Print

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

[Count Grishnakh]

I've played quite a few games on GOKO and my nomination for most underused card is....

1. WATCHTOWER.. bar none..

For only $3, this swiss army knife of a card has so many applications, it's easy to overlook how useful this card is

-Draw to 6 (Almost as good as library)
-Top decking is more useful than people think it is, and an oft overlooked mechanic
-Very useful in engines that give a lot of actions but slowly deplete your hand size.
-It makes purely defensive strategies far more viable than people think
-COMPLETELY overlooked synergy with cards such as Marauder, soothsayer, bandit camp, iron works, University (you can top deck the spoils / gold / action card)
-Even if you don't have an extra action, you can keep it and it can act as a royal seal.


Here's the best example I can give of how Watchtower will help you in ways you wouldn't even expect:

-HAND:
-Two Universities
-One council room
-watchtower

I used the two universities two gain and top deck TWO treasure maps. Then I used the watchtower to bring them into my hand. Combined them, top decked the four gold. Played council room to bring the gold into my hand.

At that point my opponent quit.

[florrat]

Yes, Watchtower is a good card, and can do a lot of things. I think I'm (at least slightly) underusing it.

However, I think you are overselling Watchtower a bit in your post.
-I strongly disagree that draw to 6 is almost as good as library. That is like saying that the +2 Cards from Moat is just as good as Journeyman. In both cases the difference is 1 Card and some filtering.
-The topdecking is really nice, but if the only thing you did with your Watchtower was topdecking the single card you bought that turn, then you haven't got much use from it. In that scenario, usually I'd want a Copper over a Watchtower. If you buy multiple cards which you want in your hand, then using a Watchtower to set up your next turn is decent (and sometimes very good).
The topdecking synergizes with gainers, but with terminal gainers (and most gainers are terminal), you usually end up not playing your Watchtower, in which case it's pretty meh.
-The trash on-gain ability of Watchtower is good, but without decent trashing you usually can't ignore the junkers completely. Watchtower can't get rid of the junk which slipped past and is in your deck.

Your example is indeed really nice (but it is pretty specific).

[werothegreat]

How can you mention Watchtower and not Goons in the same sentence?

[Count Grishnakh]

However, I think you are overselling Watchtower a bit in your post.

-I strongly disagree that draw to 6 is almost as good as library. That is like saying that the +2 Cards from Moat is just as good as Journeyman. In both cases the difference is 1 Card and some filtering.

Duly noted. It's about 60% as good as library for 60% of the cost plus it has other functions. If you have a good engine you won't need the filtering so much


-The topdecking is really nice, but if the only thing you did with your Watchtower was topdecking the single card you bought that turn, then you haven't got much use from it.

True. This is why I call it the swiss army knife of cards. It may not be worthwhile to buy it for any one function alone, but for two or more of its applications. Try experimenting with it more often, you might find that its full array of functions can be tapped into more often than you would expect.

The topdecking synergizes with gainers, but with terminal gainers (and most gainers are terminal), you usually end up not playing your Watchtower, in which case it's pretty meh.

This all depends on how many cards you can acquire per turn, and which cards are on the table. If you can acquire two or more cards per turn (either through extra buys, or iron works) the top decking becomes much more of an asset (think top decking an ironmonger and a throne room with 4$ and an iron works.. If you can top deck these you won't lament the fact that your watchtower was left unplayed!)

-The trash on-gain ability of Watchtower is good, but without decent trashing you usually can't ignore the junkers completely. Watchtower can't get rid of the junk which slipped past and is in your deck.

I definitely wouldn't try to use watchtowers to substitute for junkers.. If a curser / marauder / cultist is out and I decide to play defensively I would use watchtower and a junker as a two pronged approach.. as I find watchtowers synergize well with junkers, as keeping your deck clean can increase the frequency with which those junkers can be played

[Count Grishnakh]

How can you mention Watchtower and not Goons in the same sentence?

That's definitely an oversight on my part. Thanks for catching that. Do you disagree or agree with OP though? What do you feel is the most under-rated / under-utilized card?

[KingZog3]

Harvest. No one uses it. 

[werothegreat]

How can you mention Watchtower and not Goons in the same sentence?

That's definitely an oversight on my part. Thanks for catching that. Do you disagree or agree with OP though? What do you feel is the most under-rated / under-utilized card?

Typically anything that's solid, getting the job done, but nothing really eye-catching.  Cards that everyone forgets about, like Explorer or Merchant Ship.  I also personally have a fondness for Pirate Ship, but I can understand the arguments for it being a weak card.

[BadAssMutha]

Harvest. No one uses it.

I think Harvest utilization is low, but I also think that's where it should be. It's not a good $5 early on, and by the time it's making you good money you should probably just buy a gold instead. When it's a terminal $1 or $2, it's terrible. Even as a terminal gold, it's pretty middling. It's tough to rely on it for +$4, and when it does show up, you wish you had a +buy with it.

As for my opinion on most underused cards, I might go with Jack of All Trades (for myself at least). I know it's highly regarded, but still I consistently find it to be a surprisingly fast strategy on a lot of boards, and often regret passing it up.

[Aidan Millow]

Most of the people I play rate watchtower where I feel it should be rated (rather highly). My baby for an underutilised card is Scout.

*Pause for Scout jokes*

I know it's a terrible card but there are games where both players decks get bogged down with green and I'm almost certain that a scout to filter some out for a turn would be better than a silver or other alternatives but people don't buy it just because it's scout.

[sudgy]

Scout.

PPE: I can't believe I got ninja'd with this.

[Count Grishnakh]

Most of the people I play rate watchtower where I feel it should be rated (rather highly). My baby for an underutilised card is Scout.

*Pause for Scout jokes*

I know it's a terrible card but there are games where both players decks get bogged down with green and I'm almost certain that a scout to filter some out for a turn would be better than a silver or other alternatives but people don't buy it just because it's scout.

I've noticed on Goko watchtower gets ignored a lot more than it should

[WanderingWinder]

Re: Watchtower: depends on who you're playing with. People here know all about the gainers synergy, particularly university (which is a very tasty combo). Is it underrated? Surely, by some people. The question is what group of people you're talking about.
I would say the defensive powers are probably a little bit underrated - you can chain watchtowers to keep yourself fairly well defended in some circumstances, but in general, the card isn't really.

60% of the cost of library is not something you want to use. Costs don't scale linearly, really almost at all. You at least have to note that they each cost 1 buy/gain apiece, but that the $$ cost is more about a limitation on when you can get them than anything else.


One thing to note about draw-to-x cards in general is that they are not all that great for engine building. (Ducks). Yes, you can make an engine with them, but the thing is that it's harder to chain them to get full benefit. If I have a 5 card hand, Watchtower draws me 2 cards. But if I've already played one, then I am going to need to play some other actions to get any draw power from the second. This sometimes means disappearing villages (or those rare non-draw non-terminals like lighthouse), but very often it means playing some non-draw terminals. And then to not draw things dead, you basically need to have more villages than you otherwise would, plus you have less choice over the priority you play your other cards in.

This is actually a pretty significant drawback.

[markusin]

Interesting. I didn't notice Watchtower being under-utilized. If anything, I imagine it to be a card new players overrate. I know I did. It's one of those cards that can provide support for a lot of strategies, but on its own it can drag you down. The Watchtower that you don't get to play can top-deck a card you get, but it could have been a silver that lets you hit $5 or $6. Still, it has so many uses.

While we're talking about under-rated/under-utilized cards...

Silk Road

I feel that new players tend to really underestimate this card. That's understandable, as it doesn't seem so impressive when you first read its text. It's similar to Gardens in games where it's the only kingdom VP card, but gets boosted by a larger variety of decks. That Provinces boost these up is a big point in its favour. Basically, any deck with longevity can take advantage of Silk Roads being in the kingdom.

When there is just one other VP card in the kingdom though, Silk Road will almost certainly come into play. It gives a huge boost to already viable sources of alt-VP. Suddenly Trader, Explorer, and Bureaucrat start looking very attractive. At the same time, it's just a load to players who weren't prepared to boost them up but try to deny their green opponent the VP. It's almost like denying Dukes when your opponent got 6 of the 8 Duchies. You're just helping the game reach a 3-pile ending.

