Print

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

[Qvist]

The Best Cards - Part 1/7

40+ votes for Empires cards, ~53 votes for the rest.

	#73 =0 Scout (Intrigue) Weighted Average: 2.1% ▼1.5pp / Unweighted Average: 1.8% / Median: 0% =0pp / Standard Deviation: 3.1% Scout continues to stay last since the second edition. It has by far the lowest deviation as its highest vote was 14%. It was voted last 29 times.
	#72 =0 Thief (Base) Weighted Average: 4.3% ▼1.7pp / Unweighted Average: 4.7% / Median: 1.4% ▼2.2pp / Standard Deviation: 8.5% Thief also didn't change much and has the second lowest deviation. It was voted last 14 times.
	#71 ▼1 Feast (Base) Weighted Average: 10.8% ▼1.4pp / Unweighted Average: 11.9% / Median: 6.9% ▼2.3pp / Standard Deviation: 14.2% Feast has a big lead over Thief of about 6.5pp, but lost one rank and is third to last just like 2 years ago. It was voted last once.
	#70 ▼2 Pirate Ship (Seaside) Weighted Average: 11.5% ▼2.8pp / Unweighted Average: 12.8% / Median: 11.1% ▲1.3pp / Standard Deviation: 9.5% Pirate Ship lost 2 ranks and has a low deviation. It's ranked worse than ever before. It's the first card with no vote on last and is 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking.
	#69 ▼2 Bureaucrat (Base) Weighted Average: 12.3% ▼3.5pp / Unweighted Average: 12.9% / Median: 9.7% ▼4.6pp / Standard Deviation: 9.3% Just like Pirate Ship, Bureaucrat lost 2 ranks. It's 5th last just like in the first edition. It was voted last once and has a low deviation as well. It is 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking.
	#68 ▲3 Navigator (Seaside) Weighted Average: 12.5% ▲0.7pp / Unweighted Average: 12.6% / Median: 8.8% ▼0.7pp / Standard Deviation: 10.5% Navigator won the 3 ranks it lost last year, but its average basically didn't change. It was voted last once. It is one rank lower in the unweighted ranking.
	#67 ▼1 Coppersmith (Intrigue) Weighted Average: 12.6% ▼3.3pp / Unweighted Average: 11.9% / Median: 10.8% ▼2.3pp / Standard Deviation: 9.1% Ranks #67-#69 are only 0.3pp apart. Coppersmith lost one rank after rising 4 ranks last year. It has the third lowest deviation in this list and is 3 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking.
	#66 Rocks (Empires) Weighted Average: 13.6% / Unweighted Average: 17.4% / Median: 11.1% / Standard Deviation: 16.8% Rocks is the first Empires card in this list. It has therefore a pretty high deviation for such a low ranked card with 4 votes on last. It is 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking.
	#65 ▲3 Treasure Map (Seaside) Weighted Average: 13.8% =0pp / Unweighted Average: 14.8% / Median: 12.5% ▲0.2pp / Standard Deviation: 9.1% Treasure Map is 3 ranks better, but has the same average. It has a low deviation.
	#64 =0 Spy (Base) Weighted Average: 15.6% ▼0.8pp / Unweighted Average: 14.6% / Median: 11.1% ▼1.4pp / Standard Deviation: 11.7% Spy stays on the same rank, but is 2 ranks worse in the unweighted ranking. It was voted last once.
	#63 ▼3 Noble Brigand (Hinterlands) Weighted Average: 17.7% ▼6.3pp / Unweighted Average: 20.3% / Median: 18.1% ▼5.1pp / Standard Deviation: 13.6% Noble Brigand lost quite a lot, 3 ranks and over 6pp and is now in the bottom tier. It was voted last once.

[Qvist]

