Print

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

[Epoch]

Traders tends to build resilient, but not powerful, decks.  In my experimentation with it, the thing I've noticed the most is that it doesn't get the 4th Province all that quickly, but typically I can run 3+ $8+ turns after I've already picked up 3-4 Provinces.

So...  is that useful?  I mean, not if your opponent has already picked up 4 Provinces, probably.  But maybe if you get into a Duchy race?

I tried some Traders/Gardens.  Traders is AMAZING at making your deck big and picking up Gardens -- I clearly had a big, fast deck that got lots of Gardens really quickly.  But then I ran out Gardens -- and no other pile was terribly close to being empty.  I suspect that there's a viable Traders/Gardens strategy.  I don't think it looks all that much like Workshop/Gardens, though.  It might be Traders/Gardens/Provinces -- I generated a shocking number of $8 turns even with all 8 Gardens in my deck.

[ackack]

I wonder if Trader/Gardens is really viable or whether the opportunity cost is too high...

You're probably better off with buying a WS/WC/IW/Gardens/Estate/Copper than a Trader at any point during your rush.

Man that's a lot of acronyms. Trader would definitely be worse than Ironworks, possibly worse than Workshop. I think it would smoke Woodcutter for a Gardens deck and obviously beats Estate and Copper at least at some point. Part of why I think it has potential for strength is that a) it gives you a mechanism to fill up your deck reasonably quickly with cards, b) those cards are useful for buying more Gardens, c) you are now a substantial Duchy threat. I think the dynamic of a Trader/Gardens game isn't exactly the same as a normal Gardens game, but that it could be quite strong. I also expect a VP card that depends on Treasures in deck at some point, and Trader obviously has tons of potential for that.

I also think that Trader is probably more often than not an Ambassador counter.

[guided]

+Buy and Traders together is a thing, but it doesn't excite me that much. Like, you have to have this $4 card sitting in your hand still during your buy phase, instead of having some other $3-4 card (like Silver) that you could have played for some other benefit. I don't expect planning to use Traders to convert extra buys into Silvers will be strong with any real frequency.

On another note, there are supposed to be other "when you gain this" effects in Hinterlands I think? There could be some really crazy interactions with Border Village once the rest of the cards are revealed.

[rinkworks]

I tried some Traders/Gardens.  Traders is AMAZING at making your deck big and picking up Gardens -- I clearly had a big, fast deck that got lots of Gardens really quickly.  But then I ran out Gardens -- and no other pile was terribly close to being empty.  I suspect that there's a viable Traders/Gardens strategy.  I don't think it looks all that much like Workshop/Gardens, though.  It might be Traders/Gardens/Provinces -- I generated a shocking number of $8 turns even with all 8 Gardens in my deck.

This seems really worth repeating.  I haven't played with these cards yet, but I'm skeptical of early blanket statements that Trader isn't as good a Gardens enabler as Workshop because it's not as fast.  But it seems plausible and even likely to me that the best way to play Trader/Gardens is not as a rush strategy.

Consider a Trader opening, rushing Gardens immediately thereafter but not otherwise rushing to end the game.  Use Trader on Estates for pairs of Silver as you do so, which may keep you from clogging up much.  Also use Trader on Silver for triplets of Silver to keep your deck loose.  Now bide your time!  Buy expensive cards when you can, mostly so you can explode your deck by hitting them with Trader later.  And buy Provinces when you are able -- or, alternately, don't buy Provinces at all if you have an overwhelming majority of the Gardenses, so that the Province player can't end early and keep you from exploding your deck with Silvers with all the time you've bought yourself.

I don't know if this will really work, but it's worth exploring.

Anyway, it may well turn out that Trader doesn't make a competitive enabler for Gardens after all.  But I don't think we can draw that conclusion by simply imagining how a Workshop/Gardens game would play with Trader substituted for Workshop.

[Epoch]

With Traders/Gardens, something to contemplate is buying Provinces and then exploding them with Traders.  It's kind of like the five-card Bishop strategy: small loss of VP but your deck keeps going.

[WanderingWinder]

I think it's quite possible that traders/gardens is better against a deck that's going for provinces than Workshop/Gardens while losing to Workshop/Gardens in the head-to-head. The thing in the head-to-head is that you've got to get those gardens at some point, and Workshop/Gardens is getting them so much faster than you are, so you aren't going to get many.

[DStu]

This seems really worth repeating.  I haven't played with these cards yet, but I'm skeptical of early blanket statements that Trader isn't as good a Gardens enabler as Workshop because it's not as fast.  But it seems plausible and even likely to me that the best way to play Trader/Gardens is not as a rush strategy.

Consider a Trader opening, rushing Gardens immediately thereafter but not otherwise rushing to end the game.  Use Trader on Estates for pairs of Silver as you do so, which may keep you from clogging up much.  Also use Trader on Silver for triplets of Silver to keep your deck loose.  Now bide your time!  Buy expensive cards when you can, mostly so you can explode your deck by hitting them with Trader later.  And buy Provinces when you are able -- or, alternately, don't buy Provinces at all if you have an overwhelming majority of the Gardenses, so that the Province player can't end early and keep you from exploding your deck with Silvers with all the time you've bought yourself.

