Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 31  All

Author Topic: WW's Power Rankings  (Read 235251 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3296
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4442
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #175 on: July 05, 2013, 09:43:06 am »
0

In my oppinion the biggest drawback of Loan is the risk of skipping your key cards.

I would personally say that hitting non-Copper Treasures is Loan's biggest drawback. Sometimes you have no choice but to get a Silver to reach $5 in kingdoms with Loan, and when your Loan hits your Silver, that's just bad in every way.

Isn't that an example of skipping your key card, then?
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3296
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4442
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #176 on: July 05, 2013, 09:44:05 am »
0

Let's say you open Sea Hag/Loan for some reason.

I'd do that so as do discard any junk cards that might somehow be left on top of my deck, no?
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5460
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #177 on: July 05, 2013, 10:18:45 am »
+2

In my oppinion the biggest drawback of Loan is the risk of skipping your key cards.

I would personally say that hitting non-Copper Treasures is Loan's biggest drawback. Sometimes you have no choice but to get a Silver to reach $5 in kingdoms with Loan, and when your Loan hits your Silver, that's just bad in every way.

Isn't that an example of skipping your key card, then?

It's worse, because you don't get to trash a Copper either.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

HiveMindEmulator

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • Respect: +2118
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #178 on: July 05, 2013, 12:21:09 pm »
+1

181. Haven:
This one I agree with you, but I decided to write something anyway just to clarify the argument. Haven has 2 uses, in my mind: (1) if you can overdraw your deck, you can save a Scrying Pool or Village or whatever for next turn to add reliability, and (2) it lets you play cards that need to line up with other cards (like Coppersmith or Baron) in a non-engine deck.

There is a very common third use, which is smoothing out money in the late game.  Play Haven, realise you now have 10 money, stash a Silver, almost certainly buying a Province next turn as well.  Or a slightly different scenario, play Haven, find you've hit the dreaded 7, stash a Silver and buy either a Duchy or (if it seems a shrewder move) a different 5-cost card.  This has got me out of trouble plenty of times and makes it very worthy for something that only costs 2.  I think it's pretty incredible that Haven is listed below Vagrant.

The problem is that in a money deck, you'd usually rather have Silver, so you only get Haven when you happen to hit $2, which is not often enough for this to be worth much in terms of it's overall value. But I do agree with you that it's probably better than Vagrant.

While Graverobber is no power card, it's much better than the much too high ranked Rogue.
The games where Rogue is decent to good is the gain-from-the-trash ability. I rarely had a game where the attack was crucial.
Rogue gives you +2$, but being able to expand Action cards is a huge bonus over Rogue most of the times.
I can't find myself agreeing with this evaluation. If it's gaining, it's usually at least an explorer, though not much better very often. When it's attacking, it's Dame Sylvia. Okay, she's maybe not the best knight, but knights are pretty good, generally much better than the explorer-esque card. So I don't see how it's way overrated, and I don't *think* the main bit of the value is the gaining...
The thing is, you can't look at it as either Explorer or Knight. It's usually both, and you don't get to choose. You have to gain at least as often as you attack, so if you're not going to be happy with the gaining, it's going to be bad, even if you mainly want it for the attack.
Logged

Piemaster

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
  • Respect: +170
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #179 on: July 05, 2013, 01:50:23 pm »
+1

181. Haven:
This one I agree with you, but I decided to write something anyway just to clarify the argument. Haven has 2 uses, in my mind: (1) if you can overdraw your deck, you can save a Scrying Pool or Village or whatever for next turn to add reliability, and (2) it lets you play cards that need to line up with other cards (like Coppersmith or Baron) in a non-engine deck.

There is a very common third use, which is smoothing out money in the late game.  Play Haven, realise you now have 10 money, stash a Silver, almost certainly buying a Province next turn as well.  Or a slightly different scenario, play Haven, find you've hit the dreaded 7, stash a Silver and buy either a Duchy or (if it seems a shrewder move) a different 5-cost card.  This has got me out of trouble plenty of times and makes it very worthy for something that only costs 2.  I think it's pretty incredible that Haven is listed below Vagrant.

The problem is that in a money deck, you'd usually rather have Silver, so you only get Haven when you happen to hit $2, which is not often enough for this to be worth much in terms of it's overall value. But I do agree with you that it's probably better than Vagrant.

