you can play it over and over (Hunting Party, Golem) or KC/TR it.

The kingdom has to be right for it though with not a lot of better terminals.


I always lose to Goons players who start buying Coppers almost immediately.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Monument really pisses me off. I usually ignore it, then I find myself losing in at the end despite being ahead in provinces, because the opponent has gained some silly amount of VP tokens. It's very annoying.

I'm the same but with Bishop. I think "Meh, I'll let him get it and ride the free trashing". And then I do. And then I split the provinces 5-3 only to lose to tokens...

[DStu]

The kingdom has to be right for it though with not a lot of better terminals.

Last time I simulated BM+Monument could compete (about 1:1) with BM-Smithy/Vault/Militia. I actually like it most in BM situations, where you just add 2-3 Monuments, and so it get played often enough also. In the chain, you have +buy anyway so that you can avoid tieing the Victorycards more easily, or go for some pileending when it's in your favour.

But I like the strategic advatage having +6VP by equaling Provinces at the endgame. You can afford to go for Duchies somewhat later, allowing for an additional gold that can get you the last Province, you can go for the 7th Province more easily.

[HiveMindEmulator]

I've updated the article. The most notable changes are:
 - turned the "disclaimer" into an actual intro
 - moved steward up to join the "good" trashers, and appropriately adjusted the little blurbs to reflect this
 - reworked the explanations of the VP-related stuff (tier 5 blurb, monument, and island) to try to make it clearer how the VPs are actually an advantage

Please let me know what you think. Thanks!

[treasuremapisforcretins]

I'm shocked to hear the claim that Salvager is a subpar trasher. Of course, which card is better for your deck almost always depends on the long-term plan you have for your deck rather than the raw power value of a single card, but the truth is that what Salvager offers is very valuable. Giving you a buy is often extremely valuable in both the early and late stages; trashing a province to buy a province is often a game-winning play; trashing a gold or an engine piece on the final turn of the game can often allow you to buy the last province to end the game, or to buy a duchy or estate in addition to the last province to break a tie. On a board with chapel and salvager where the clear best strategy was to buy silvers and golds, I would certainly buy a chapel, but I definitely would want a salvager in my deck as well (although to be honest, I avoid boring games like that whenever possible).

As an aside, articles like this baffle me entirely. Single card evaluations (and assertions like "Steward is a weak card") are almost entirely useless- every card varies in value depending entirely on the other cards present. Not that I'm the first person to claim this, but it sees like a lot of people just don't understand the concept that a card's value is based on what it will do in the game you're playing, not how good it is in a vacuum.

[Epoch]

I'm shocked to hear the claim that Salvager is a subpar trasher.

Salvager's mid-to-late-game utility is undisputed.  I suggest it is a sub-par opener, not a sub-par trasher.

[dondon151]

As an aside, articles like this baffle me entirely. Single card evaluations (and assertions like "Steward is a weak card") are almost entirely useless- every card varies in value depending entirely on the other cards present.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Some openers are better than others almost regardless of the kingdom present. You're never, for example, going to see Moneylender top Sea Hag in terms of the strength of an opening buy. In that respect, I think this sort of generalized evaluation is useful.

[treasuremapisforcretins]

As an aside, articles like this baffle me entirely. Single card evaluations (and assertions like "Steward is a weak card") are almost entirely useless- every card varies in value depending entirely on the other cards present.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Some openers are better than others almost regardless of the kingdom present. You're never, for example, going to see Moneylender top Sea Hag in terms of the strength of an opening buy. In that respect, I think this sort of generalized evaluation is useful.

To address your example specifically, games where moneylender is a better card than sea hag not only exist, but are common. Sea hag is an awful card if there are good defensive cards available. The presence of a card like lighthouse (or especially a card like lighthouse in addition to efficient trashing) make sea hag almost a stone blank. Of course, how well the reaction cards in question interact with the other cards available is also important; evaluating a ten card board can be very complex, which is why single card evaluations are ridiculous.

[dondon151]

To address your example specifically, games where moneylender is a better card than sea hag not only exist, but are common. Sea hag is an awful card if there are good defensive cards available. The presence of a card like lighthouse (or especially a card like lighthouse in addition to efficient trashing) make sea hag almost a stone blank. Of course, how well the reaction cards in question interact with the other cards available is also important; evaluating a ten card board can be very complex, which is why single card evaluations are ridiculous.

Perhaps my wording was a little strong, but I challenge you to deny that in a vast majority of kingdoms, Sea Hag is a better opening buy than Moneylender. I believe that is the general purpose of ranking these cards.

In the same vein, it's also completely ridiculous to assert that single card evaluations are worthless simply because there is some variation in their power in certain kingdoms. Some cards are simply better than others in a larger set of circumstances. I know you're not trying to say that all openers are equivalent, but it's a lot more helpful to a neophyte player to tell him which properties to look for in a good opening buy than to tell him to carefully consider all possible synergies in the kingdom.

[treasuremapisforcretins]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people who are bothering to read a dominion strategy forum on the internet have played enough to understand basic concepts like the power of putting curses in to their opponents decks; the rote beginner is probably not ever going to read any of these articles. I'm guessing that people who are reading like articles like are reasonable dominion players and want to get better, in which case they should, in fact, be carefully considering all the possible synergies when they draw their opening hand.

Edit: As for the sea hag vs moneylender debate, there really are enough cards that are very good against sea hag that I would definitely not be comfortable calling it better than moneylender a "vast majority" of the time, whatever that means, especially considering that moneylender is a card that I want to have in my deck in most circumstances.