I don't know if this will really work, but it's worth exploring.

Anyway, it may well turn out that Trader doesn't make a competitive enabler for Gardens after all.  But I don't think we can draw that conclusion by simply imagining how a Workshop/Gardens game would play with Trader substituted for Workshop.

I bet that is at least something to defend against. If you are not combated on Gardens and Silvers, you really fastly have 8 Gardens and a ton of Silvers. Getting 8 Provinces usually takes ages, so a lot of time to get $5s (Duchies?) to trash them again. Trashing a $5 gives you a turn with at least +5 Silvers +-0card. All this Silvers will allow you to get some of the Provinces yourself, if you just split them 2-6 you're behind 24 Points on Provinces, that 3 per Garden. That's nothing when you can get +5cards a turn. If you split them 0-8 you need 60 cards, that's a lot more (how many Silvers are in the supply?)

[guided]

(how many Silvers are in the supply?)

Officially? As many as you want to put there at the beginning of the game.

On Isotropic? 40.

[jimjam]

BV+ Lab or Market+ Bishop would be pretty deadly I think.

[theParty]

I just played my first few games with these cards and I love them.

Obviously BV is amazing in some instances, and not in others.  Even if there isn't a deadly combo on there like Wharf or (gulp) Torturer, you still often end up with 6 and decide to buy the 5 dollar power attack (mountebank, witch, ghost ship).  The BV is awesome here (I just used it with Ghost Ship and it really makes that card a lot more effective and less collisions with multiples in my 1 game sample anyway).

Trader is much more intriguing to me, it has the potential to totally change strategy, though I don't really know if it can do that yet.  'm waiting to hit a Duke board with it, as I would imagine it would perform very well.

[ackack]

Yeah, I think Trader/Duke has a lot of potential.

Just played a Trader/Familiar/Philosopher's Stone game, that was fun.

added: One interesting thing is that an opponent's Trader makes Familiar a dead card when you have multiple in hand. That's pretty nifty.

[Taco Lobster]

Hmmm...

I was playing Trader with Tournament on Isotropic, and it looked like when I used the Trader ability to replace my prize (a Duchy) with a Silver, the Silver went on top of my deck.

But, it might just be that I had a lot of Silver in my deck, and I just happened to draw a silver off the +1 card from the Tournament.

Edit: Tested again using a Chapel to trash down to a deck consisting of only Golds, Tournaments, and a Trader (no Silvers).  When I used the Trader on the Tournament prize, I drew another Gold instead of the Silver, so it looks like my prior deck just had a large number of Silvers in it.

[theParty]

You can add Border Village/Bishop to the list of combos. 

You can either get what you want with the border village, and bishop that later, or just use it to add fuel for your bishop to eat up.  Ideally, something like Bazzar/Treasury in there, so that you can get the card you want to keep, and bishop the BV.

Haven't messed around with it too much, but definitely worked in the last game I played.

[chwhite]

Goons and Traders, yes please.

While you may be right that people in general underrate Silver, I can say for sure I'm not going to want Traders in my Goons deck.  Goons is one of the paradigmatic examples of a card that is best in no-silver decks, because the more Treasure in your deck the less often you can play those Goons and the more likely you won't see those crucial double (and triple)-Goons hits.

I'd much rather run the Pearl Divers.

---Traders would of course be crunchy with Gardens and Dukes, though.

[rinkworks]

Goons and Traders, yes please.

While you may be right that people in general underrate Silver, I can say for sure I'm not going to want Traders in my Goons deck.  Goons is one of the paradigmatic examples of a card that is best in no-silver decks, because the more Treasure in your deck the less often you can play those Goons and the more likely you won't see those crucial double (and triple)-Goons hits.

I'd much rather run the Pearl Divers.

Although I agree, at some point in Goons decks you start buying Copper with those extra buys.  Mightn't you want to use those extra buys a little sooner if you could get Silvers with them instead?  Or do you think maybe not?

You can add Border Village/Bishop to the list of combos.

Can't wait to try it.  Surely BV/Salvager and BV/Apprentice are just as interesting.  Probably everything that's great with Peddler is also great with Border Village.  BV costs a little less, but with BV you can get those enablers at the same time.  This card is subtly rife with strategic possibilities.  It's a fantastic card to roll out first to represent Hinterlands.

[WanderingWinder]

Goons and Traders, yes please.

While you may be right that people in general underrate Silver, I can say for sure I'm not going to want Traders in my Goons deck.  Goons is one of the paradigmatic examples of a card that is best in no-silver decks, because the more Treasure in your deck the less often you can play those Goons and the more likely you won't see those crucial double (and triple)-Goons hits.