[liopoil]

couple in-general questions about watchtower:

- Which is easier: building an engine where the main draw is watchtower, or when it's library?

- Which is better on average, watchtower's topdecking on-gain or trashing on-gain?

My guess would be that it's easier with watchtower because it's cheaper and has other bonuses... if you're building a draw-to-X engine then when you play watchtower/library you hope to only have 1 or 2 cards in hand left. The difference between +5 cards and +6 cards is much smaller than the difference between +2 cards and +3 cards.

I would also guess that the trashing is actually more potent. So many combos..... the same can be said for top-decking+drawing in the middle of the turn, but I think that's rarer.

[KingZog3]

couple in-general questions about watchtower:

- Which is easier: building an engine where the main draw is watchtower, or when it's library?

- Which is better on average, watchtower's topdecking on-gain or trashing on-gain?

My guess would be that it's easier with watchtower because it's cheaper and has other bonuses... if you're building a draw-to-X engine then when you play watchtower/library you hope to only have 1 or 2 cards in hand left. The difference between +5 cards and +6 cards is much smaller than the difference between +2 cards and +3 cards.

I would also guess that the trashing is actually more potent. So many combos..... the same can be said for top-decking+drawing in the middle of the turn, but I think that's rarer.

As WW said, a large of draw to X is that you often don't have enough actions, so you draw things dead. Library has the bonus of being able to sift through when you don't have any actions left.

[liopoil]

Well, you're going to need a village that can be spammed, preferably without a +card anyway for a watchtower/library engine to be feasible... so if you are having to play watchtower dead a lot you're doing something wrong I think. Plus you'll often want to keep a watchtower in hand for your buy phase.

[Warfreak2]

Fishing Village is the ideal one. Watchtower can enable Remodel to clear out coppers, or Stonemason to clear out estates. It also lets you Stonemason overpay without clogging up on Stonemasons, and certainly got a big power boost from all of the on-trash benefits of Dark Ages cards.

[liopoil]

the list of cards that combo with watchtower... is a long list. Probably longer than any other card.

[brokoli]

I think Harvest utilization is low, but I also think that's where it should be. It's not a good $5 early on, and by the time it's making you good money you should probably just buy a gold instead. When it's a terminal $1 or $2, it's terrible. Even as a terminal gold, it's pretty middling. It's tough to rely on it for +$4, and when it does show up, you wish you had a +buy with it.

By the time it's making good money you should probably just buy a gold instead = that's why there is a cost difference
When it's a terminal $1 or $2 = almost never. 99% of the cases where I buy Harvest, it produce at least $3
Even as a terminal gold = that's decent for $5, and terminal gold can have uses against thief/NB/Pirate Ship
It's tough to rely on it for $4 : not at all
When it does show up, you wish you had a +buy with it : usually you want a harvest in engines, and usually to go for engine you want +buy somewhere.

The cards I see often as underused are Fortune Teller, Harvest, Contraband (I underused during a long time myself), and Duke (so many games I won because my opponent underrated duke, it's impressive).

[Count Grishnakh]

the list of cards that combo with watchtower... is a long list. Probably longer than any other card.

Exactly. People are bringing up some excellent points about watchtower's limitations, but all cards have them. I couldn't agree more with your point that if you play watchtower dead you are doing something wrong.

Inevitably there will be times that you have a watchtower and no extra actions, Especially early in the game. No big deal. Don't play it and top deck the card(s) you buy. Watchtower almost always finds a way to justify its spot in your hand.

Wandering Winder has a point about the drawbacks of "Draw to" cards for engines, but I enjoy making engines with "draw to" cards because it stimulates my creativity and is very rewarding and potent when I pull it off.

[Count Grishnakh]

couple in-general questions about watchtower:

- Which is easier: building an engine where the main draw is watchtower, or when it's library?

- Which is better on average, watchtower's topdecking on-gain or trashing on-gain?

My guess would be that it's easier with watchtower because it's cheaper and has other bonuses... if you're building a draw-to-X engine then when you play watchtower/library you hope to only have 1 or 2 cards in hand left. The difference between +5 cards and +6 cards is much smaller than the difference between +2 cards and +3 cards.

I would also guess that the trashing is actually more potent. So many combos..... the same can be said for top-decking+drawing in the middle of the turn, but I think that's rarer.

As WW said, a large of draw to X is that you often don't have enough actions, so you draw things dead. Library has the bonus of being able to sift through when you don't have any actions left.

When I build engines with watchtower I only have this issue in the early stages of the game. I am not at all bothered by this, however, as I need to buy a bunch of engine parts so I just opt to not play the watchtower, buy a card and top deck it.

[Count Grishnakh]

Interesting. I didn't notice Watchtower being under-utilized. If anything, I imagine it to be a card new players overrate. I know I did. It's one of those cards that can provide support for a lot of strategies, but on its own it can drag you down. The Watchtower that you don't get to play can top-deck a card you get, but it could have been a silver that lets you hit $5 or $6. Still, it has so many uses.

While we're talking about under-rated/under-utilized cards...

Silk Road

I feel that new players tend to really underestimate this card. That's understandable, as it doesn't seem so impressive when you first read its text. It's similar to Gardens in games where it's the only kingdom VP card, but gets boosted by a larger variety of decks. That Provinces boost these up is a big point in its favour. Basically, any deck with longevity can take advantage of Silk Roads being in the kingdom.

When there is just one other VP card in the kingdom though, Silk Road will almost certainly come into play. It gives a huge boost to already viable sources of alt-VP. Suddenly Trader, Explorer, and Bureaucrat start looking very attractive. At the same time, it's just a load to players who weren't prepared to boost them up but try to deny their green opponent the VP. It's almost like denying Dukes when your opponent got 6 of the 8 Duchies. You're just helping the game reach a 3-pile ending.

Yeah it's true silk roads can be under-rated, especially by hot shot players who can't resist trying to build a deck that can get them two provinces in a turn.. I've won SOOO many times because of silk roads.

I even won a pirates / colony game due to silk roads once.. The one guy was trying to build an engine with pirate ships, I made his task difficult by making an engine of my own with highways, Counts, and silk roads. I started greening really early, of course. The other player thought the pirateship engine guy was destroying us all, and he was shocked to see me in the lead once the game ended. See the thing is the other two players split the colonies and I had almost all the estates, duchies and silk roads to myself. 

That's probably the best part of a well-executed silk road strategy, the shocked look on people's faces when you've won with few or little provinces

[WanderingWinder]

I can do point-by-point refutations, too

I think Harvest utilization is low, but I also think that's where it should be. It's not a good $5 early on, and by the time it's making you good money you should probably just buy a gold instead. When it's a terminal $1 or $2, it's terrible. Even as a terminal gold, it's pretty middling. It's tough to rely on it for +$4, and when it does show up, you wish you had a +buy with it.

By the time it's making good money you should probably just buy a gold instead = that's why there is a cost difference

Which is a largely irrelevant difference by the time you'd want it?

When it's a terminal $1 or $2 = almost never. 99% of the cases where I buy Harvest, it produce at least $3

0.0384% of the time people quote 99%, the actual percentage is close to 99%. Besides this... well, it should be that way, but this doesn't mean people should buy it in MORE cases where it might not?

Even as a terminal gold = that's decent for $5, and terminal gold can have uses against thief/NB/Pirate Ship

That's actually pretty awful for $5. $5s are generally better than gold, this is worse, and significantly so in engines where it might be $0.

It's tough to rely on it for $4 : not at all

I think we have different definitions of "rely".

When it does show up, you wish you had a +buy with it : usually you want a harvest in engines, and usually to go for engine you want +buy somewhere.

You really don't want it in engines, though - if you draw your deck before it, it doesn't make money. Anyway, there are usually better payloads for an engine.

The cards I see often as underused are Fortune Teller, Harvest, Contraband (I underused during a long time myself), and Duke (so many games I won because my opponent underrated duke, it's impressive).

That's a fine list, and I don't have too much disagreement with it.

[Count Grishnakh]

Re: Watchtower: depends on who you're playing with. People here know all about the gainers synergy, particularly university (which is a very tasty combo). Is it underrated? Surely, by some people. The question is what group of people you're talking about.
I would say the defensive powers are probably a little bit underrated - you can chain watchtowers to keep yourself fairly well defended in some circumstances, but in general, the card isn't really.