The Best Cards - Part 2/7

	#62 =0 Talisman (Prosperity) Weighted Average: 20.2% ▼3.4pp / Unweighted Average: 20.9% / Median: 18.1% ▼3.8pp / Standard Deviation: 13.0% After rising at least a little bit the last few years, this year Talisman stays the same, but even loses over 3pp in its average.
	#61 ▲2 Taxman (Guilds) Weighted Average: 21.3% ▲0.5pp / Unweighted Average: 23.2% / Median: 18.1% ▼1.5pp / Standard Deviation: 18.7% Taxman lost 3 ranks last year, now it's 2 ranks back up with basically the same average value.
	#60 ▲1 Rats (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 22.0% ▼1.9pp / Unweighted Average: 23.4% / Median: 19.4% ▼0.6pp / Standard Deviation: 17.1% Rats continues to slowly gain ranks, this year one rank as well. But it even lost 2pp on the other side. It is one rank higher in the unweighted ranking.
	#59 =0 Nomad Camp (Hinterlands) Weighted Average: 22.0% ▼3.0pp / Unweighted Average: 23.3% / Median: 21.1% ▼0.3pp / Standard Deviation: 12.4% Nomad Camp has a small lead over Rats of 0.05pp. It stays on the same rank, but loses 3pp. It is one rank lower in the unweighted ranking.
	#58 ▼2 Death Cart (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 22.8% ▼10.4pp / Unweighted Average: 27.9% / Median: 22.2% ▼8.6pp / Standard Deviation: 19.8% Death Cart is 2 ranks, but more importantly over 10pp worse and therefore continues its falling trend.
	#57 ▲1 Feodum (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 25.5% ▼1.5pp / Unweighted Average: 29.8% / Median: 26.2% ▲3.1pp / Standard Deviation: 18.7% This is the first year in which Feodum won ranks, only if it's just one, but it still lost a bit in its average. It's even one rank higher in the unweighted ranking.
	#56 ▲1 Messenger (Adventures) Weighted Average: 28.0% ▼2.4pp / Unweighted Average: 28.7% / Median: 27.8% ▲0.1pp / Standard Deviation: 12.9% Messenger won one rank, but lost in its average. It's one rank lower in the unweighted ranking.
	#55 ▼2 Island (Seaside) Weighted Average: 32.9% ▼3.7pp / Unweighted Average: 36.1% / Median: 30.4% ▼7.1pp / Standard Deviation: 18.3% After a gap of nearly 6pp we're leaving the bottom tier cards and entering the next tier. Island continues to lose ranks, it lost 2 ranks just like last year. It's 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking.
	#54 ▲1 Trader (Hinterlands) Weighted Average: 33.1% ▼1.7pp / Unweighted Average: 35.1% / Median: 31.8% ▼2.1pp / Standard Deviation: 17.4% For the first time ever, Trader won one rank, but it still has a lower average.
	#53 ▼4 Miser (Adventures) Weighted Average: 34.6% ▼3.9pp / Unweighted Average: 36.3% / Median: 31.9% ▼4.6pp / Standard Deviation: 17.5% Miser lost 4 ranks and also 4pp. It's one rank higher in the unweighted ranking.
	#52 =0 Armory (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 34.9% ▼2.0pp / Unweighted Average: 32.3% / Median: 31.9% ▼2.0pp / Standard Deviation: 15.0% Armory stays where it was after going up year after year. It still lost 2pp and would be even 3 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking, so it's not as appreciated by newer players.

[Qvist]

The Best Cards - Part 3/7

	#51 ▼1 Silk Road (Hinterlands) Weighted Average: 36.9% ▼1.5pp / Unweighted Average: 39.2% / Median: 34.7% ▲0.8pp / Standard Deviation: 21.1% After losing quite a lot the last 2 years, Silk Road lost one more rank this time. It's 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking.
	#50 Ritual (Empires) Weighted Average: 37.9% / Unweighted Average: 38.3% / Median: 37.5% / Standard Deviation: 21.6% The second new Empires card is exactly on rank #50. It has the highest deviation in this list of the cards we've seen so far. It's one rank lower in the unweighted ranking.
	#49 ▼3 Gardens (Base) Weighted Average: 38.6% ▼7.5pp / Unweighted Average: 41.2% / Median: 38.9% ▼5.7pp / Standard Deviation: 19.5% Gardens lost consistently at least 5 ranks the last 3 years, this year it still lost 3. It's 3 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking, so it gets overrated by newer players.
	#48 ▼1 Pilgrimage (Adventures) Weighted Average: 39.7% ▼4.1pp / Unweighted Average: 40.3% / Median: 37.5% ▼2.5pp / Standard Deviation: 20.1% Pilgrimage loses over 4pp and one rank. It's still one rank higher in the unweighted ranking.
	#47 ▲3 Baron (Intrigue) Weighted Average: 40.5% ▲2.5pp / Unweighted Average: 39.0% / Median: 37.5% ▲0.6pp / Standard Deviation: 14.8% Baron is 3 ranks back up, but would be those 3 ranks worse in the unweighted ranking. It has a pretty low deviation for a card ranked near the middle.
	#46 Engineer (Empires) Weighted Average: 43.3% / Unweighted Average: 44.1% / Median: 40.3% / Standard Deviation: 18.4% Engineer is the third Empires card in this list and the first debt card we've seen. It's 3 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking.
	#45 ▼1 Cutpurse (Seaside) Weighted Average: 43.6% ▼3.1pp / Unweighted Average: 42.1% / Median: 38.9% ▼5.7pp / Standard Deviation: 17.2% Cutpurse lost one rank and 3pp.
	#44 ▲8 Walled Village (Promo) Weighted Average: 44.1% ▲8.3pp / Unweighted Average: 39.5% / Median: 38.9% ▲5.0pp / Standard Deviation: 17.2% Walled Village is one of the big winners this year. It's 8 ranks and over 8pp better. But it's still 4 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking, so unexperienced players didn't notice the change that much.
	#43 ▼6 Horse Traders (Cornucopia) Weighted Average: 45.0% ▼8.4pp / Unweighted Average: 47.6% / Median: 45.8% ▼4.2pp / Standard Deviation: 17.0% Horse Traders is nearly opposite to Walled Village. It lost as much as Walled Village won in their average and also nearly in ranks. It's 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking.
	#42 ▼1 Scavenger (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 45.7% ▼3.2pp / Unweighted Average: 44.4% / Median: 44.4% ▼4.8pp / Standard Deviation: 15.3% Scavenger's rating fluctuated quite a bit, but now it stayed constant, it only lost one rank.
	#41 ▼1 Mission (Adventures) Weighted Average: 46.9% ▼3.4pp / Unweighted Average: 42.2% / Median: 36.1% ▼7.0pp / Standard Deviation: 27.3% Mission lost one rank and has by far the highest deviation in this list, a lot of disagreement here. It's 3 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking.