I'd much rather run the Pearl Divers.

If you can run the double and triple goons hits, sure. My comment was based on decks that can't do that, of which there are quite a lot. In that case, the buy, with no money (assuming coppers OR curses are left) turns into a silver-with-a-VP, a touch worse than harem, and a card that, if printed, would have to cost 5. Pretty nice.

[ChaosRed]

Love both cards, Traders has less utility obviously, but useful in a Gardens strategy I think.

The second card, is just a superb "enabler", if the primary ability fuels the card you gain when you buy, you essentially ensure an even distribution/acquisition of your engine. I think this is really going to be the marquee features of this expansion, which are cards that are over-costed for their primary ability but gain you things when you buy them (or gain other cards).

Both cards are elegant, simple and both can be seen to have obvious utility. In other words, the quality of this game continues.

[Epoch]

I think it's quite possible that traders/gardens is better against a deck that's going for provinces than Workshop/Gardens while losing to Workshop/Gardens in the head-to-head. The thing in the head-to-head is that you've got to get those gardens at some point, and Workshop/Gardens is getting them so much faster than you are, so you aren't going to get many.

I'm not convinced that Traders is that much slower at getting Gardens than Workshop is.  What it's a lot slower at is getting Estates and Coppers.

With Workshops, you need to spend a while Workshopping more Workshops.  Traders/Gardens functions pretty well based on my limited testing with just a couple of Traders in it, and it generates $4 very consistently.

[ackack]

Here is a Trader/Gardens game against a 40+. I'd actually not seen Baron/Gardens before and wondered if him going into Gardens was a reaction; it was not. He was of the opinion Baron/Gardens was stronger, but I'm skeptical. The game was close, at any rate. added: I'm not sure I want to be buying early Estates in this sort of game. I do think they have some merit in terms of Baron blocking, but as the play shows the relative strength of the Trader deck is that later on it has other things going for it, and thus assisting the rush is possibly deadly.

[Epoch]

Here is a Trader/Gardens game against a 40+. I'd actually not seen Baron/Gardens before and wondered if him going into Gardens was a reaction; it was not. He was of the opinion Baron/Gardens was stronger, but I'm skeptical. The game was close, at any rate. added: I'm not sure I want to be buying early Estates in this sort of game. I do think they have some merit in terms of Baron blocking, but as the play shows the relative strength of the Trader deck is that later on it has other things going for it, and thus assisting the rush is possibly deadly.

Interesting game.  I, like you, am not sure that buying early Estates is a good idea, especially with $3, though I take your point about Baron blocking.

You skipped a Copper buy at one point -- I assume that was just an oversight?

I might've been tempted to get a second Traders earlier.

But I think that what this game shows is the later-game power of Traders/Gardens:

Turns 15+, =^..^= buys/gains:  Island x 4, Copper x 3, Duchy, Silver x 3.
Turns 15+, ackack buys/gains:  Lighthouse, Silver x 6, Province (!!), Duchy x 5 (!!)

So, ackack gains 1 more card (well, actually the same net change, with the -1 from exploding his Traders), but his VP compared to =^..^= in the late game are completely one-sided.

[matt979]

Here's a Trader game vs. double ambassador:
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201110/13/game-20111013-121815-7ccb75be.html

(If I remember to do so, I'll change that link to the Council Room link tomorrow.)
(Yes, I'm one of those double-ambassador goofballs.)

My opening was reptilian brain at play; I hadn't really thought about the ambassador-trader interaction. I did shockingly well, I think mainly because of shuffle luck and peddler luck.

[Axe Knight]

I wish Trader was named something else, to avoid confusion with Horse Traders, especially since both are reactions.

Absolutely gorgeous artwork on the first two cards.  Hinterlands definitely seems to have an interesting feel that goes beyond its "cards that do something when you buy them" theme.  I don't think I've ever been so eager to try a Dominion expansion.

[rrenaud]

It will require some updates to councilroom to be able to parse the new logs.

... mZ gains an Estate.
... ... mZ reveals a Trader to gain a Silver instead.

that instead means that the Estate gain is a lie.  Bleh ;(

[rinkworks]

I wish Trader was named something else, to avoid confusion with Horse Traders, especially since both are reactions.

Absolutely gorgeous artwork on the first two cards.  Hinterlands definitely seems to have an interesting feel that goes beyond its "cards that do something when you buy them" theme.  I don't think I've ever been so eager to try a Dominion expansion.

I was thinking the exact same thing BEFORE I even thought of Horse Traders.  Specifically, because I still confuse Trading Post and Trade Route in conversation sometimes.  So this makes the fourth, not third, card with "Trade" in its name.  Ah well.

Totally agree with you on the artwork and the interesting feel.  Hinterlands has me stoked.

[Axe Knight]

I corrected it just as you were posting

Another question...is it better to trash a Silver and gain 3, or trash a Copper and gain a Silver during your Buy Phase (in the early game)?