Print

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

[DG]

Aprrentice a Gold and Rogue it back from the trash is a 3-card "Combo" that is terminal and gives only
+3 Cards (6-3)
-$1 (you loose $3 from the Gold, unless you draw it back).

You've double counted the lost gold as -1 card and -3 coins.

[Warfreak2]

Apprentice/Rogue isn't much of a combo; more of a synergy. Anyway, Gold is always available so it's a bit strange to call it a three-card combo.

[soulnet]

Apprentice/Rogue isn't much of a combo; more of a synergy. Anyway, Gold is always available so it's a bit strange to call it a three-card combo.

I meant it in the sense that you need to get 3 cards in your hand in the appropiate time. I guess finding Rogue after drawing with Apprentice is not that difficult.

[flies]

other gold-gainers are probably better, in any case.

[Warfreak2]

Given that Rogue is in the kingdom, though, Rogue has the advantage of not leaving Golds in the trash for your opponent to gain.

[Titandrake]

Here's a log where I think Rogue was important

http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20130929/log.515524b2e4b0764388148f53.1380489553657.txt

Ghost Ship slows down the game alot. There's Lookout for trashing and Ironmongers for +Action, both of which semi-counter Ghost Ship. Rogue is important both as a source of money and as a way to contest Ironmongers after they run out. This log also shows a use for Graverobber over Rogue, or in particular the trashing gives Mike Harris a couple Provinces that give the win.

Rogue isn't a Knight, it's supposed to be a delayed card stealer, so you ideally need similar decks or at least lots of +Actions to make it work right.

[LastFootnote]

I recently had a game where my opponent created an engine out of Wandering Minstrels and Rogues. I was shocked at how quickly it tore my deck apart. Rogue is not Saboteur! You can play three of them in a turn and still buy something awesome.

[TheMirrorMan]

A few important things I believe to note on Rogue :

* In a slog, it is plain out useless (you get way too many -$3 cards that do nothing).
* The other way around - when the opponent is going for rush (i.e. heavy trashing happening), Rogue is very helpful.
* Rebuild - rogue is indeed a great combination - no need to be buying those extra duchies, just pick them up again from the trash.
* Feast and Rogue can be good or bad, depending on the situation. If you've got an engine going, Rogue can come in handy to pick up the feast and consequently pick up a new (non-terminal) engine part again. If the deck is full of terminals, it would be best to ignore the Rogue if Feast was played ...

[BadAssMutha]

Rogue is a weird card that's almost a combination of two other weird cards - Dame Sylvia and Graverobber. When it attacks, Rogue plays exactly like Dame Sylvia (except it can't get trashed itself). When it doesn't attack, it plays like a weak Graverobber, in that it doesn't top-deck, and you have no in-hand option.

Dame Sylvia is usually a pretty decent card; the +$2 means it won't slow down your economy much. The attack is worthwhile if you can actually hit good cards with it. So here, Rogue synergizes with deck-inspection much like the knights do.

The limited Graverobber option can be useful, but as has been pointed out, only if there's good cards in the trash. Rogue is helped by trash-for-benefit, which can put cards in the $3 to $6 range in the trash for your taking. Keep in mind that Rogue is likely more often a Graverobber than a Dame Sylvia - it only attacks if there are NO cards between $3 and $6 in the trash. Every successful Rogue attack is followed by a non-attack play (unless there's an actual Graverobber in play, or cost-reduction shenanigans), and if there's other trashers on the board, the trash will fill up even faster than you can empty it.

All in all, I think Rogue plays like the other deck-destruction cards - worthwhile if you can play them often and consistently. Other attacks that let you "steal" cards (Noble Brigand, Theif) do so in one swift play, but it take two Rogues to successfully convert an opponent's card - a bit slow if you have grand ideas of stealing your opponent's deck.

[Awaclus]

When it doesn't attack, it plays like a weak Graverobber, in that it doesn't top-deck, and you have no in-hand option.

I'd argue that +$2 is stronger than topdecking the card most of the time.

[terminalCopper]

When it doesn't attack, it plays like a weak Graverobber, in that it doesn't top-deck, and you have no in-hand option.

I'd argue that +$2 is stronger than topdecking the card most of the time.

I agree with Awaclus. Topdecking doesn't give a supplementary card, it just replaces an average card. The difference between a topdecked card gained by Graverobber -worth 3$ to 6$- and an average card is almost never higher than $2. Furthermore, +$2 right now is stronger than in the next move.

[terminalCopper]

I think, if you only look at the average strength of a card, Rogue would be pretty decent. Unfortunately, the unreliability is sometimes painful.
Btw, Tribute and Steward also show that average power is not a very good criterium. Tribute would be a Top-Card, Steward would be simply awful.

[pingpongsam]

Rogue is one of the better terminal Silvers for a Rebuild deck - it costs $5, so you always want to buy Rebuild over it, but you prefer at least the first Rogue over Duchy simply because you get the Duchy when you play it the first time. You'll never attack your opponent with it, though - the trash will always have Duchies.

Maybe, my straregy in a Rebuild game is always to choke off the supply of Duchies. If the Duchy keeps coming from the Trash pile instead of supply the strategy fails to prevent the opponent from doing the same.