[Qvist]

The Best Cards - Part 4/7

	#40 ▲3 Remodel (Base) Weighted Average: 47.8% =0pp / Unweighted Average: 48.3% / Median: 45.8% ▼0.4pp / Standard Deviation: 16.2% Remodel continues to go up, this year 3 ranks, but has still the same average.
	#39 ▼8 Duplicate (Adventures) Weighted Average: 50.8% ▼7.1pp / Unweighted Average: 52.7% / Median: 50.0% ▼10.0pp / Standard Deviation: 15.6% Duplicate crosses the 50% mark, even though we didn't reach the middle yet. It lost quite a lot: 8 ranks and over 7pp. It's 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking.
	#38 ▼2 Advisor (Guilds) Weighted Average: 51.0% ▼2.9pp / Unweighted Average: 49.6% / Median: 47.7% ▼6.2pp / Standard Deviation: 17.6% After being 12 ranks better last year, Advisor lost 2 ranks again. It is one rank lower in the unweighted ranking.
	#37 ▲5 Mining Village (Intrigue) Weighted Average: 53.8% ▲5.6pp / Unweighted Average: 51.9% / Median: 48.6% ▲0.2pp / Standard Deviation: 15.3% Mining Village is the middle ranked card in this list and the second village which got a big boost, here 5 ranks and over 5pp. It is one rank lower in the unweighted ranking.
	#36 ▲3 Farming Village (Cornucopia) Weighted Average: 54.2% ▲3.8pp / Unweighted Average: 53.3% / Median: 50.0% ▼2.3pp / Standard Deviation: 19.0% And here's the second village in a row, the third worst in this list. It is also better than last year, but only 3 ranks and nearly 4pp.
	#35 ▲3 Ranger (Adventures) Weighted Average: 55.0% ▲2.7pp / Unweighted Average: 54.2% / Median: 55.6% ▲4.8pp / Standard Deviation: 18.7% Just like Farming Village, Ranger is 3 ranks better as well.
	#34 ▼1 Moneylender (Base) Weighted Average: 56.1% ▲0.5pp / Unweighted Average: 55.8% / Median: 54.2% ▲1.0pp / Standard Deviation: 18.5% Beside its rank in the first edition, Moneylender continues to stay in the middle of the field, it basically didn't change all that much. It is one rank higher in the unweighted ranking.
	#33 Salt the Earth (Empires) Weighted Average: 58.0% / Unweighted Average: 55.7% / Median: 57.1% / Standard Deviation: 26.1% Salt the Earth is the next new entry in this list. And it has the second highest deviation in this list, a lot of disagreement here.
	#32 ▼5 Salvager (Seaside) Weighted Average: 59.5% ▼0.1pp / Unweighted Average: 61.0% / Median: 62.5% ▲1.0pp / Standard Deviation: 15.0% Salvager continues to lose ranks, this year quite a bit, 5 ranks even though its average didn't change. It's still 4 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking.
	#31 ▼11 Bishop (Prosperity) Weighted Average: 59.7% ▼8.5pp / Unweighted Average: 64.3% / Median: 58.6% ▼12.2pp / Standard Deviation: 19.6% Bishop is the big loser this year. It's 11 ranks and over 8pp worse. It was 6th once, but continued to fall year after year, this year the big drop. And weaker players way overestimate it still, as it is 7 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking.

