Print

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

[Warfreak2]

3. I think it is a bad thing shelters make those openings unviable. Enabling fairgrounds to the point that people would almost always go for it isn't so hot either.

3. There are many many kingdoms where Gardens or Silk Roads rush is clearly the winning strategy. Is Trader Feodum a Problem? I don't think so, but it's not an interesting game since it'll probably be better than anything else on the board. There are enough set-ups where the winning strategy is pretty obvious that this complaint should be more general. Sure Fairgrounds gets pumped up, but it's not a problem else you consider Trader/Feodum and maybe even Ironworks/Gardens a problem. In fact, Goons games 99% of the time mean everyone will try to make a Goons engine, because it's just really really good. If Fairgrounds/Shelters is a problem, then these are all problems too. Keep in mind, you're saving 3 essentially useless cards the whole game in order to have 3 more unique cards. It's good, but on the same level as Trader/Feodum.

I want to comment on this, because Trader/Feodum is just "if you ignore this, you will lose", whereas it is often easy to ignore Fairgrounds/Shelters. If you get 4 Fairgrounds, your Shelters will average 4*3*2VP/5 ~= 5VP which is not so much better than keeping your Estates in a normal game, those give you 3VP.

[timchen]

This comparison is meaningless as your opponent won't have those estates.

[Warfreak2]

Scenario 1: Fairgrounds game with Shelters. I trash my Shelters, you don't. We get 4 Fairgrounds each, your Shelters produce on average 5VP total more than mine.

Scenario 2: Fairgrounds game with Estates. I trash my Estates, you don't. We get 4 Fairgrounds each, your Estates produce 3VP total more than mine.

[timchen]

So you want to compare whether u want to trash those initial shelters or not. They play nothing like estates in this case. if you know those 3 can pump you up the next level they worth 8 vp  with 4 fairgrounds but otherwise 0. It's more like 3 duchies when it matters.

[WanderingWinder]

I disagree.  If there isn't a good $6 (read: Border Village), or something else to hit (read: Fortress), Procession is a bad idea.  You are spending $4 on Proc when you could be buying something else.  Then you are counting on it to collide with your Mountebank, when it's a dead card otherwise... and that'll be often, since you'll be getting hit by Mountebank as well.  And then you're spending another $5 to re-buy a Mountebank?  The opportunity cost of two buys for $4 and $5 is significant, and that's in the SUCCESS scenario.  You might not get Proc with your MB at all.

Here's a game against a top player where we both went for Procession/Mountebank, with only Adventurer at $6. I was fortunate to connect mine twice before my opponent did; I won by resignation. OK, so those turns I give two Curses and two Coppers, I do nothing else except replace my Mountebank... but there is an opportunity cost associated with not giving your opponent four junk cards at a time. Winning the Curse split is a big deal. Besides, there are almost always $4s available that you will want to double anyway (Marauder in this game), so you get more Mountebanks that way.

I think a lot of people fail to connect their Procession with anything, and think that is the fault of the card; you have to play differently, not only can you afford to have a much higher action density, but you actually need that higher action density to make sure your Procession doesn't whiff. Obviously Procession would be a terrible addition to BM/Smithy, you have to play a particular kind of deck.

One lucky game does not make the point of 'this is a good strategy'. I mean I bought chancellor/silver, then gold, then province, province, province, province, province, province. Clearly chancellor/BM is crazy strong, right. Okay, that's an overboard example. A better example would be like opening throne room/swindler, then getting a second swindler and second throne room on the next shuffle. Or opening potion to go for golems, with no cheaper potion-cost cards. Can it hit right and give you a good position? Yup. Is it a good idea? Probably not.
But I can't figure out why you would possibly get a procession seeking to hit mountebank with it. Now, sure, if you have a big engine, and you have mountebank, maybe you get procession. But this has really nothing to do with it being mountebank. I mean, your example feels bad to me, because you almost always prefer if you would have just had throne room, and there are other cases where you'd prefer procession. Anyway, the big point is, sure you can still have high enough action density, but mountebank is actively working against you there.

[Warfreak2]

Your Fairgrounds can hit 8VP if you keep three junk cards in your deck for the whole game, and are very careful to buy everything including a Curse, great for you. You'll manage one or two Provinces, but a trimmed deck has many chances to compete, even if my Fairgrounds are only worth 4VP. It's definitely not a given that in a Shelters game you always want to go for Fairgrounds and keep your Shelters to boost them to 8VP. I'm not even convinced that that's dominant half of the time.