60% of the cost of library is not something you want to use. Costs don't scale linearly, really almost at all. You at least have to note that they each cost 1 buy/gain apiece, but that the $$ cost is more about a limitation on when you can get them than anything else.


One thing to note about draw-to-x cards in general is that they are not all that great for engine building. (Ducks). Yes, you can make an engine with them, but the thing is that it's harder to chain them to get full benefit. If I have a 5 card hand, Watchtower draws me 2 cards. But if I've already played one, then I am going to need to play some other actions to get any draw power from the second. This sometimes means disappearing villages (or those rare non-draw non-terminals like lighthouse), but very often it means playing some non-draw terminals. And then to not draw things dead, you basically need to have more villages than you otherwise would, plus you have less choice over the priority you play your other cards in.

This is actually a pretty significant drawback.

Thanks for gracing my thread WanderingWinder 

I agree with everything you said. The drawback you speak of is there, but there are situations where that particular limitation of watchtower doesn't apply so much.. Like you said, if it is feasible to acquire disappearing villages or non-draw terminals, (I would add to that list non-draw trashers like rebuild and butcher.. You can do some pretty crazy stuff with a few butchers, a bunch of fortresses and some watchtowers)

Edit: Also extra actions are  plentiful, then you can play a lot of terminal actions and reduce the size of your hand and still draw to 6

[achmed_sender]

Quite some time ago I thought Harvest is really underrated and you should use it so much more than now, but I'm convinced now that Harvest IS quite a mediocre to bad card, but still it's rarely damaging bad. The thing is, other cards like Saboteur have boards where they shine, whereas Harvest does this not (or veery rarely) . The problem of Harvest is that is in most cases it's like Gold, sometimes better and often weaker, but Gold is always available and therefor competes with Harvest. It's like a rule that says if Thief is in play, add Noble Brigand to the Kingdom. Thief might be bought on some board, but if Brigand is always there, too, Thief becomes even less bought. So, if there wouldn't be a Gold pile every game, Harvest would be a much better card.

There are two problems with cards that are quite bad. Firstly, you desperately want to find a use for them in every game they appear (this is often true for me) and you will ergo lose a lot of time or at least notice that this card didn't do much for your win. But even worse is the second thing: You won't care about this card after playing it a few times and losing with it. You won't try out if this card is good enough in various situations because it's an uncalculated risk. You just don't know the strenghts of it.

Getting back to Harvest, here's a game where I'm convinced that Harvest was a way better choice than Gold, because there are cards that care about actions: Throne Room and Herald, so the coin maximum of 1 Harvest increases significantly, comparing to Gold, and it isn't a stop card anymore.
Another good example where you want to prefer Harvest to Gold are Minstrel engines, maybe also Draw-to-X strategies.

[werothegreat]

"Fixed Harvest"
Action

Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck.  For each differently named card, +$2.


How much would this cost, and would it be better than the current version?

[blueblimp]

Even as a terminal gold = that's decent for $5, and terminal gold can have uses against thief/NB/Pirate Ship

That's actually pretty awful for $5. $5s are generally better than gold, this is worse, and significantly so in engines where it might be $0.

I agree, but one design characteristic of Dominion is that "terminal gold" is considered too good for $5. For example, Mandarin was introduced in a fairly late expansion, and it has _two_ mostly-disadvantages compared to gold. The problem is that if you want gold, then you'll usually just buy gold and not put up with the penalty. $5s are more often designed as Silver-with-small-bonus or terminal-Silver-with-large-bonus, and it's easier for those cards to compete with Gold because sometimes the bonus is worth more than the additional $1.

[Awaclus]

Even as a terminal gold = that's decent for $5, and terminal gold can have uses against thief/NB/Pirate Ship

That's actually pretty awful for $5. $5s are generally better than gold, this is worse, and significantly so in engines where it might be $0.

I agree, but one design characteristic of Dominion is that "terminal gold" is considered too good for $5. For example, Mandarin was introduced in a fairly late expansion, and it has _two_ mostly-disadvantages compared to gold. The problem is that if you want gold, then you'll usually just buy gold and not put up with the penalty. $5s are more often designed as Silver-with-small-bonus or terminal-Silver-with-large-bonus, and it's easier for those cards to compete with Gold because sometimes the bonus is worth more than the additional $1.

I always thought it had two mostly-advantages compared to Gold. You don't buy it in situations where topdecking is a drawback.

[michaeljb]

Most of the people I play rate watchtower where I feel it should be rated (rather highly). My baby for an underutilised card is Scout.

*Pause for Scout jokes*

I know it's a terrible card but there are games where both players decks get bogged down with green and I'm almost certain that a scout to filter some out for a turn would be better than a silver or other alternatives but people don't buy it just because it's scout.

I've noticed on Goko watchtower gets ignored a lot more than it should

The Watchtower interface IRL is just so much better.

[shark_bait]

Masterpiece.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9376.msg320971#msg320971

I also just played a Chapel/Upgrade/Masterpiece game.  So good and so resilient!  Who says Chapel/BM isn't a thing? 

[Stealth Tomato]

Getting back to Harvest, here's a game where I'm convinced that Harvest was a way better choice than Gold, because there are cards that care about actions: Throne Room and Herald, so the coin maximum of 1 Harvest increases significantly, comparing to Gold, and it isn't a stop card anymore.
Another good example where you want to prefer Harvest to Gold are Minstrel engines, maybe also Draw-to-X strategies.

Well, for starters, a single game, let alone a game won by 4 Provinces probably isn't the best indicator of any card's quality. But let's go for it.
Harvest gets you...
$2 on T12
$2 again on T12, leaving you with $7
$4 on T13
$3 on T14
$4 on T14
$4 on T15, but Gold would have given you $4 as well since you played Bank
$4 again on T15, but again, Gold would have given you $4 as well since you played Bank
$3 on T16
$3 on T17
$4 on T17
$3 on T18
$3 again on T18

To review, you get an average of just over $3... but on only three occasions do you get more than Gold would give you, and on two you get less. I'm not buying that it's terribly useful to you.


Anyway, the problem with Harvest is that for it to be better than Gold, you need two things to be true:
1. Its terminal-ness doesn't matter.
2. It will average more than $3 per play.
   2a. Your deck has high card variety.
   2b. Your deck has cards in it when you play Harvest.

2b directly conflicts with both 1 and 2a. For 1, decks with a surplus of +Action are usually either full-deck-drawers or poorly built. For 2a, this usually means trashing your start cards, which lends itself to very short decks, which can easily leave you without enough cards in the deck to get much out of Harvest.

Of course, good deck management is your friend... but when you're drawing your deck and Harvest shows up right near the bottom, you're just out of luck.

[markusin]

*Groan*

You get Harvest because it can be played by KC/TR/Golem/Herald/etc. but Gold can't. That or you hit 5$ and feel gutsy. That should cover almost all cases where you'd get Harvest.

 

[KingZog3]

*Groan*

You get Harvest because it can be played by KC/TR/Golem/Herald/etc. but Gold can't. That or you hit 5$ and are the insanity wolf. That should cover almost all cases where you'd get Harvest.

FTFY

[AHoppy]

Harvest is a good sifter of junk if you know the top of your deck.  Prime example: Apothecary.  It takes the crap apothecary leaves behind and turns it into money, and opens up your next turn so it isn't crap.  Plus it can help give you that extra couple $ you need to get to 8 with your apothecary deck.  Apart from deck inspection though, it's not great...

[KingZog3]

Harvest is a good sifter of junk if you know the top of your deck.  Prime example: Apothecary.  It takes the crap apothecary leaves behind and turns it into money, and opens up your next turn so it isn't crap.  Plus it can help give you that extra couple $ you need to get to 8 with your apothecary deck.  Apart from deck inspection though, it's not great...

Harvest is terminal, which makes it really hard to do that. Similar to Navigator for setting up what you draw.

[Davio]

Develop.

Normally, terminal collision is bad.
With Develop and some well positioned cards, not so much.
Say you open Develop/$4 terminal silver, with Village on $3 and Torturer on $5, you'd be quite happy to topdeck those two.

