Print

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

[XerxesPraelor]

I need help finding edge-cases for my simulator and figured you guys could help.

When would you not want to top-deck an alchemist?

[GendoIkari]

You expect your opponent to play Minion.

[AJD]

You expect your opponent to play Minion.

...Or Masquerade, if you have enough Alchemists.

[Powerman]

If you have more than 5, and your opponent plays a top deck attack.

[Mic Qsenoch]

If you think your opponent will Possess you.

[lespeutere]

Maybe even when you know you would trigger a reshuffle by one card and your only potion is already in your discard pile, while you could otherwise buy a second potion and stabilise the chain. It depends heavily on the number of alchemists, importance of next turn vs. next shuffle etc., though.

[Awaclus]

When you don't have a Potion in play.

[florrat]

Edges cases wanted?

*You have 4 alchemists in play, an empty deck (but a non-empty discard pile) and you suspect that your opponent will play a militia next turn. In that case you might want to just put 3 alchemists back, because then - at the beginning of your next turn - your fourth alchemist will be in your deck instead of your discard pile.

*The current turn is a possession turn (and the next one will be the normal turn).

*You also have Scrying Pools, and you want as much non-actions in your hand as possible, because you're going to draw all actions more easily with scrying pool in that case. Or something similar with Herald.

*You want a specific other card in you hand. For example a curse to discard to opponent's mountebank, a province to reveal to opponent's tournament, a bane to reveal to opponent's YW, a crappy card in hand to trash to your opponent's Bishop, or any reaction card.

* You want to play other actions before you Alchemist chain. For example, Fishing Village + Library or Menagerie. Maybe you know these cards are on the top of your deck.

[SCSN]

You want to hit them with Golem.

[Warfreak2]

You want to buy a Mint without trashing your Potion.

[sudgy]

You want to buy a Mint without trashing your Potion.

Wait, Mine doesn't trash potions on buy...

Seriously, though, he was talking about when you have potion in play, this is for a simulator.

[Warfreak2]

Strategically there isn't any difference (except when buying Mint or gaining Mandarin) between not playing the Potion and directly declining to topdeck the Alchemists. The decision has to be made at the same time, I don't see why it matters that it's a simulator.

[ftl]

Strategically there isn't any difference (except when buying Mint or gaining Mandarin) between not playing the Potion and directly declining to topdeck the Alchemists. The decision has to be made at the same time, I don't see why it matters that it's a simulator.

Except when buying Mint, Mandarin, or cards with Potion in the cost. Like Alchemist.

[Warfreak2]

Obviously, but if we're buying an Alchemist and don't want to trash our Potion, then we aren't buying a Mint. (Unless we also gain a Mandarin!)

[DG]

Masquerade - don't want to pass a card from 5 alchemists
Golems/heralds - giving cards to dig for
Swindlers/Saboteur/Tribute etc - don't want alchemist on the draw deck
Scheme/Herbalist cards might want to go onto the draw deck in preference to alchemist
Stash - prefer an immediate reshuffle to get 4 stash in hand
Possession - you'd rather spread your cards through the deck
Minions - you'd rather spread your cards through the deck
Militia - rather only 3 alchemists in hand and the rest can be in the shuffled immediately
Bishop/Governor - want a trashing opportunity from your opponent
Moat/Secret chamber - might prefer known cards in hand rather than another alchemist

Looks like a few of those have been posted already. I'm guessing there are plenty more reasons too.

[flies]

defense against knights.

[Awaclus]

defense against knights.

Knights can't trash Alchemists.

[Schneau]

defense against knights.

Knights can't trash Alchemists.

Exactly. So they're a better defense against Knights if they're not in your hand.

[Awaclus]

defense against knights.

Knights can't trash Alchemists.

Exactly. So they're a better defense against Knights if they're not in your hand.

Oh. I was thinking you had more than 5.

[achmed_sender]

defense against knights.

Knights can't trash Alchemists.

Exactly. So they're a better defense against Knights if they're not in your hand.

Oh. I was thinking you had more than 5.

It's still not the right play to let the opponent hit your alchemists in about half of the situations. If you let your opponent hit alchemist by not topdecking it (or topdecking it if you have more than 5), the knight will probably hit alchemist/power card where he could have hit power card/silver or something. Alchemists are good against knights because they can't be trashed by them, but this doesn't always mean you want to make your opponent's knights hit these.

[flies]

It's still not the right play to let the opponent hit your alchemists in about half of the situations. If you let your opponent hit alchemist by not topdecking it (or topdecking it if you have more than 5), the knight will probably hit alchemist/power card where he could have hit power card/silver or something. Alchemists are good against knights because they can't be trashed by them, but this doesn't always mean you want to make your opponent's knights hit these.

So what are the edge cases where you'd prefer not to top-deck your alchemists as defense against knights?

[achmed_sender]

If you have more than 5 alchemists: You want that the knights hit a specific card (cards that became bad like Moneylender/Sea Hag or cards like Sir Vander, Fortress or Rats)
Less than 5 alchemists: No reason (except for the discarding attack of  me Sir Micheal, if you have more than 3 alchemists)

[popsofctown]

Top of deck inspection attacks matter for more than 5 alchemists.

[manthos88]

defense against knights.

Knights can't trash Alchemists.

The Knights cards state: "Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a card costing from (3) to (6) Coins and discards the rest."

According to the Alchemy rulebook, a card that costs [(X) Coins + Potion] costs higher than a card that costs (X) Coins but lower than a card that costs (X+1) Coins.
So, Alchemist costs more than (3), but less than (4) Coins, which is within trashing cost-range of the Knights.

I don't see why Alchemist can't be trashed by the Knights...

[Awaclus]

According to the Alchemy rulebook, a card that costs [(X) Coins + Potion] costs higher than a card that costs (X) Coins but lower than a card that costs (X+1) Coins.

No, that is not what the Alchemy rulebook says. This is what it says:

"References to a cost range in coins does not include cards with P in the cost.

Example: a card that refers to cards costing 'from 3 to 6' would mean cards costing exactly 3, 4, 5, or 6. No cards published so far use this phrasing, but if one does in a later expansion, the range will not include cards with P in the cost."