[Qvist]

The Best Cards - Part 5/7

	#30 ▼1 Envoy (Promo) Weighted Average: 59.9% ▲1.4pp / Unweighted Average: 58.7% / Median: 62.5% ▼0.6pp / Standard Deviation: 21.3% Envoy has a slightly better average, but still lost one rank. It has a high deviation. It is 2 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking.
	#29 ▲2 Transmogrify (Adventures) Weighted Average: 60.1% ▲2.7pp / Unweighted Average: 60.5% / Median: 62.5% ▼1.0pp / Standard Deviation: 19.9% Transmogrify is slightly better, 2 ranks and over 2pp. It is one rank lower in the unweighted ranking.
	#28 =0 Procession (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 60.3% ▲1.2pp / Unweighted Average: 60.5% / Median: 59.7% ▲2.6pp / Standard Deviation: 19.6% After climbing 12 ranks last year, Procession stayed pretty much constant. It is one rank lower in the unweighted ranking.
	#27 ▲6 Ironworks (Intrigue) Weighted Average: 61.0% ▲5.7pp / Unweighted Average: 58.8% / Median: 59.7% ▲3.4pp / Standard Deviation: 19.0% Ironworks made a huge jump two years ago, then lost a bit last year. This year it recovered, going 6 ranks back up again. It is 4 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking.
	#26 ▼7 Caravan (Seaside) Weighted Average: 62.1% ▼6.6pp / Unweighted Average: 65.3% / Median: 62.5% ▼11.4pp / Standard Deviation: 16.2% Caravan continues to fall like in the last 2 years, this year even more 7 ranks and even over 11pp in its median. It's still 5 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking.
	#25 Sacrifice (Empires) Weighted Average: 62.5% / Unweighted Average: 64.2% / Median: 68.1% / Standard Deviation: 22.4% This is the third best Empires card in this list and has of course a high deviation.
	#24 ▼7 Monument (Prosperity) Weighted Average: 62.6% ▼6.9pp / Unweighted Average: 61.3% / Median: 64.6% ▼6.2pp / Standard Deviation: 19.7% Just like Caravan, Monument lost 7 ranks as well even though it was ranked first once. It has a small lead over Sacrifice of 0.11pp. It is 3 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking.
	#23 ▲10 Fortress (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 64.0% ▲9.2pp / Unweighted Average: 63.2% / Median: 62.5% ▲7.1pp / Standard Deviation: 14.6% Fortress is the next village, the 6th out of 9 and it also won ranks, quite a lot, 10 ranks and also nearly 10pp. It has a pretty low deviation. It is 3 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking.
	#22 ▼6 Marauder (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 66.1% ▼5.4pp / Unweighted Average: 66.7% / Median: 75.0% ▼0.4pp / Standard Deviation: 22.2% Marauder lost 6 ranks. Its median is way higher than its average, staying at around the same value. It has a high deviation. It is still 3 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking.
	#21 ▲2 Plaza (Guilds) Weighted Average: 66.1% ▲0.5pp / Unweighted Average: 65.2% / Median: 64.3% ▲3.2pp / Standard Deviation: 15.1% Plaza is the 5th out of 9 villages, so the middle one. It also is a little bit higher, though only 2 ranks. It has a small lead over Marauder of 0.08pp. It is one rank lower in the unweighted ranking.

[Qvist]