[AHoppy]

Harvest is a good sifter of junk if you know the top of your deck.  Prime example: Apothecary.  It takes the crap apothecary leaves behind and turns it into money, and opens up your next turn so it isn't crap.  Plus it can help give you that extra couple $ you need to get to 8 with your apothecary deck.  Apart from deck inspection though, it's not great...

Harvest is terminal, which makes it really hard to do that. Similar to Navigator for setting up what you draw.

Yeah, but apothecary is not terminal.  Play a bunch of them, put your harvest on top last, draw it, sift through the remaining junk.  I guess it's more of a combo that I'm speculating about and have not tested.  But I suspect it would work with cartographer as well

[brokoli]

I can do point-by-point refutations, too

To clarify, I decided to go for the point-by-point refutations so I didn't have to make complicated argumentation sentences, In short I took the easy option
But serisouly, I don't understand why people always say that it is hard to have $4 from Harvest, from my experience it happens very often.

[Davio]

The main problem with Harvest is that it just provides money, without any other utility. You know what else provides money? Money!

Most action cards have some small utility that you don't get from regular treasure cards, that's why you get them. Some provide draw, actions, trashing, +buy, etc. Harvest doesn't do any of that.

Even if you KC-Harvest and get $12, you still need another card with +Buy to profit from it.

I wonder if tacking on a +Buy on Harvest would make it more attractive or some silly on-trash bonus or something.

[BadAssMutha]

Harvest is a good sifter of junk if you know the top of your deck.  Prime example: Apothecary.  It takes the crap apothecary leaves behind and turns it into money, and opens up your next turn so it isn't crap.  Plus it can help give you that extra couple $ you need to get to 8 with your apothecary deck.  Apart from deck inspection though, it's not great...

I don't think Harvest is that great a combo with deck inspection - are you really gonna forego playing it if you don't know the top of your deck? If not, knowing what's on top gets you practically nothing. I guess Apothecary can be useful to pull matching Coppers out of the next 4 cards, but that's about it. The cards it leaves behind might be dead VP or curses, but there's also a good chance that it's actions or other $, in which case you're not sifting junk. Even if you are, you usually wind up with multiple copies of the junk cards, meaning your Harvest makes less money. If Apothecary is working well, you should be drawing mostly coppers anyway (leaving you with no deck inspection), and if you don't draw any coppers, then the reordering it gets you doesn't affect Harvest at all. I think Cartographer might be a better example of useful deck inspection for Harvest, since you can just discard whatever duplicates you have directly. I can't even think of other deck inspection cards that let you see/discard multiple cards, so it seems the applications are limited.

[AHoppy]

Actually, my point was more that Apothecary needs something to sift the junk that inevitably stays on top of the deck and harvest is a card that could do that.  Now to make it most effective sure, you'd want a village.  But still, it's a sifter that can also get you some money from the sifting.  That's it's secondary benefit that Davio was talking about and saying it was lacking.  It's there, it's just not a very good benefit...

[werothegreat]

The main problem with Harvest is that it just provides money, without any other utility. You know what else provides money? Money!

Most action cards have some small utility that you don't get from regular treasure cards, that's why you get them. Some provide draw, actions, trashing, +buy, etc. Harvest doesn't do any of that.

Even if you KC-Harvest and get $12, you still need another card with +Buy to profit from it.

I wonder if tacking on a +Buy on Harvest would make it more attractive or some silly on-trash bonus or something.

It has the utility of discarding the top of your deck.  It's like Chancellor, except more money and less discard.  And unlike Chancellor, it can actually activate Tunnels.  Sure, revealing four Tunnels would only give you $1, but it would gain you four Golds.

[LastFootnote]

"Fixed Harvest"
Action

Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck.  For each differently named card, +$2.


How much would this cost, and would it be better than the current version?

The fewer cards you reveal, the less chance you have duplicates. Your suggested Harvest would nearly always produce $4, and very often $6, without the need to even build a variety-based deck. I wouldn't print it at any cost. The boost Harvest needs most is the ability to put one (or more) of the revealed cards back on your deck.

Harvest
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. +$1 for each differently named card revealed. You may put one of them back on your deck. Discard the rest.

I'd playtest that first.

[jamespotter]

[Harvest] has the utility of discarding the top of your deck.  It's like Chancellor, except more money and less discard.  And unlike Chancellor, it can actually activate Tunnels.  Sure, revealing four Tunnels would only give you $1, but it would gain you four Golds.

I agree with wero that Harvest's advantage isn't the possible $4 payload, it's the sifting. It is never a strong card, but if you are looking at an alt-vp slog or have severely lost the Ruins battle, Harvest can sweep in to save the day.  Harvest still has fairly low utility, but I have had great success with it as a deck-patcher midgame. The reason I think it appears to be such a weak card is: most of the time, it performs one or the other of its functions. It hits your variety, and gives you good money, or it hits your junk and provides filtering. Either way, Harvest is more of a lubricant than a card that can be made the star of your engine.

[Polk5440]

Harvest, maybe for the community at large, but not for me! I love Harvest! If anything I buy it too often. Harvest + Shelters! Yes, please. I think Dark Ages was the boost Harvest needed. Dark Ages + Cornucopia games are really interesting.

For me, I am finding there are cards that I'd "never" buy -- and those, for me, are the most-underutilitzed cards.

Develop, FOR SURE. I used to over-use it because it seems fun to play, then stopped using it all together. Now, I try to find uses for it, but struggle. Sometimes I ignore it simply because thinking of strategies that use it requires coming up with strategies that are complicated. And it's hard to play complicated strategies. So I don't incorporate it as often as I should.

Counting House is another one I tend to ignore even when I shouldn't. I have conditioned myself to not see it, so even when it's a Mountebank-Colony game I sometimes don't even realize it's there until an opponent buys one....

Transmute. There has to be a time this plays, but I can't remember the last game I purchased a Transmute and won. I buy Scout more often than this card (seriously). Therefore, I have to be under-rating it, right?

[jsh357]

Saboteur and Develop (already mentioned here).  Saboteur can be absolutely brutal in games with a bad range of action costs, e.g. games with lots of $5s and nothing good at the 2-3 range.  Being able to play it consistently helps too.  It's frequently rated as one of the worst cards, but I personally would put it just below the middle range.  That said, it's not a card to buy blindly by any means.  You'd better have an intended use and be relatively sure it's going to happen.

I disagree about Watchtower being underrated; like WW says, that's probably just weaker players.  No offense to them.  I woudl easily put Watchtower in the top 5 $3 cards.

[LastFootnote]

Transmute. There has to be a time this plays, but I can't remember the last game I purchased a Transmute and won. I buy Scout more often than this card (seriously). Therefore, I have to be under-rating it, right?

In general, Donald tried to make the Potion-cost cards such that you'd be willing to buy a Potion even if there were no other Potion-cost cards on the board. He wasn't entirely successful with Transmute or Philosopher's Stone.

In a game with a bunch of other Potion-cost cards, Transmute is nice because you don't have to waste buys to accumulate Gold, and turning Coppers into Transmutes can actually be useful for Vineyards/Scrying Pool.

[markusin]

Harvest, maybe for the community at large, but not for me! I love Harvest! If anything I buy it too often. Harvest + Shelters! Yes, please. I think Dark Ages was the boost Harvest needed. Dark Ages + Cornucopia games are really interesting.

Dark Ages + Cornucopia is pretty cool at times. As you said, Harvest gets a boost from shelters, but it also gets a boost from Ruins and non-supply cards and stuff. At the same time, Hunting Party gets a bit more balanced when shelters and ruins are in the picture. In fact, Dark Ages and Cornucopia are the only two expansions I own the physical copies of right now (Intrigue would be the one I get next. The only card that messes everything up is Knights. They just boost every variety-seeking Cornucopia card in a rather outrageous way.

Back to Harvest: I'd say Harvest is better in slogs, where just getting a single Province is the best you can ever hope to do on a turn and where you're sure to have cards on the deck to discard. If nothing else, the discarding helps you see your Harvest again faster (except when it triggers a reshuffle, but you can use that to make other junk miss the reshuffle too). Hopefully, your Harvest has a good chance to produce $4 at that point.