I think it might be asking too much to expect a given $2 to be better than silver, which is a $3 card.  I guess we have been spoiled with things like Chapel and Hamlet.  Of course, there are a couple of other variables to consider:

- Although you don't hit $2 that often, there are also those times you have $2 left over with multiple buys.
- In Colony games, the benefits of money smoothing stay the same (in fact, slightly increase), whereas the power of silver is diminished.
Logged

HiveMindEmulator

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • Respect: +2118
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #180 on: July 05, 2013, 02:16:50 pm »
+3

I think it might be asking too much to expect a given $2 to be better than silver, which is a $3 card.  I guess we have been spoiled with things like Chapel and Hamlet. 
... and Fool's Gold, Lighthouse, Courtyard, Crossroads, Squire, and Embargo. And maybe to a lesser extent, Moat, Cellar, Pawn, Beggar, Herbalist.

In reality, hitting exactly $2 is a rarity except in junker games and when you have lots of buys, so the $2 cards have to be worth buying at $3+ to have real meaningful value.
Logged

DG

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4074
  • Respect: +2624
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #181 on: July 05, 2013, 02:29:39 pm »
+1

Quote
In reality, hitting exactly $2 is a rarity except in junker games and when you have lots of buys, so the $2 cards have to be worth buying at $3+ to have real meaningful value.

Not really. The chances of getting the 3 estate + 2 copper hand in either the first or second shuffle isn't so low. You've also got plenty of actions like lookout, workshop, and island that provide no coins.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4384
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #182 on: July 05, 2013, 05:17:47 pm »
+1

148.   Workshop
It works in rushes. It works moreso in gaining cheap engine components. But it has a big drawback in being terminal. Still, it's often solid enough, and sometimes a big game-changer.

147.   Urchin (Mercenary)
This card can be a game-changer, too, but... well, it takes a while to get these to connect with something, unless you already have strong trashing, in which case mercenary is way less than stellar. Actually, some combination of other trashing and other discard attacks just obsoletes this in general, especially since you are just going to run out of fuel. It hurts a lot that you have to trash before discarding. Urchin itself isn't the worst, though, and would make a reasonable 2-cost, I think.

146.   Trader
As a trasher, it's really the very worst. As a silver-flooder, it's okay, but not the best thing ever, and silver-flooders aren't usually the greatest. Its best use by far is as a defense against junkers, but even here, you have to connect it to their attack, and after a while, your deck gets bigger, and this is harder to do...

145.   Lookout
This card gives decent trashing, and it's non-terminal no less, but there are a few significant drawbacks. You can't hit stuff in hand, which is bad for maintaining a thin deck which is, say, getting hit by cursers after you have an engine up. It's slow to get off the ground, providing no economy. And it's really risky to play later on, as you might hit something you want; this last bit, combined with it's one-card-at-a-time-ness, make it hard to quickly and effectively get as thin as you'd really like. Oftentimes, you could just build the engine better by grabbing components from the get-go. Okay, still non-terminal trashing isn't bad.

144.   Merchant Guild
Another new card I'm quite possibly way off on. But this does seem to really compare to Bridge. And while, okay, coin tokens are pretty good, the drawbacks aren't totally insignificant either - most notably, it needs to go over a few turns. True enough, being able to play a few of these consistently just seals a game, but especially at $5, this takes a while. I have a feeling this card specializes in setting up not a single mega-turn, but more a 2-4 turn spurt.

143.   Beggar
This card is excellent in slogs, t also works really well with counting house and has a couple other nice synergies. Otherwise... well, terminal gold for 2 would be pretty good, but even just so not the greatest thing ever (you can see I'm not super high on +coins as a benefit...), and having to gain coppers is (barring slogs) just a big drawback. Has some use in BM, but very limited. Okay, then there's the reaction. I don't really get it, thematically or mechanically. And power-wise... well, it doesn't seem consistent enough to get beggars just for it, and in a situation where you want it anyway, do you really want to forego playing it this turn? I guess sometimes yes.

142.   Walled Village
A Village! You know, this is pretty tough. Would village for $4 be that bad? I don't think it really would, right? Well, it's worse than this, obviously. And probably a while back, this would have been a top-half card. But as a number of other villages have come out, this gets slotted worse and worse, by a little bit, as there are just other villages that I will usually prefer, and this just gets knocked down. Okay, this is still the only village reasonably often, and that means it's not terrible, and there are even many situations now where I would prefer it to other villages... but still a small minority.