So it's totally not comparable to Trader/Feodum. If the other player ignores it, my Feoda will be worth 8VP+ without any difficulty at all, and I'll still manage four Provinces with all that Silver. A denied Feodum is worth only 1-2VP to a non-mirror opponent.

[Warfreak2]

One lucky game does not make the point of 'this is a good strategy'.

My point wasn't that I won, of course I was lucky to win. My point was that my opponent, rated ~6500 on Goko, went for the same thing.

[Schneau]

One lucky game does not make the point of 'this is a good strategy'.

My point wasn't that I won, of course I was lucky to win. My point was that my opponent, rated ~6500 on Goko, went for the same thing.

That log doesn't say to me that you both went Procession to play it with Mountebank. It says that you went Procession mainly to play it with Marauder, with the intention of upgrading those into Mountebank. That's an entirely different beast -- if there wasn't a great $4 target for Procession, I'm guessing neither of you would have bought Procession in the first place.

[WanderingWinder]

One lucky game does not make the point of 'this is a good strategy'.

My point wasn't that I won, of course I was lucky to win. My point was that my opponent, rated ~6500 on Goko, went for the same thing.

As a 6500+ on Goko, I can say I do stupid things all the time - this does not make them un-stupid.

[Warfreak2]

That log doesn't say to me that you both went Procession to play it with Mountebank.

On turn 6, my opponent Processions their Marauder, but never gets another one for the rest of the game. On later turns they buy two Mountebanks and another Procession (and one Pearl Diver on a $2 $3 hand). I don't think there's any ambiguity about what the second Procession was intended for.

As a 6500+ on Goko, I can say I do stupid things all the time - this does not make them un-stupid.

(-:
I think it puts a reasonable lower bound on how stupid it is, though!

I think this is the sort of thing that should only really be answered by simulators - does Mountebank+Procession/Big Money beat Mountebank/Big Money? Proposed buy order is up to 10 Mountebanks and up to 2 Processions (while there are more than 3 Curses left), play order is to always Procession a Mountebank if you can, or play a Mountebank, or Procession a Procession into another Mountebank.

[timchen]

I think the answer is pretty clear no.

[WanderingWinder]

That log doesn't say to me that you both went Procession to play it with Mountebank.

On turn 6, my opponent Processions their Marauder, but never gets another one for the rest of the game. On later turns they buy two Mountebanks and another Procession (and one Pearl Diver on a $2 $3 hand). I don't think there's any ambiguity about what the second Procession was intended for.

I do! Just because he *didn't* buy another one doesn't mean he wasn't planning on it, or planning to do it under the right circumstances anyway. I mean, clearly we aren't saying 'never procession your mountebank' here, we are saying 'mountebank and procession on board? Go for both!' is a bad inference (yes, sometimes you go for both. But not just from these two).

Of course, beyond this, he could have been planning on procession-ing his procession so as to get another mountebank. This at the very least skews the second procession better.

As a 6500+ on Goko, I can say I do stupid things all the time - this does not make them un-stupid.

(-:
I think it puts a reasonable lower bound on how stupid it is, though!

I don't, really. I mean, I have made a play that forced me to lose, when I had like 3-4 that forced me to win. that's pretty close to as-stupid-as-you-can-get.

I think this is the sort of thing that should only really be answered by simulators - does Mountebank+Procession/Big Money beat Mountebank/Big Money? Proposed buy order is up to 10 Mountebanks and up to 2 Processions (while there are more than 3 Curses left), play order is to always Procession a Mountebank if you can, or play a Mountebank, or Procession a Procession into another Mountebank.

There is absolutely nothing that can only be answered by simulators! Of course, they are the fastest way to do some things. Anyway, I don't know any sim that has procession, but here it's incredibly obvious that such a but doesn't want any processions.

[SCSN]

That log doesn't say to me that you both went Procession to play it with Mountebank.

On turn 6, my opponent Processions their Marauder, but never gets another one for the rest of the game. On later turns they buy two Mountebanks and another Procession (and one Pearl Diver on a $2 $3 hand). I don't think there's any ambiguity about what the second Procession was intended for.

As a 6500+ on Goko, I can say I do stupid things all the time - this does not make them un-stupid.