I maintain that, for all its flaws, Harvest is the "fixed" Adventurer. It has you discard cards from the top of your deck to produce coin, but it only costs $5 and doesn't require you to have treasure in your deck, just variety.

[KingZog3]

I maintain that, for all its flaws, Harvest is the "fixed" Adventurer. It has you discard cards from the top of your deck to produce coin, but it only costs $5 and doesn't require you to have treasure in your deck, just variety.

But Adventurer changes with special Treasure cards, while Harvest does not. I don't see them as being similar at all.

[markusin]

I maintain that, for all its flaws, Harvest is the "fixed" Adventurer. It has you discard cards from the top of your deck to produce coin, but it only costs $5 and doesn't require you to have treasure in your deck, just variety.

But Adventurer changes with special Treasure cards, while Harvest does not. I don't see them as being similar at all.

Does too! Special Treasures = more variety.

Seriously though, you're right about Adventurer interacting with special treasures, like when you really want to see your HoP or your Quarry. Gosh, why was Adventurer not introduced in Prosperity.

I compare Harvest with Adventurer because they usually perform the same role, and have mostly the same drawbacks (weak early game, flop when you've drawn your deck, and lack of control over what's discarded from your deck). If Adventurer were to cost $5, I suspect it would be about as strong as Harvest in the absence of special treasures. 

[AJD]

I maintain that, for all its flaws, Harvest is the "fixed" Adventurer. It has you discard cards from the top of your deck to produce coin, but it only costs $5 and doesn't require you to have treasure in your deck, just variety.

But Adventurer changes with special Treasure cards, while Harvest does not. I don't see them as being similar at all.

They're both part of a larger family of terminal variable (potentially large, but unreliable) money generators. Counting House is another one of the same family. Interestingly, most of them seem to be pretty weak. (What are the others—Pirate Ship? Trade Route?)

[markusin]

I maintain that, for all its flaws, Harvest is the "fixed" Adventurer. It has you discard cards from the top of your deck to produce coin, but it only costs $5 and doesn't require you to have treasure in your deck, just variety.

But Adventurer changes with special Treasure cards, while Harvest does not. I don't see them as being similar at all.

They're both part of a larger family of terminal variable (potentially large, but unreliable) money generators. Counting House is another one of the same family. Interestingly, most of them seem to be pretty weak. (What are the others—Pirate Ship? Trade Route?)

I Agree with Counting House fitting in that family. Pirate Ship and Trade Route not so much because the coin they provide are dependent on conscious actions taken by the players (attacking with Pirate Ship, and buying VP for Trade Route) rather than pure shuffle luck.

[AJD]

In general, Donald tried to make the Potion-cost cards such that you'd be willing to buy a Potion even if there were no other Potion-cost cards on the board. He wasn't entirely successful with Transmute or Philosopher's Stone.

Isn't Philosopher's Stone weaker with a lot of other Potion-cost cards? Potion-cost cards are mostly non-terminal engine cards which put a lot of cards in your hand and play area, which is bad for Philosopher's Stone.

[Count Grishnakh]

In general, Donald tried to make the Potion-cost cards such that you'd be willing to buy a Potion even if there were no other Potion-cost cards on the board. He wasn't entirely successful with Transmute or Philosopher's Stone.

Isn't Philosopher's Stone weaker with a lot of other Potion-cost cards? Potion-cost cards are mostly non-terminal engine cards which put a lot of cards in your hand and play area, which is bad for Philosopher's Stone.

Yeah what you say is true. Phil stone's value depends on the board more than anything else. Like you say its probably not worth buying if alchemist or scrying pool is out but it's also not worth buying a potion for if your deck isn't going to get bloated, whether by attacks or by your own design.

[Awaclus]

In general, Donald tried to make the Potion-cost cards such that you'd be willing to buy a Potion even if there were no other Potion-cost cards on the board. He wasn't entirely successful with Transmute or Philosopher's Stone.

Isn't Philosopher's Stone weaker with a lot of other Potion-cost cards? Potion-cost cards are mostly non-terminal engine cards which put a lot of cards in your hand and play area, which is bad for Philosopher's Stone.

Not to mention, why on earth would you buy a Philosopher's Stone if you have $3P and there's another potion cost card you could be getting?

Though, it works pretty well with Possession; Possession increases your deck size faster, and if you're planning to get a Possession, a hand of $4P isn't entirely useless if there's a Philosopher's Stone on the board. On the other hand, Possession also works pretty well with an engine deck that draws itself, so it's not optimal, but maybe sometimes you're playing some weird deck against a megaturn deck and you just absolutely need Possession no matter what.

[SCSN]

In general, Donald tried to make the Potion-cost cards such that you'd be willing to buy a Potion even if there were no other Potion-cost cards on the board. He wasn't entirely successful with Transmute or Philosopher's Stone.

Isn't Philosopher's Stone weaker with a lot of other Potion-cost cards? Potion-cost cards are mostly non-terminal engine cards which put a lot of cards in your hand and play area, which is bad for Philosopher's Stone.

Not to mention, why on earth would you buy a Philosopher's Stone if you have $3P and there's another potion cost card you could be getting?

Though, it works pretty well with Possession; Possession increases your deck size faster, and if you're planning to get a Possession, a hand of $4P isn't entirely useless if there's a Philosopher's Stone on the board. On the other hand, Possession also works pretty well with an engine deck that draws itself, so it's not optimal, but maybe sometimes you're playing some weird deck against a megaturn deck and you just absolutely need Possession no matter what.

In a game I played earlier today, on T10 I bought a PS over a Familiar even though there were still 5 Curses left. This is also one of the rare boards where PS is actually stronger because of the other potion cost cards. And, perhaps strangest of all, I ended up winning pretty convincingly from P2 against a Mountebank open...

[LastFootnote]

In general, Donald tried to make the Potion-cost cards such that you'd be willing to buy a Potion even if there were no other Potion-cost cards on the board. He wasn't entirely successful with Transmute or Philosopher's Stone.

Isn't Philosopher's Stone weaker with a lot of other Potion-cost cards? Potion-cost cards are mostly non-terminal engine cards which put a lot of cards in your hand and play area, which is bad for Philosopher's Stone.

You'd think so, but in practice it doesn't work out that way. Yeah, you don't want one in an Alchemist or Scrying Pool deck, but that's about it. It's great with Herbalist and University and OK with Golem. It's excellent against Familiar. It's even good with Apothecary, since they both benefit from extra Coppers and in practice they don't really get in each other's way.

So when there's no good trashing on an Alchemy-heavy board, you often want your later Potion buys to be Philosopher's Stones rather than more Universities, Golems, etc.

[ehunt]

the list of cards that combo with watchtower... is a long list. Probably longer than any other card.

Someone, I can't remember who, said that if you pick a kingdom card at random, probably watchtower comboes with it or counters it. It's an exaggeration, but not too much.

[Voltaire]

Harvest. No one uses it. 

I have had two killer games with Harvest lately. One was a 3-player game IRL. It felt great to win using it.

And also wrong. So very wrong.

[liopoil]

Cards that combo with watchtower/watchtower counters:

disclaimer: many of these cards belong in multiple categories. There are also cards which you could make a case that they should be in this list. There are probably cards on this list that don't really combo with watchtower. In all cases, I made my best guess as to if they should be included/where they should be put. But, I'm not really all that good at dominion, so I am likely wrong several times.

Cards are in order of set. I may not have gone chronologically though, I just went through the card lists on the main page. I believe I looked at every single card.