141.   Scavenger
People compare this to Chancellor, but I don't think that's really the main thrust of the card. Sure, it can be chancellor-with-a-plus. But the plus is big! You get to set up your next turn with the best card in your deck (or sometimes even this turn!) And it can be a lot better than chancellor toward the middle of your shuffle, where not using the discard ability can be very powerful, either to just get lots of extra plays on a key card, or because you have pretty good ideas as to what's being set up.

140.   Golem
Essentially +2 cards +2 actions where the cards are guaranteed to be actions. For sure that is a powerful effect. The problem is definitely that 1) you don't know what you'll hit; 2)doesn't work well when already drawing deck; 3) most important, it costs quite a lot. 4p is too expensive to count on getting in the first shuffle, and getting the potion later can be awkward. Well, it's still a great card to have, but once again (similar to alchemist in a way) you can often skip it.

139.   Procession
Throne with a twist... I like it less than throne. Maybe this is wrong and biased of me (I don't like getting rid of my *good* cards, I gained those on purpose man), but I think it is a little worse. Obviously has good uses if there's a great chain of actions up the food chain, and it can get rid of say ruins, but it's not something you want to be using on payloads very often, and that's often what I like my TR to be able to do, particularly since TR is not the best village for setting drawing up (you need to TR TR or have another village, else you run out of actions)

138.   Smugglers
This gets the nod over workshop for me, just because you can gain 5s and 6s. Okay, there is the drawback that their cards need to be useful for you, but... either they are playing a markedly worse strategy, in which case you're fine anyway, or you are reasonably close to a mirror. Okay, this can also do nothing (they buy something too expensive), but this mostly happens against big money, where this is indeed terrible. But BM isn't so common anymore. For sure this has spots where it's nothing, but it's often pretty darn good.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2013, 05:31:08 pm by WanderingWinder »
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4384
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #183 on: July 05, 2013, 05:21:28 pm »
+1

Quote
In reality, hitting exactly $2 is a rarity except in junker games and when you have lots of buys, so the $2 cards have to be worth buying at $3+ to have real meaningful value.

Not really. The chances of getting the 3 estate + 2 copper hand in either the first or second shuffle isn't so low. You've also got plenty of actions like lookout, workshop, and island that provide no coins.
Also with 2 card trashers early in the game - steward, ambassador, remake... And it needs mentioning that a main use of 2s is often with spare buys, or just like $4 and 2 buys. Still, I feel like 2s often need to compete with 3s, if not all the time.

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2816
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3349
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #184 on: July 05, 2013, 05:29:11 pm »
+1

146.   Trader

I'm not sure I agree with your arguments for this placement.

Quote
141.   Scavenger
People compare this to Chancellor, but I don't think that's really the main thrust of the card. Sure, it can be chancellor-with-a-plus. But the plus is big! You get to set up your next turn with the best card in your deck (or sometimes even this turn!) And it can be a lot better than chancellor toward the middle of your shuffle, where not using the discard ability can be very powerful, either to just get lots of extra plays on a key card, or because you have pretty good ideas as to what's being set up.

This sounds awfully positive for a card that's barely out of the bottom quarter. Why isn't it higher?
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4384
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #185 on: July 05, 2013, 05:33:06 pm »
0

146.   Trader

I'm not sure I agree with your arguments for this placement.
Whoops. Fixed.

Quote
Quote
141.   Scavenger
People compare this to Chancellor, but I don't think that's really the main thrust of the card. Sure, it can be chancellor-with-a-plus. But the plus is big! You get to set up your next turn with the best card in your deck (or sometimes even this turn!) And it can be a lot better than chancellor toward the middle of your shuffle, where not using the discard ability can be very powerful, either to just get lots of extra plays on a key card, or because you have pretty good ideas as to what's being set up.

This sounds awfully positive for a card that's barely out of the bottom quarter. Why isn't it higher?
Because I'm not trying to give the whole picture of the card in these blurbs. It's still only a terminal-silver with a benefit, and a delayed one, if reasonably nice. Also, not the nicest benefit ever, as getting the card you want is nice, but hopefully I will get to that anyway....