(-:
I think it puts a reasonable lower bound on how stupid it is, though!

Not at all! As a 6500+ player I manage to do stuff that makes absolutely no sense in only half of my games, whereas that was at least in 3/4 of them when I was still in the low 6000s.

Not to speak of minor and major tactical errors, which happen almost every turn from the midgame onwards.

[eHalcyon]

I would be more convinced if the opponent had gone for MB without Proc and you beat him with it. As it is, Marauder heavily skews things as a good Proc target because it can become MB, which in turn makes MB an acceptable target because you have a good way of getting more. The game is also a poor example because your opponent resigned.

On the Menagerie-Ruins engine, calling it that makes it sound like it's viable to buy Ruins for the purpose of activating Menagerie more, which I think I'd false. But Menagerie is a good defense to Ruins, and Fairgrounds is a great reason not to Loot someone at all.

[WanderingWinder]

Oh, wait. Marauder? Marauder? This actually just answers the question right there - those ruins can get trashed by procession.

[Warfreak2]

On the Menagerie-Ruins engine, calling it that makes it sound like it's viable to buy Ruins for the purpose of activating Menagerie more, which I think I'd false. But Menagerie is a good defense to Ruins, and Fairgrounds is a great reason not to Loot someone at all.

Of course you aren't going to buy Ruins, there's an opportunity cost. I call it a Menagerie/Ruins engine because Crossroads and University let them actually play the Ruins relatively frequently. And it's amusing. If somebody really gets the idea to buy out the Ruins to activate their Menageries, I want to see the game log, that sounds good.

[joel88s]

Hey and how about that Herald?

[NoMoreFun]

I think that not making this "you may play it" is a big mistake. Sure, it removes an (extremely small) amount of "complexity", but in return you'll get a lot of resentment when people are forced to play Remake, Trading Post, Junk Dealer etc. and trash a good card from their hand. It's not as bad as the possibility of being forced to trash a good card with Lookout, but it's the kind of luck based risk that isn't fun and isn't present in many other dominion cards.

Also it makes the same mistake as Wishing Well (and Ironmonger, although that card's not as annoying because it always gives you SOME benefit) by not having the ability to combo with top decking cards. It definitely comes across as more annoying than a deliberate design choice. It won't be annoying as Wishing well, where you're forced to make a random guess even though you've invested in cards that allow more predictability, but it probably would have been better served by having the effects reversed, or having a vanilla effect that doesn't have +cards (similar to how Mystic "fixed wishing well). Instead it's a spammable cantrip that is occasionally excellent, with the only strategic element being "buy it if you have a lot of actions".

The overpay effect is cool, and seems to be the real purpose of the card, but it seems like an accident that it doesn't actually help the card its attached to. A stash-like "anywhere in your deck" effect would have fixed that.

This card will be good, but it reminds me of a fan-card. I wouldn't put it alongside failed cards like Thief, Scout or Counting House, but it does seem haphazardly designed.

[eHalcyon]

I have to disagree with that.  Forcing you to play the card means that you have to plan around that.  If you want to Herald, you need to think twice before grabbing a Remake.  If it wasn't a mandatory play, then Herald becomes too safe a card.  Not to mention, a forced play keeps it in line with Golem.  I doubt that this was not a deliberate decision and I imagine that Donald X would have playtested a non-mandatory version as well.

[NoMoreFun]

I have to disagree with that.  Forcing you to play the card means that you have to plan around that.  If you want to Herald, you need to think twice before grabbing a Remake.  If it wasn't a mandatory play, then Herald becomes too safe a card.  Not to mention, a forced play keeps it in line with Golem.  I doubt that this was not a deliberate decision and I imagine that Donald X would have playtested a non-mandatory version as well.

I'd put it into the same category as reactions that hurt the attacker. I don't think it's interesting or fun to be accidentally forced to trash cards, even if it's something you can account for. Lookout and Golem are the only other cards where you have a small but real chance of being forced to trash a good card, to the point where playing a card shouldn't intrinsically feel like a gamble. It's much worse to be "mostly safe" than "mostly unsafe", because if you end up not drawing a junk card with Upgrade/Rats/Junk Dealer and are forced to trash one of your good cards, it feels like your fault for taking such a long shot, whereas being forced to trash a good card with Lookout feels like you're being punished heavily for being unlucky.