[Epoch]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people who are bothering to read a dominion strategy forum on the internet have played enough to understand basic concepts like the power of putting curses in to their opponents decks; the rote beginner is probably not ever going to read any of these articles. I'm guessing that people who are reading like articles like are reasonable dominion players and want to get better, in which case they should, in fact, be carefully considering all the possible synergies when they draw their opening hand.

Meh.  Or they, like me a few months ago, typed "dominion strategy" into Google because they were excited about the game and wanted to learn to play it better.

We get new players here from time to time -- even ones who post, not just lurk.

[treasuremapisforcretins]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people who are bothering to read a dominion strategy forum on the internet have played enough to understand basic concepts like the power of putting curses in to their opponents decks; the rote beginner is probably not ever going to read any of these articles. I'm guessing that people who are reading like articles like are reasonable dominion players and want to get better, in which case they should, in fact, be carefully considering all the possible synergies when they draw their opening hand.

Meh.  Or they, like me a few months ago, typed "dominion strategy" into Google because they were excited about the game and wanted to learn to play it better.

We get new players here from time to time -- even ones who post, not just lurk.

You're level 28 on isotropic, so I don't think you're a very good example there.

[timchen]

Salvager is not a bad opening. It is better than a silver when it finds at least an estate, and worse when it doesn't. When trimming is good, it is definitely better than silver+silver. If not, then you should not try to get it until mid-late game.

[dondon151]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people who are bothering to read a dominion strategy forum on the internet have played enough to understand basic concepts like the power of putting curses in to their opponents decks; the rote beginner is probably not ever going to read any of these articles. I'm guessing that people who are reading like articles like are reasonable dominion players and want to get better, in which case they should, in fact, be carefully considering all the possible synergies when they draw their opening hand.

Back maybe a month ago I was surely not at a level where I could understand all of the dynamics of the game, and the friends that I play with still occasionally make clearly suboptimal opening decisions (e.g. opening Remodel in a kingdom with no good targets, ignoring Sea Hag on boards where it would be very strong, etc.). I think it's erroneous to assume that all individuals who read a Dominion strategy forum are extremely adept at the game, or to assume that experienced players are the target audience; if that were the case, there would be nothing to talk about.

ChaosRed's post is also a good counterexample.

Edit: As for the sea hag vs moneylender debate, there really are enough cards that are very good against sea hag that I would definitely not be comfortable calling it better than moneylender a "vast majority" of the time, whatever that means, especially considering that moneylender is a card that I want to have in my deck in most circumstances.

I can only think of maybe 5 cards off the top of my head that would counter Sea Hag to an appreciable extent, and even with those cards in the kingdom I would still open with Sea Hag just to slow down the opponent. Masquerade and Trader are probably the 2 cards against which I definitely don't want to open Sea Hag. Whereas Moneylender... is just such a weak option now. It's only marginally useful in building an actions engine and it's not a very strong complement to BM.

[rinkworks]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people who are bothering to read a dominion strategy forum on the internet have played enough to understand basic concepts like the power of putting curses in to their opponents decks; the rote beginner is probably not ever going to read any of these articles. I'm guessing that people who are reading like articles like are reasonable dominion players and want to get better, in which case they should, in fact, be carefully considering all the possible synergies when they draw their opening hand.

Definitely disagree here.  I started reading Dominion Strategy before I understood very many of the core principles of the game.  The fact that there was good basic information here (this was before the forum came about) is what taught me those principles and kept me interested in the game.

Regardless, though, even if it were true that all the readers of this site are experienced players, is it really that bad that someone write an opening guide directed at beginners?  I mean, surely it is useful if *someone* write some material for beginners.  Posting it here may mean that it finds its way into their hands anyhow, perhaps passed on by some of us more experienced players looking for material to teach their friends with.  I just don't see the controversy.

Edit: As for the sea hag vs moneylender debate, there really are enough cards that are very good against sea hag that I would definitely not be comfortable calling it better than moneylender a "vast majority" of the time, whatever that means, especially considering that moneylender is a card that I want to have in my deck in most circumstances.

Here again is an argument that I could concede without conceding the overall point.  If you think Sea Hag vs. Moneylender is a bad example, how about either of those vs. Scout?  Surely you're not going to tell me that, since there might well be some situation where Scout is preferable, it cannot be said to be generally an inferior opening purchase?

Frankly, the looseness with which the original article defines its rankings -- grouping them as much by category as by general opening strength -- itself defies any such criticism, even if it were valid.  Because that looseness implicitly acknowledges that you can't rank single cards in a vacuum with mathematical precision.  But you CAN convey a general sense of things by reading the list and (importantly) the associated comments for each item in it.

[AJD]

I can only think of maybe 5 cards off the top of my head that would counter Sea Hag to an appreciable extent, and even with those cards in the kingdom I would still open with Sea Hag just to slow down the opponent. Masquerade and Trader are probably the 2 cards against which I definitely don't want to open Sea Hag.

Hmm, this could be an interesting discussion in its own right: under what circumstances is it correct to ignore Sea Hag? Other than Masquerade and Trader, I think I might prefer to open Ambassador/Ambassador when Sea Hag is on the table (at least, if my opponent buys a Sea Hag). And I won a game recently by ignoring Sea Hag and opening Fishing Village / Jack of All Trades.

[AJD]

And I won a game recently by ignoring Sea Hag and opening Fishing Village / Jack of All Trades.

(Although my opponent's Sea Hag didn't come up until turn 5, and I did buy a Mountebank, so it's not like ignoring Sea Hag meant I was the recipient of all the cursing, so that might have been a fluke.)