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #186 on: July 05, 2013, 05:50:02 pm »
0

Intuitively, shouldn't most of the $4 villages be grouped up close together?  They're all pretty close in power, I think.  I mean, they all have their individual uses, but on many boards, Fortress, Walled Village and Worker's Village are all fairly interchangeable.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4384
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #187 on: July 05, 2013, 05:54:10 pm »
0

Intuitively, shouldn't most of the $4 villages be grouped up close together?  They're all pretty close in power, I think.  I mean, they all have their individual uses, but on many boards, Fortress, Walled Village and Worker's Village are all fairly interchangeable.
Depends on your definition of relatively close. You can look forward to the next few soon, anyway

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2816
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3349
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #188 on: July 05, 2013, 06:36:15 pm »
+4

Intuitively, shouldn't most of the $4 villages be grouped up close together?  They're all pretty close in power, I think.  I mean, they all have their individual uses, but on many boards, Fortress, Walled Village and Worker's Village are all fairly interchangeable.

I'd say Worker's Village is a big jump up in value. Often, it's an expensive village, but as a source of +buys and +actions, it covers two important aspects of an engine on it's own, and that makes it a key piece in many engines, and makes an engine much more viable on more boards than any other $4 village, I'd say.
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #189 on: July 05, 2013, 07:12:44 pm »
0

Intuitively, shouldn't most of the $4 villages be grouped up close together?  They're all pretty close in power, I think.  I mean, they all have their individual uses, but on many boards, Fortress, Walled Village and Worker's Village are all fairly interchangeable.

I mostly agree with this, but also feel that Walled Village has gotten too much of a bad rap lately. Sure, it's the weakest of the $4 villages, and probably the worst village. But, at $4 you are almost never unable to get it when you can get a vanilla Village. I have a hard time saying it's significantly worse than Village, especially since you can sometimes make use of its extra ability. If Village comes significantly further down the list, I will be disappointed.
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #190 on: July 05, 2013, 08:02:34 pm »
0

But, at $4 you are almost never unable to get it when you can get a vanilla Village.

This is actually not true at all. But I agree with everything else.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #191 on: July 05, 2013, 08:52:00 pm »
+8

Intuitively, shouldn't most of the $4 villages be grouped up close together?  They're all pretty close in power, I think.  I mean, they all have their individual uses, but on many boards, Fortress, Walled Village and Worker's Village are all fairly interchangeable.

I mostly agree with this, but also feel that Walled Village has gotten too much of a bad rap lately. Sure, it's the weakest of the $4 villages, and probably the worst village. But, at $4 you are almost never unable to get it when you can get a vanilla Village. I have a hard time saying it's significantly worse than Village, especially since you can sometimes make use of its extra ability. If Village comes significantly further down the list, I will be disappointed.

Don't forget that Walled Village only works if you have a Google+ account.  That alone bumps it down a bit.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #192 on: July 05, 2013, 09:00:54 pm »
+7

Intuitively, shouldn't most of the $4 villages be grouped up close together?  They're all pretty close in power, I think.  I mean, they all have their individual uses, but on many boards, Fortress, Walled Village and Worker's Village are all fairly interchangeable.

I mostly agree with this, but also feel that Walled Village has gotten too much of a bad rap lately. Sure, it's the weakest of the $4 villages, and probably the worst village. But, at $4 you are almost never unable to get it when you can get a vanilla Village. I have a hard time saying it's significantly worse than Village, especially since you can sometimes make use of its extra ability. If Village comes significantly further down the list, I will be disappointed.

Don't forget that Walled Village only works if you have a Google+ account.  That alone bumps it down a bit.

It would be hilarious if Walled Village really did nothing unless you had a Google+ account.
Logged

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2644
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3391
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #193 on: July 05, 2013, 10:32:11 pm »
+1

Intuitively, shouldn't most of the $4 villages be grouped up close together?  They're all pretty close in power, I think.  I mean, they all have their individual uses, but on many boards, Fortress, Walled Village and Worker's Village are all fairly interchangeable.