Donald X tends to make cards as simple as possible. There aren't many cards with a "you may" effect where you would choose the effect 99% of the time; cards like Mint and KC have it because "or reveal a hand with no ____" takes up more room. I don't think he would have considered it for a second. Also I'm skeptical of how much obviously incompetent cards like Scout, and by extension all cards, were playtested.

[popsofctown]

I don't know.  I think it's worth snipping the little bit of complexity.

I feel like if you've crafted a deck that flips Remakes off the top, it doesn't matter much whether you forceplay it and trash a gold and a silver, or toss it in the discard pile and call the whole ordeal a 4$ cursed Great Hall.  I think you lost either way.


The card is already weak, so making its nombos only half nombos isn't going to make the card more buyable on more boards, because any amount of nombosity is going to turn the decision tree into "Nope, I'm not buying Heralds at all here" or, more rarely, "nope, I'm not buying any mandatory trashers that might upset my Heralds here".

When you look at specific cards it's even more implausible that the three letter word may is going to help out.  Trading Post?  There's no way Herald is going to work out in a deck full of Silvers.  Remake?  Remake is way too fast for Heralds, and tends to shred the total $ amount remaining in deck total, making Herald less viable than Conspirator or even Market stacks that at least add 1$ to your total deck coinage.  (Ok, Market is extreme, but you get the idea, there will be something better.  Even Village/Smithy/Gold deck)

Single target mandatory trashers aren't going to hit the hand hard enough to cause a problem.  You'll find something to trash.  Hey you can even just trash a Herald without decreasing the total amount of coin remaining in your deck.  It's like my posts in this thread have a recurring theme or something.

Well that's my opinion.  Maybe I'll have egg on my face later

[NoMoreFun]

Unlike with Golem, trashers (should) have a very positive synergy, as thinning your deck is a good way to increase your density of actions. The fact your trasher could backfire on you lets that down a bit, and not in an interesting way. Why should Steward be safe but Remake be risky, other than alliteration? Being forced to trash good card into other cards or nothing is much, much worse than having a "dead" card in your next hand, as I'm sure everyone would think when this situation pops up.

I'm more annoyed about nomboing with top deckers like Spy. Donald X "fixed" Wishing Well with Mystic, then made the same mistake with another card in the next expansion. Ironmonger is fine because it always gives you some effect, but it's annoying when the difference between a powerful effect and nothing comes down to luck.

[shMerker]

Steward is generally a safer card than Remake. Take Heralds and Golems out of the equation and look at them again. Whenever your Steward comes up you only don't play it if you need that action for something more important. When the remake comes up you take a look over your hand and decide whether it really benefits you to play it. When you buy it you're consigning yourself to later having a card that later is a lot more likely to be dead weight. The auto-play cards are just intensifying a contrast that's already there.

[NoMoreFun]

Steward is generally a safer card than Remake. Take Heralds and Golems out of the equation and look at them again. Whenever your Steward comes up you only don't play it if you need that action for something more important. When the remake comes up you take a look over your hand and decide whether it really benefits you to play it. When you buy it you're consigning yourself to later having a card that later is a lot more likely to be dead weight. The auto-play cards are just intensifying a contrast that's already there.

The only problem is that the consequence is making the remake a "dead" card. However saying that herald is a "dead" card is not quite right; more than likely playing it will give you a card and could possibly give you an additional benefit. The probability of it backfiring is so low it won't enter most players heads when they play the card, which will make it hurt a lot more when it backfires.

It won't quite feel as bad as being forced to trash a good card with lookout when you still have plenty of bad cards in your deck, but  2 words and an extra click per play online is worth stopping the rage.

[Kirian]

I'm not feeling the hate, NMF.  Golem is an extremely risky buy if there are mandatory trashers in your deck.  Herald is a similarly risky choice in that situation.  Meanwhile, Ambassador is a risky choice with Possession on the board, and I'm sure we could cone up with many other such risky plays.

Sure, the on-play ability is weak, much like Inn or Watchtower.  I think the overbuy ability is the major reason to buy this, and the on-play ability is a bonus, sometimes a bigger one, sometimes a really awful one.  There are plenty of such examples; you don't buy Scrying Pool for its attack, you don't buy Watchtower for its Moat-like draw except on specific boards, you don't pull the mask off the ol' Lone Ranger, and you don't buy Herald for its on-play effect.