Cards that combo because of draw-to-6

cellar
moneylender
festival
baron
minion
native village
fishing village
warehouse
Island
salvager
outpost
vault
forge
transmute
university
hamlet
horse traders
remake
oasis
noble brigand
inn
storeroom
mystic
ruined village (!)
plaza
black market

TOTAL CARDS: 26

Cards that combo because of on-trash ability:

remodel
embargo
trade route
mint
goons
hoard
cache
squire
market square
death cart
feodum
fortress
bandit camp
count
hunting grounds
doctor
masterpiece
merchant guild

TOTAL: 18

Cards that combo because of top-deck ability:

workshop
wishing well
ironworks
upgrade
smugglers
treasure map
expand
develop
trader
haggler
border village
farmland
hermit
urchin/mercenary
procession
rats
catacombs
graverobber
altar
stonemason
butcher
governor

TOTAL: 22

Cards that are countered by watchtower:

bureaucrat
militia
witch
swindler
torturer
ambassador
cutpurse
sea hag
ghost ship
mountebank
familiar
young witch
jester
ill-gotten gains
margrave
marauder
cultist
taxman
soothsayer
followers

TOTAL: 20

TOTAL OF TOTALS: 86

winner of the bit-of-everything contest: soothsayer. countered by watchtower, topdeck gold w/watchtower, trash curse w/watchtower, and decreases handsize for playing watchtower. I would not have included it for any one of those alone (trashing curse doesn't let you draw a card, topdecking gold isn't amazing, and decreasing handsize by 1 terminally isn't much either), but all together makes it easily worth of inclusion. Honorable mentions: Stonemason (not countered!), and Jester (never used for topdeck and trash in same action)

[liopoil]

anyway, 86 cards combo with watchtower. That's over 2/5 of all the cards.

My favorite was ruined village. It's not useless!!!

[markusin]

I can't believe you didn't include Forager for draw up to 6.

[liopoil]

I can't believe you didn't include Forager for draw up to 6.

hmmm, indeed, I missed that. I was just thinking about the treasures in the trash bit. Forager is better for decreasing handsize than many others on that list. -2 non-terminally.

[Awaclus]

winner of the bit-of-everything contest: soothsayer. countered by watchtower, topdeck gold w/watchtower, trash curse w/watchtower, and decreases handsize for playing watchtower. I would not have included it for any one of those alone (trashing curse doesn't let you draw a card, topdecking gold isn't amazing, and decreasing handsize by 1 terminally isn't much either), but all together makes it easily worth of inclusion. Honorable mentions: Stonemason (not countered!), and Jester (never used for topdeck and trash in same action)

Additionally, SS increases your opponent's handsize, which is antisynergy with his Watchtower.

[liopoil]

winner of the bit-of-everything contest: soothsayer. countered by watchtower, topdeck gold w/watchtower, trash curse w/watchtower, and decreases handsize for playing watchtower. I would not have included it for any one of those alone (trashing curse doesn't let you draw a card, topdecking gold isn't amazing, and decreasing handsize by 1 terminally isn't much either), but all together makes it easily worth of inclusion. Honorable mentions: Stonemason (not countered!), and Jester (never used for topdeck and trash in same action)

Additionally, SS increases your opponent's handsize, which is antisynergy with his Watchtower.

well, if he has a watchtower in hand than his handsize likely won't be increasing because he will trash the curse. only works if he plays a cantrip and draws his watchtower or something.

[rrwoods]

I don't understand Remodel or Bandit Camp being in the trash combo list. Remodel because you can trash the incoming card if you want? Seems close to irrelevant... Bandit camp because you can trash the incoming spoils??

[blueblimp]

I don't understand Remodel or Bandit Camp being in the trash combo list. Remodel because you can trash the incoming card if you want? Seems close to irrelevant... Bandit camp because you can trash the incoming spoils??

Imagine Remodel on Copper or Curse. Trashing the outcome is often good.

[blueblimp]

winner of the bit-of-everything contest: soothsayer. countered by watchtower, topdeck gold w/watchtower, trash curse w/watchtower, and decreases handsize for playing watchtower. I would not have included it for any one of those alone (trashing curse doesn't let you draw a card, topdecking gold isn't amazing, and decreasing handsize by 1 terminally isn't much either), but all together makes it easily worth of inclusion. Honorable mentions: Stonemason (not countered!), and Jester (never used for topdeck and trash in same action)

Additionally, SS increases your opponent's handsize, which is antisynergy with his Watchtower.

well, if he has a watchtower in hand than his handsize likely won't be increasing because he will trash the curse. only works if he plays a cantrip and draws his watchtower or something.

The curse is still gained before Watchtower trashes it, so hand size will increase regardless.

[liopoil]

I don't understand Remodel or Bandit Camp being in the trash combo list. Remodel because you can trash the incoming card if you want? Seems close to irrelevant... Bandit camp because you can trash the incoming spoils??

whoops, those should both be on the top-of-deck list... even still they're a bit of a stretch. I included most cards that let you gain something in the middle of your turn. Remodel is only included because it also does a bit of handsize reduction if you have the extra actions. In the case of bandit camp there is a very good chance you'll be able to draw the topdecked spoils.

Keep pointing out mistakes, I'll do one big edit eventually.

winner of the bit-of-everything contest: soothsayer. countered by watchtower, topdeck gold w/watchtower, trash curse w/watchtower, and decreases handsize for playing watchtower. I would not have included it for any one of those alone (trashing curse doesn't let you draw a card, topdecking gold isn't amazing, and decreasing handsize by 1 terminally isn't much either), but all together makes it easily worth of inclusion. Honorable mentions: Stonemason (not countered!), and Jester (never used for topdeck and trash in same action)

Additionally, SS increases your opponent's handsize, which is antisynergy with his Watchtower.

well, if he has a watchtower in hand than his handsize likely won't be increasing because he will trash the curse. only works if he plays a cantrip and draws his watchtower or something.

The curse is still gained before Watchtower trashes it, so hand size will increase regardless.

oh right, I remember that discussion now.

I don't understand Remodel or Bandit Camp being in the trash combo list. Remodel because you can trash the incoming card if you want? Seems close to irrelevant... Bandit camp because you can trash the incoming spoils??

Imagine Remodel on Copper or Curse. Trashing the outcome is often good.

this too, but it still fits better in topdecking I think.

[blueblimp]

Urchin/mercenary missing from counters.
Most trashers plays nice with draw-up-to. E.g. Transmute, Develop, Trade Route, Steward...
The top deck ability is useless with Develop because the cards are already top decked. However the trash ability can be good in principle.

[KingZog3]

Treasure Map doesn't benefit form the top-deck ability either.

[EvanC]

Treasure Map doesn't benefit form the top-deck ability either.

It could -

Turn 1: buy Treasure map

Turn 2: buy Watchtower

Turn 3: Draw 4 copper and watchtower, buy treasure map, top deck with watchtower

Turn 4: most likely draw double treasure map


Not saying this is common, or a good idea, but if you know the treasure map is down (courtyarded etc) it can be used to hit two.

[florrat]

Treasure Map doesn't benefit form the top-deck ability either.

If you have $8 and 2 buys, topdecking might be pretty useful. Or when having 2 Ironworks in hand. Or any of the other countless possibilities when you can gain 2 TMs in a turn (like the example in the opening post).

A Watchtower is not useful when you have connected two TMs, but at least slightly useful to connect two TMs

[Awaclus]

Treasure Map doesn't benefit form the top-deck ability either.

If you have $8 and 2 buys, topdecking might be pretty useful. Or when having 2 Ironworks in hand. Or any of the other countless possibilities when you can gain 2 TMs in a turn (like the example in the opening post).

A Watchtower is not useful when you have connected two TMs, but at least slightly useful to connect two TMs

Or when you know the TM you already bought will be in your next 4 cards.

[loppo]

just add talisman, and you are there:

turn 1: buy watchtower
turn 2: buy talisman
turn 3: play talisman + CCC buy treasure map, gain treasure map
            topdeck both with watchtower
turn 4: profit

[Davio]

just add talisman, and you are there:

turn 1: buy watchtower
turn 2: buy talisman
turn 3: play talisman + CCC buy treasure map, gain treasure map
            topdeck both with watchtower
turn 4: profit

Just open Stonemason/Treasure Map/Treasure Map (with Baker of course) after your opponent opened Noble Brigand. Draw 3 Cards, reshuffle, draw 2 Treasure Maps.

Turn 2: Profit!

No need for Watchtower or Talisman. 

[loppo]

just add talisman, and you are there:

turn 1: buy watchtower
turn 2: buy talisman
turn 3: play talisman + CCC buy treasure map, gain treasure map
            topdeck both with watchtower
turn 4: profit

Just open Stonemason/Treasure Map/Treasure Map (with Baker of course) after your opponent opened Noble Brigand. Draw 3 Cards, reshuffle, draw 2 Treasure Maps.

Turn 2: Profit!