Oh. How can you think this, Mr. Expert Card Designer? I say it's Walled Village, more-than-slight jump Mining Village, more-than-slight jump Fortress, substantial jump Farming Village, huge jump Worker's Village, huge jump Plaza, slight jump Wandering Minstrel.
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

dominator 123

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • Shuffle iT Username: dominator 123
  • Notice the space
  • Respect: +369
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #194 on: July 06, 2013, 08:38:46 am »
0

This is a thread in which I am going to give a comprehensive ranking of all the kingdom cards in Dominion. I don't want this to be seen in any way as trying to degrade Qvist's rankings. Indeed, that is one of my favorite projects on this site. Yet I am still doing this - what's the difference? There are a few key differences: This is purely my own rankings, not composited with other people; this is purely for the 2-player version of the game; this includes all price points into a single comprehensive list; I'm only looking at pure random setups with all cards. I will also probably not have such detailed descriptions on each card. Anyway, on to the list!


1.   
2.   
3.   
...
159.   Woodcutter
...
176.   Nomad Camp
...
203.   Feast
204.   Adventurer
205.   Scout

Links to descriptions/Explanations: Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
Are you seriously putting woodcutter above nomad camp?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2013, 08:43:11 am by dominator 123 »
Logged
"Strictly Better" compares only effects and not cost, change my mind

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4384
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #195 on: July 06, 2013, 08:43:19 am »
0

This is a thread in which I am going to give a comprehensive ranking of all the kingdom cards in Dominion. I don't want this to be seen in any way as trying to degrade Qvist's rankings. Indeed, that is one of my favorite projects on this site. Yet I am still doing this - what's the difference? There are a few key differences: This is purely my own rankings, not composited with other people; this is purely for the 2-player version of the game; this includes all price points into a single comprehensive list; I'm only looking at pure random setups with all cards. I will also probably not have such detailed descriptions on each card. Anyway, on to the list!


1.   
2.   
3.   
...
159.   Woodcutter
...
176.   Nomad Camp
...
203.   Feast
204.   Adventurer
205.   Scout

Links to descriptions/Explanations: Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
I explain this in my blurb for NC.

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5460
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #196 on: July 06, 2013, 09:23:49 am »
0

Intuitively, shouldn't most of the $4 villages be grouped up close together?  They're all pretty close in power, I think.  I mean, they all have their individual uses, but on many boards, Fortress, Walled Village and Worker's Village are all fairly interchangeable.

I mostly agree with this, but also feel that Walled Village has gotten too much of a bad rap lately. Sure, it's the weakest of the $4 villages, and probably the worst village. But, at $4 you are almost never unable to get it when you can get a vanilla Village. I have a hard time saying it's significantly worse than Village, especially since you can sometimes make use of its extra ability. If Village comes significantly further down the list, I will be disappointed.

Don't forget that Walled Village only works if you have a Google+ account.  That alone bumps it down a bit.

It would be hilarious if Walled Village really did nothing unless you had a Google+ account.

That's why it's the only promo I haven't bought from the BGG store.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3846
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +2437
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #197 on: July 06, 2013, 11:03:02 am »
0

I don't get the whole Google+ thing. What happens if you try to get it without a Google+ account? Is logging in with a Gmail account supposed to be enough? I actually got the card, but barely remember setting up a Google+ account.
Logged

HiveMindEmulator

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • Respect: +2118
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #198 on: July 06, 2013, 12:03:10 pm »
0

Intuitively, shouldn't most of the $4 villages be grouped up close together?  They're all pretty close in power, I think.  I mean, they all have their individual uses, but on many boards, Fortress, Walled Village and Worker's Village are all fairly interchangeable.

Oh. How can you think this, Mr. Expert Card Designer? I say it's Walled Village, more-than-slight jump Mining Village, more-than-slight jump Fortress, substantial jump Farming Village, huge jump Worker's Village, huge jump Plaza, slight jump Wandering Minstrel.

What do you mean by "jump"? If a slight jump is ~5 cards, your $4 villages are going to be spread over like 50+ cards. It seems like it would be difficult to find that many cards to squeeze between them in value.

Additionally, I don't agree with your ordering of them. Farming ~= Walled, and Worker's is the best. Seems like you're over-valuing what they do with VP cards or curses in your deck (where Farming and Wandering are stronger).
Logged

Just a Rube

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 197
  • Respect: +385
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #199 on: July 06, 2013, 12:11:23 pm »
+3

It would be hilarious if Walled Village really did nothing unless you had a Google+ account.
Walled Village $4

You may reveal a Google+ account. If you do:
+1 Card
+2 Actions
At the start of Clean-up, if you have this and no more than one other Action card in play, you may put this on top of your deck.'
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 31  All
 

Page created in 0.196 seconds with 21 queries.