Print

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

[ConMan]

Journeyman/Fool's Gold? You'd actually wind up naming Coppers more often then, I think, to maximise the chance of a collision. Journeyman/Fool's Gold with Mint follow-up?

[RD]

Journeyman/Fool's Gold? You'd actually wind up naming Coppers more often then, I think, to maximise the chance of a collision. Journeyman/Fool's Gold with Mint follow-up?

Mint/FG with Journeyman followup beats it, or I'll eat all three piles.

Mint aside, Journeyman+FG sounds good but it's such tremendous overkill, I'd rather have weaker draw with +Buy attached. Well+Buy means buying more FGs so I think that seals it. But even if it weren't for that, I might prefer something like CR or possibly even Storeroom let alone Margrave or Wharf.

Of course Journeyman could be compatible with some outside sources of +Buy; for instance Counterfeit/FG/Journeyman sounds monstrous. But I expect then you'd want to open with the +Buy and pick up the Journeyman later. Really an early Journeyman is no use at all if you're just going to rush the FG pile; you might as well pick it up later, unless perhaps it's some kind of mindgame.

[Beyond Awesome]

What I find most interesting about Journeyman is that it allows you to ignore a curser. Hermit and Jack seem to be the bast cards at this. But, I sometimes like building a deck where my opponent gives me all ten curses, and I ignore them.

One thing of note, so far, it seems that even though this cards add a lot of strategic depth, Guilds isn't overly complex. I feel DA is a much more complex expansion. But, I guess there is a difference between making a card with a lot of complicated text and then making strategically complex cards. I am very much looking forward to playing with Guilds soon. I hope Goko has it to purchase when Origins starts, at the latest, within a week.

[popsofctown]

@WW: I think it seems like an understatement to say this is "probably a good opener".

In a vacuum, I agree with you. I guess I left it there because it doesn't change the structure of openings like the previous two (5/3 and 6/2 possible; turn 1 self-triggered reshuffle possible). But I don't really disagree with you on the other stuff, except that I expect wharf to be a stronger enough card overall that you're going to want to open it over this anyway. Well, maybe I am wrong there, too.

No no no, I agree, you open Wharf over this.  What I meant was, if I'm in a tournament game and I draw 3/4 against 5/2 on a Journeyman/BM board, it's a much bigger "dang I'm screwed" than if the same thing occurs in a Wharf/BM board. 

It's not really actionable information, it was just an observation.

[Beyond Awesome]

Journeyman's sifting is actually even more huge than Embassy in the early game. If you skip two estates with Journeyman, you essentially drew 5 cards and only discarded 2!! Whereas with Embassy you would have discarded 3 cards and also have given your opponent a silver. So, I would say it seems Journeyman seems to be a solid terminal draw card.

[PitzerMike]

Journeyman's sifting is actually even more huge than Embassy in the early game. If you skip two estates with Journeyman, you essentially drew 5 cards and only discarded 2!! Whereas with Embassy you would have discarded 3 cards and also have given your opponent a silver. So, I would say it seems Journeyman seems to be a solid terminal draw card.

Yeah, and you didn't feed your opponent a silver too. It's quite nice.

[SirPeebles]

Start 4/3 with Baker on the board.

Open Treasure Map/Treasure Map.

Turn 3, Treasure Maps collide, topdeck four Golds.

Turn 4, spend 4 Golds and 1 Copper on Doctor, trashing the rest of your deck.  Draw 4 Golds + Doctor.

Turn 5, play Doctor, name and trash Copper.  Buy a Journeyman.

Now just keep buying Provinces and having Journeyman skip over Provinces.

Guilds synergy.

[Qvist]

I expected to see an Attack, an Alt-VP card or a card with +Buy, but well not all the previews can be that exciting.

So, it's another "Better than Smithy card" and is probably best comparable to Catacombs. This makes it a great BM card.
You're probably naming Estate early for a terminal Gold and additional cycling. But after a few Silver and Gold buys and especially after your first Province it requires good deck tracking. Naming Coppers will be good pretty soon I assume although you risk drawing 3 Estates. But if you somehow manage to trash your starting Estates (best with an opponents' Bishop) then this is really strong, like a much better version of Adventurer for only $5. Big Money with Masquerade/Journeyman comes also to my mind. I don't think you can ignore Cursers with this although you could just name Curse to get value, just because you see your Journeyman less often and I don't think it can overcome a 10VP deficit. I also don't think it's a great Tunnel enabler as you might draw Estates if you name Tunnel and can't discard them out of your hand and is just too unreliable.

[werothegreat]

I expected to see something else previewed today...  are we done with previews for the week, then?

[SirPeebles]

I expected to see something else previewed today...  are we done with previews for the week, then?

I wouldn't give up hope yet.  It's not that much later in the day than when the others were posted.

[LastFootnote]

I expected to see something else previewed today...  are we done with previews for the week, then?

Patience. For the Jedi it is time to eat as well!

[SirPeebles]

[Watno]

he said June 3-7.

[SirPeebles]

Maybe he's still fact checking his Casimir jokes.