No need for Watchtower or Talisman. 

that's another way of doing it. I just wanted to mention this combo, since we there once was an article about it on the front page of the blog, and we're discussing watchtower combos possibilities, and nobody has mentioned it so far.

[Davio]

Well, let's get back to the topic at hand: Under-rated cards.

I don't think WT fits the bill as its mostly rated pretty accurately: as a versatile card which helps with a lot of things.

Another underrated card is Workshop, Ironworks' forgotten baby brother. It's mostly underrated by me as I don't really know what kind of support I need to grab one. Say we have just 1 pile of Villages, is that enough? Do I need 2 piles, like Villages and Spies? Do I need just Silvers?

But I have an irrational fear of terminal collision anyway.

[Awaclus]

Well, let's get back to the topic at hand: Under-rated cards.

I don't think WT fits the bill as its mostly rated pretty accurately: as a versatile card which helps with a lot of things.

Another underrated card is Workshop, Ironworks' forgotten baby brother. It's mostly underrated by me as I don't really know what kind of support I need to grab one. Say we have just 1 pile of Villages, is that enough? Do I need 2 piles, like Villages and Spies? Do I need just Silvers?

But I have an irrational fear of terminal collision anyway.

I'd buy a Workshop if there was a single pile of villages, if winning the split was important.

[Davio]

I understand this general sentiment, but in practice I'm always highly skeptical.

An example I see a lot is with Caravan, let's say my opponent opens Workshop/Caravan, while I open Silver/Caravan. My opponent might get 6 Caravans to my 4, but on the other hand I'm raking in $5's and Golds with my Silver.

[SCSN]

I want at least 2 spammable components to consider a Workshop as part of my engine, unless there isn't any +buy, but eh, even then I can't really think of a board where I'd buy it to gain just one type of card. In fact I'd be more--not less--inclined to get a Workshop on a Lab-Bazaar-Conspirator board if it also has Market on it, as with the +buy there's a larger upside to having many Conspirators.

[LastFootnote]

I understand this general sentiment, but in practice I'm always highly skeptical.

An example I see a lot is with Caravan, let's say my opponent opens Workshop/Caravan, while I open Silver/Caravan. My opponent might get 6 Caravans to my 4, but on the other hand I'm raking in $5's and Golds with my Silver.

What about Workshop/Silver?

[Warfreak2]

This reminds me of the Daily Mail's ongoing campaign to categorise everything as either causing or curing cancer.

[Count Grishnakh]

I can't really think of a board where I'd buy it to gain just one type of card.

Not even a board with no villages, a lot of trashers and herald? I would probably always go for workshop to spam herald in these cases. Not saying it always works for me, though

[A Drowned Kernel]

I basically consider Herald a village, in the same way Throne Room, KC and Golem are villages. Maybe even more reliably so.

[KingZog3]

I basically consider Herald a village, in the same way Throne Room, KC and Golem are villages. Maybe even more reliably so.

TR and KC are special though. They can only act as "actions" if you Tr a TR, or if you can use cantrips to become villages. They need to be matched up with the right cards. Golem and Herald do not.

[eHalcyon]

I basically consider Herald a village, in the same way Throne Room, KC and Golem are villages. Maybe even more reliably so.

TR and KC are special though. They can only act as "actions" if you Tr a TR, or if you can use cantrips to become villages. They need to be matched up with the right cards. Golem and Herald do not.

TR is village-y even if you use it on a terminal.  TR+terminal X is like playing Village, drawing a second copy of X, then playing both X's.

[Awaclus]

I basically consider Herald a village, in the same way Throne Room, KC and Golem are villages. Maybe even more reliably so.

TR and KC are special though. They can only act as "actions" if you Tr a TR, or if you can use cantrips to become villages. They need to be matched up with the right cards. Golem and Herald do not.

TR is village-y even if you use it on a terminal.  TR+terminal X is like playing Village, drawing a second copy of X, then playing both X's.

It doesn't split the action, though; in order to play both of your terminals, you need two TRs.

[eHalcyon]

I basically consider Herald a village, in the same way Throne Room, KC and Golem are villages. Maybe even more reliably so.

TR and KC are special though. They can only act as "actions" if you Tr a TR, or if you can use cantrips to become villages. They need to be matched up with the right cards. Golem and Herald do not.

TR is village-y even if you use it on a terminal.  TR+terminal X is like playing Village, drawing a second copy of X, then playing both X's.

It doesn't split the action, though; in order to play both of your terminals, you need two TRs.

Mm, fair enough I suppose.  But in that case, Herald still needs to be matched up with the right cards too.  It has to flip an action card.

[michaeljb]

But on the bright side, it has replaced the spot in your hand and the Action it cost to play it.

[Davio]

I basically consider Herald a village, in the same way Throne Room, KC and Golem are villages. Maybe even more reliably so.

I consider Herald a half-Golem and I don't always consider Golem a Village, unless I have a very high cantrip density.

Herald is most fun as a faux Scrying Pool.

[shark_bait]

Dunno if its been mentioned.

Watchtower/Squire

Buy squire, reveal Watchtower, trash Squire, gain attack, reveal Watchtower, place attack on top of deck. Not to mention that apart from the trash it's a village that decreases handsome that gives cash.

It's kinda a big deal.

[Count Grishnakh]

Dunno if its been mentioned.

Watchtower/Squire

Buy squire, reveal Watchtower, trash Squire, gain attack, reveal Watchtower, place attack on top of deck. Not to mention that apart from the trash it's a village that decreases handsome that gives cash.

It's kinda a big deal.

Yeah that's a good one, especially if goons happens to be out

I know Watchtower is well regarded and all, but I still think it is underplayed (at least on Goko where I play my games) because it is hard for players to remember all of the possible interactions it could have with the rest of the board.

 For example, King Zog said that watchtower's top deck ability doesn't interact with treasure map, but it does if you can acquire two in a turn. There are many ways to do this, one of which is in my OP

Watchtower is the only card that surprises me, that is to say, it gives me benefits that I didn't anticipate when buying it.

Also some players overestimate the difficulty of building an engine with watchtower. Yes, Library is certainly better, but there are plenty of situations where I would opt for watchtower over library, a game with a curser or jester, for instance

Watchtower is arguably the most versatile card. It can be almost anything you want it to be, given the right set of circumstances. It's synergies with other cards may be lost on other players, giving you that extra edge.

If watchtower isn't the most underplayed card, it is certainly the most versatile

[eHalcyon]

Dunno if its been mentioned.

Watchtower/Squire

Buy squire, reveal Watchtower, trash Squire, gain attack, reveal Watchtower, place attack on top of deck. Not to mention that apart from the trash it's a village that decreases handsome that gives cash.

It's kinda a big deal.

Yeah that's a good one, especially if goons happens to be out

I know Watchtower is well regarded and all, but I still think it is underplayed (at least on Goko where I play my games) because it is hard for players to remember all of the possible interactions it could have with the rest of the board.

 For example, King Zog said that watchtower's top deck ability doesn't interact with treasure map, but it does if you can acquire two in a turn. There are many ways to do this, one of which is in my OP

Watchtower is the only card that surprises me, that is to say, it gives me benefits that I didn't anticipate when buying it.

Also some players overestimate the difficulty of building an engine with watchtower. Yes, Library is certainly better, but there are plenty of situations where I would opt for watchtower over library, a game with a curser or jester, for instance

Watchtower is arguably the most versatile card. It can be almost anything you want it to be, given the right set of circumstances. It's synergies with other cards may be lost on other players, giving you that extra edge.

If watchtower isn't the most underplayed card, it is certainly the most versatile

Counterpoint: Band of Misfits can be everything Watchtower is, and more.

OK, that is actually false because it can't copy reactions.  But man, BoM is pretty versatile haha.

[Count Grishnakh]

Dunno if its been mentioned.

Watchtower/Squire

Buy squire, reveal Watchtower, trash Squire, gain attack, reveal Watchtower, place attack on top of deck. Not to mention that apart from the trash it's a village that decreases handsome that gives cash.

It's kinda a big deal.

Yeah that's a good one, especially if goons happens to be out

I know Watchtower is well regarded and all, but I still think it is underplayed (at least on Goko where I play my games) because it is hard for players to remember all of the possible interactions it could have with the rest of the board.