[BadAssMutha]

The difference between a topdecked card gained by Graverobber -worth 3$ to 6$- and an average card is almost never higher than $2.

I disagree with that. With no trashing, in most games I'd say at least 1/3 of your deck is usually copper/estate. The difference between a topdecked card and what's already on top is frequently much more than $2.  At any rate, you're probably right that the +$2 is worth more than topdecking, but I'm not totally sure. By the time you're gaining good cards out of the trash, you should be getting $4-$5 each turn anyway, so the +$2 may not be critical at that point. I think that +$1 would be worse than topdecking the gained card, so it makes me wonder about +$2. The key with topdecking is that you don't replace anything, you (possibly) get an extra play out of the gained card before the shuffle. Especially important in large decks and slow games.

[terminalCopper]

The key with topdecking is that you don't replace anything,

I don't understand this. Instead of drawing 5 cards, say ABCDE, you will draw the topdecked card plus ABCD. Thus, you have replaced the fifth card (E) with the topdecked card, right?

To compare them:

1.) In general, E has an average value above 1$ (Copper)
2.) Cards gained by Graverobber/Rogue virtually never have an average value beyond 3$ (Gold)
3.) Thus, the average difference between a topdecked card and the replaced one is almost never above 3$-1$ = 2$.

Which of these points don't you agree with, BadAssMutha?

[Awaclus]

The difference between a topdecked card gained by Graverobber -worth 3$ to 6$- and an average card is almost never higher than $2.

I disagree with that. With no trashing, in most games I'd say at least 1/3 of your deck is usually copper/estate. The difference between a topdecked card and what's already on top is frequently much more than $2.  At any rate, you're probably right that the +$2 is worth more than topdecking, but I'm not totally sure. By the time you're gaining good cards out of the trash, you should be getting $4-$5 each turn anyway, so the +$2 may not be critical at that point. I think that +$1 would be worse than topdecking the gained card, so it makes me wonder about +$2. The key with topdecking is that you don't replace anything, you (possibly) get an extra play out of the gained card before the shuffle. Especially important in large decks and slow games.

How often do you avoid playing Watchtower just to have it in your hand so that you can reveal it for topdecking your bought card? Considering that Watchtower draws actions dead a lot of time, it's not that much better than just plain +$2, so it's a pretty good comparison.

[BadAssMutha]

I don't understand this. Instead of drawing 5 cards, say ABCDE, you will draw the topdecked card plus ABCD. Thus, you have replaced the fifth card (E) with the topdecked card, right?

To compare them:

1.) In general, E has an average value above 1$ (Copper)
2.) Cards gained by Graverobber/Rogue virtually never have an average value beyond 3$ (Gold)
3.) Thus, the average difference between a topdecked card and the replaced one is almost never above 3$-1$ = 2$.

Which of these points don't you agree with, BadAssMutha?

Whoops, I thought we were talking about cost of the card, not the $ it gives you (topdecking a $3-$6 card vs. a $0 cost copper). I see now, Rogue can get you $2 now vs. Graverobber topdecking an extra $1 or so to spend next turn. At any rate, topdecking is a little different than just replacing the top card, which is what Sea Hag does. Topdecking any cantrip or Lab variant gives you the same 5 card hand you would have had anyway, plus a bonus (extra card, cash, whatever). I look at gained cards in terms of how many plays per shuffle I can get - topdecking boosts that number a little. Sometimes an extra action play can make all the difference.

After thinking about it some more, I see that topdecking does have its limits. You only get one extra play out of the topdecked card. Topdecking at the end of a shuffle may not even have any effect (you could have drawn that card anyway).

How often do you avoid playing Watchtower just to have it in your hand so that you can reveal it for topdecking your bought card? Considering that Watchtower draws actions dead a lot of time, it's not that much better than just plain +$2, so it's a pretty good comparison.

Quite often. If I can already buy what I need, certainly. Sometimes I'll hang onto it with $4 if it's only going to draw one card. Like I said, I think I'd "pay" $1 for topdecking, but $2 might be too much. I guess this is why Royal Seal works as almost a Gold with  -$1 and topdecking. Rogue's +$2 > Graverobber's topdecking.

[terminalCopper]

The existence of Royal Seal makes me think that topdecking is worth less than 1$ (in average). Otherwise its added benefits would be 3$, and it should cost 6$ like gold does. But it costs 5$, and it even isn't a very popular $5 card.

[dondon151]

You have to remember, though, that because Royal Seal is a Treasure card, its topdecking effect is limited to the buy phase (with the exception of a combo with Black Market). I would say that Watchtower's topdecking is more valuable than Royal Seal's topdecking, even though they're worded in much the same way.

[SCSN]

You have to remember, though, that because Royal Seal is a Treasure card, its topdecking effect is limited to the buy phase (with the exception of a combo with Black Market). I would say that Watchtower's topdecking is more valuable than Royal Seal's topdecking, even though they're worded in much the same way.

This.

The value of an effect cannot be evaluated independent from the card that features it and the context in which it will be used. You can't just say things like "a +buy is worth X"; adding a +buy to Bank would make the card a lot stronger, while adding it to Remake would be quite inconsequential.