[Watno]

I have a lecture in five minutes, and it's in a room where I don't have internet connection

[Watno]

phew, it's there.

[tlloyd]

One of my predictions for Guilds (or at least a card I would like to to see printed) was a card that gave you the choice of any combination of 3 cards and actions. In other words, it could be played as any of the following: +3 actions; +1 card +2 actions; +2 cards +1 action, +3 cards. Maybe something like that will show up, maybe not.

But reading Journeyman made me wish that a similar idea had been incorporated into this card. Imagine if Journeyman gave you the following three choices:

1. Name a card, draw three non-named cards.
2. Name two cards, draw two non-named cards.
3. Name three cards, draw one non-named card.

That card would be amazing! (I think...)  It would allow you (as Journeyman already does) to significantly increase your handsize while avoiding any copies of one particularly undesired card, or (at the other extreme) to search quite effectively for that one card that you need (but not increase your handsize).

How much would you pay for a card like that?

[LastFootnote]

One of my predictions for Guilds (or at least a card I would like to to see printed) was a card that gave you the choice of any combination of 3 cards and actions. In other words, it could be played as any of the following: +3 actions; +1 card +2 actions; +2 cards +1 action, +3 cards. Maybe something like that will show up, maybe not.

But reading Journeyman made me wish that a similar idea had been incorporated into this card. Imagine if Journeyman gave you the following three choices:

1. Name a card, draw three non-named cards.
2. Name two cards, draw two non-named cards.
3. Name three cards, draw one non-named card.

That card would be amazing! (I think...)  It would allow you (as Journeyman already does) to significantly increase your handsize while avoiding any copies of one particularly undesired card, or (at the other extreme) to search quite effectively for that one card that you need (but not increase your handsize).

How much would you pay for a card like that?

$5.

[Powerman]

One of my predictions for Guilds (or at least a card I would like to to see printed) was a card that gave you the choice of any combination of 3 cards and actions. In other words, it could be played as any of the following: +3 actions; +1 card +2 actions; +2 cards +1 action, +3 cards. Maybe something like that will show up, maybe not.

The problem with that is it's strictly better than Laboratory, so it would have to cost $6.  And that would seem to be a VERY weak $6.

[Gveoniz]

One of my predictions for Guilds (or at least a card I would like to to see printed) was a card that gave you the choice of any combination of 3 cards and actions. In other words, it could be played as any of the following: +3 actions; +1 card +2 actions; +2 cards +1 action, +3 cards. Maybe something like that will show up, maybe not.

The problem with that is it's strictly better than Laboratory, so it would have to cost $6.  And that would seem to be a VERY weak $6.

That is a better noble, but without the 2VP, may still lose to gold though.

[liopoil]

it could be played as any of the following: +3 actions; +1 card +2 actions; +2 cards +1 action, +3 cards. Maybe something like that will show up, maybe not.

Like others have said, that particular card would have to be $6 and would be kinda weak, but I like how it can be a 5, 4, 3, or 2 cost.

2 cards 1 action - lab, 5 cost
3 cards - smithy, 4 cost
1 card 2 actions - village, 3 cost
3 actions - kind of like courtyard, or a slightly better necropolis, would be a 2 cost.

[Tables]

You could make it quite a bit better but probably not too good for $6 by doing something like:
Do this three times: draw a card OR +1 action

The obvious benefit being you can keep drawing until you decide you want actions instead.

[SirPeebles]

You could make it quite a bit better but probably not too good for $6 by doing something like:
Do this three times: draw a card OR +1 action

The obvious benefit being you can keep drawing until you decide you want actions instead.

This is nicer wording, also.

I think it would get some play at $6.  It is a very strong addition to engines.  You could make it stronger by adding +$1 as one of the three options.

[Qvist]

One of my predictions for Guilds (or at least a card I would like to to see printed) was a card that gave you the choice of any combination of 3 cards and actions. In other words, it could be played as any of the following: +3 actions; +1 card +2 actions; +2 cards +1 action, +3 cards. Maybe something like that will show up, maybe not.

But reading Journeyman made me wish that a similar idea had been incorporated into this card. Imagine if Journeyman gave you the following three choices:

1. Name a card, draw three non-named cards.
2. Name two cards, draw two non-named cards.
3. Name three cards, draw one non-named card.

That card would be amazing! (I think...)  It would allow you (as Journeyman already does) to significantly increase your handsize while avoiding any copies of one particularly undesired card, or (at the other extreme) to search quite effectively for that one card that you need (but not increase your handsize).

How much would you pay for a card like that?

See the comments in this thread: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=920.0

I like cards with choices, but too many choices makes them less exciting, it's actually hard to design a well balanced and well priced card with diffferent choices.
Like pointed out this card would cost $6 which makes it a bad card and with $5 it's superior to Laboratory. So you have to find other clauses or variants to make it still exciting.

[tlloyd]

You could make it quite a bit better but probably not too good for $6 by doing something like:
Do this three times: draw a card OR +1 action

The obvious benefit being you can keep drawing until you decide you want actions instead.

That was the idea. I believe WW suggested "Do this thrice:"