 For example, King Zog said that watchtower's top deck ability doesn't interact with treasure map, but it does if you can acquire two in a turn. There are many ways to do this, one of which is in my OP

Watchtower is the only card that surprises me, that is to say, it gives me benefits that I didn't anticipate when buying it.

Also some players overestimate the difficulty of building an engine with watchtower. Yes, Library is certainly better, but there are plenty of situations where I would opt for watchtower over library, a game with a curser or jester, for instance

Watchtower is arguably the most versatile card. It can be almost anything you want it to be, given the right set of circumstances. It's synergies with other cards may be lost on other players, giving you that extra edge.

If watchtower isn't the most underplayed card, it is certainly the most versatile

Counterpoint: Band of Misfits can be everything Watchtower is, and more.

OK, that is actually false because it can't copy reactions.  But man, BoM is pretty versatile haha.

BoM can be the most versatile card on the board, or it can not be versatile at all.. BoM can end up giving you a lot of options that you don't even want!... Quite often the best cards are drained, which limits BoM as well. So WT is the most consistently versatile card out there, IMHO!

[PSGarak]

Library and especially Watchtower combo with plenty of cards, but they also have the issue that they actively anti-combo with quite a few cards as well. That's why they see less use.

Easy example: Laboratory. If you have 6 cards in hand, then Library is a terminal draw-2 (i.e. Moat) with sifting, and Watchtower is a terminal replace-itself (i.e. Ruined Library ). If you deck has any* other draw, it anti-combos with Library/Watchtower. Which means that you will generally choose either Lib/WT or regular draw, but not both. Players probably pick the traditional option more than they need to, but the fact that the decision exists is the root of the under-use.

* Edge cases welcome.

[AJD]

Library and especially Watchtower combo with plenty of cards, but they also have the issue that they actively anti-combo with quite a few cards as well. That's why they see less use.

Easy example: Laboratory. If you have 6 cards in hand, then Library is a terminal draw-2 (i.e. Moat) with sifting, and Watchtower is a terminal replace-itself (i.e. Ruined Library ). If you deck has any* other draw, it anti-combos with Library/Watchtower. Which means that you will generally choose either Lib/WT or regular draw, but not both. Players probably pick the traditional option more than they need to, but the fact that the decision exists is the root of the under-use.

* Edge cases welcome.

This is more true for Library than Watchtower, since if your hand has more than five cards including Watchtower you can at least use Watchtower as a (moneyless) Royal Seal.

[dondon151]

I'd like to think that my fantastic article on Develop has spurred its use such that it is no long considered underutilized 

[KingZog3]

I'd like to think that my fantastic article on Develop has spurred its use such that it is no long considered underutilized 

I think your article certainly made me see value in it. Although granted, I did use it before I read the article.

[Count Grishnakh]

I'd like to think that my fantastic article on Develop has spurred its use such that it is no long considered underutilized 

I'm new here, so I'm definitely going to look it up. I'm not afraid to pick up a develop here and there but I could definitely learn from that article.

[LastFootnote]

I'd like to think that my fantastic article on Develop has spurred its use such that it is no long considered underutilized 

I'm new here, so I'm definitely going to look it up. I'm not afraid to pick up a develop here and there but I could definitely learn from that article.

For what it's worth, I think the article undersells Develop as a means of trashing mid-cost cards to gain more mid-cost cards. Also, it fails to differentiate good non-terminal $3 cards on the board (which make you want Develop way more) from good terminal $3 cards on the board (which make you want Develop not at all).

[Stealth Tomato]

For example, King Zog said that watchtower's top deck ability doesn't interact with treasure map, but it does if you can acquire two in a turn. There are many ways to do this, one of which is in my OP

It can interact with TM if you acquire one in a turn, too. I've been in the occasional situation where I have 4-6 cards left in my deck and know one is a Treasure Map, so I Watchtower a TM to the top of the deck and give myself a really good chance of hitting the pair.

[Davio]

Another underrated card: Contraband.

You don't really need that much targets. Sure it's a liability later, but its +Buy is actually pretty nice, like Counterfeits. If you can build a MacGyver kind of engine with all sorts of cheap stuff thrown in, Contraband is a nice addition.

[flies]

Another underrated card: Contraband.

You don't really need that much targets. Sure it's a liability later, but its +Buy is actually pretty nice, like Counterfeits. If you can build a MacGyver kind of engine with all sorts of cheap stuff thrown in, Contraband is a nice addition.

I tend to agree.  Contraband isn't always worth it, but it seems like people avoid it more than they should.

[KingZog3]

Another underrated card: Contraband.

You don't really need that much targets. Sure it's a liability later, but its +Buy is actually pretty nice, like Counterfeits. If you can build a MacGyver kind of engine with all sorts of cheap stuff thrown in, Contraband is a nice addition.

I tend to agree.  Contraband isn't always worth it, but it seems like people avoid it more than they should.

Yeah. It's one of those cards I get and then am happy I got it.

[shark_bait]

The issue with Contraband is the $5-cost price tag.  At $6 you would *almost*always rather have Gold.  Edge cases aside for Contraband having a +Buy, Gold is strictly better.  At $5, you have lots of competition for high power engine based cards.  The only times I'd really want it are when there aren't power $5's and there are a plethora of good cheap card like Menagerie, Caravan, TR, etc that can be used for engines.  You're not getting it in BM because it's too easy to know exactly what to block.

I don't think Contraband is under-rated or underused.  It's just a niche card that occupies a small subset of Kingdoms.

[dondon151]

For what it's worth, I think the article undersells Develop as a means of trashing mid-cost cards to gain more mid-cost cards. Also, it fails to differentiate good non-terminal $3 cards on the board (which make you want Develop way more) from good terminal $3 cards on the board (which make you want Develop not at all).

Yeah, that comment was kind of tongue-in-cheek; the article could have been more elaborate, but I felt like I was getting too long-winded.

Though regarding the terminal/non-terminal $3 card distinction, the list of notable $3 terminals consist of Amb, Masq, and Swindler, and the first two are kind of just plain better than Develop anyway.

[Count Grishnakh]

The issue with Contraband is the $5-cost price tag.  At $6 you would *almost*always rather have Gold.  Edge cases aside for Contraband having a +Buy, Gold is strictly better.  At $5, you have lots of competition for high power engine based cards.  The only times I'd really want it are when there aren't power $5's and there are a plethora of good cheap card like Menagerie, Caravan, TR, etc that can be used for engines.  You're not getting it in BM because it's too easy to know exactly what to block.

I don't think Contraband is under-rated or underused.  It's just a niche card that occupies a small subset of Kingdoms.

I agree 100%. I like getting contraband for the reasons you stated and also I like it if I want to get a possession as early as possible. It works well because players almost always block the gold which allows me to get the possession card. Then after that they tend to block the possession card so I just buy gold or provinces.

[LastFootnote]

For what it's worth, I think the article undersells Develop as a means of trashing mid-cost cards to gain more mid-cost cards. Also, it fails to differentiate good non-terminal $3 cards on the board (which make you want Develop way more) from good terminal $3 cards on the board (which make you want Develop not at all).

Yeah, that comment was kind of tongue-in-cheek; the article could have been more elaborate, but I felt like I was getting too long-winded.

Though regarding the terminal/non-terminal $3 card distinction, the list of notable $3 terminals consist of Amb, Masq, and Swindler, and the first two are kind of just plain better than Develop anyway.

Exactly. And you almost certainly don't want Develop if those are on the table. You want to buy them instead.

[AJD]

I maintain that, for all its flaws, Harvest is the "fixed" Adventurer. It has you discard cards from the top of your deck to produce coin, but it only costs $5 and doesn't require you to have treasure in your deck, just variety.

But Adventurer changes with special Treasure cards, while Harvest does not. I don't see them as being similar at all.

They're both part of a larger family of terminal variable (potentially large, but unreliable) money generators. Counting House is another one of the same family. Interestingly, most of them seem to be pretty weak. (What are the others—Pirate Ship? Trade Route?)

I Agree with Counting House fitting in that family. Pirate Ship and Trade Route not so much because the coin they provide are dependent on conscious actions taken by the players (attacking with Pirate Ship, and buying VP for Trade Route) rather than pure shuffle luck.

Coppersmith!