The Best Cards - Part 6/7

	#20 Temple (Empires) Weighted Average: 68.0% / Unweighted Average: 66.5% / Median: 69.4% / Standard Deviation: 20.3% Temple is the second best Empires card in this list.
	#19 ▲4 Conspirator (Intrigue) Weighted Average: 68.2% ▲3.7pp / Unweighted Average: 68.1% / Median: 68.1% ▲0.8pp / Standard Deviation: 15.2% Conspirator went 4 ranks back up and is in the Top 20 again. It is one rank higher in the unweighted ranking. It was voted first once.
	#18 ▲6 Quarry (Prosperity) Weighted Average: 69.9% ▲7.1pp / Unweighted Average: 64.4% / Median: 69.4% ▲5.5pp / Standard Deviation: 21.4% Quarry made a significant jump: 6 ranks and over 7pp better, not quite as big of a change as 2 years ago, but still... It is 5 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking, so really underappreciated by newer players. It was voted first once.
	#17 ▲4 Worker's Village (Prosperity) Weighted Average: 71.8% ▲4.9pp / Unweighted Average: 70.2% / Median: 71.4% ▲2.9pp / Standard Deviation: 12.9% Worker's Village is the 4th out of 9 villages and continues the trend of villages going up, 4 ranks and nearly 5pp. It has a pretty low deviation.
	#16 ▼4 Militia (Base) Weighted Average: 72.5% ▼1.6pp / Unweighted Average: 71.1% / Median: 75.0% ▼5.0pp / Standard Deviation: 17.8% Militia lost 4 ranks and is lower than ever before.
	#15 ▲4 Smithy (Base) Weighted Average: 74.6% ▲6.8pp / Unweighted Average: 73.7% / Median: 73.9% ▲4.3pp / Standard Deviation: 14.2% Smithy won 4 ranks and is now on #15, just as high as 4 years ago, but with way less cards.
	#14 =0 Spice Merchant (Hinterlands) Weighted Average: 75.8% ▲3.8pp / Unweighted Average: 75.3% / Median: 79.0% ▲3.2pp / Standard Deviation: 12.2% Spice Merchant stays on the same rank, but is still nearly 4pp better. It is one rank higher in the unweighted ranking. It has a low deviation.
	#13 ▼3 Sea Hag (Seaside) Weighted Average: 75.9% ▼1.9pp / Unweighted Average: 79.4% / Median: 87.5% ▲3.6pp  Standard Deviation: 20.6% After dropping significantly from #1 last year, Sea Hag still falls a bit. It was voted first 3 times and is still 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking. And its median is quite high in comparism to its average. And it has only a lead of 0.06pp over Spice Merchant.
	#12 ▲8 Port (Adventures) Weighted Average: 76.2% ▲8.7pp / Unweighted Average: 74.5% / Median: 77.8% ▲9.5pp / Standard Deviation: 17.6% Port is the 3rd out of 9 villages and it got a huge boost as well: 8 ranks and nearly 9pp. It was voted first once and is 2 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking.
	#11 =0 Young Witch (Cornucopia) Weighted Average: 78.2% ▲2.7pp / Unweighted Average: 77.5% / Median: 83.3% ▲4.3pp / Standard Deviation: 19.4% Young Witch stays on the same rank basically but isn't in the Top 10 anymore. It still won a bit in its average. It is one rank lower in the unweighted ranking.

[Qvist]

The Best Cards - Part 7/7

	#10 Villa (Empires) Weighted Average: 81.3% / Unweighted Average: 81.2% / Median: 83.3% / Standard Deviation: 16.6% Villa is the best Empires card in this list and the second best village in this list. The top 10 consists of all the cards with more than 80%. It was voted first 3 times.
	#9 ▲3 Throne Room (Base) Weighted Average: 82.2% ▲9.1pp / Unweighted Average: 82.4% / Median: 84.7% ▲6.6pp / Standard Deviation: 12.5% Throne Room is 3 ranks better and higher than ever before, now in the Top 10. It nearly has a by 10pp better average. It is 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking.
	#8 =0 Bridge (Intrigue) Weighted Average: 82.6% ▲1.4pp / Unweighted Average: 81.7% / Median: 86.1% ▲0.2pp / Standard Deviation: 14.6% Bridge is on the same rank and has a slightly better average. It was voted first once.
	#7 ▼2 Magpie (Adventures) Weighted Average: 83.2% ▼2.2pp / Unweighted Average: 81.5% / Median: 87.5% ▼3.6pp / Standard Deviation: 17.6% Magpie lost 2 ranks after its start in the Top 5. It is even 2 more ranks lower in the unweighted ranking. It was voted first once.
	#6 ▼2 Jack of all Trades (Hinterlands) Weighted Average: 86.8% ▲1.4pp / Unweighted Average: 87.0% / Median: 90.3% ▼2.7pp / Standard Deviation: 10.7% Jack of all Trades is the second former #1 in this list, not in the Top 5 anymore as well. It lost 2 ranks, but has still a slightly better average. It was voted first 4 times and has a low deviation. It's still 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking.
	#5 ▲2 Herald (Guilds) Weighted Average: 87.8% ▲6.0pp / Unweighted Average: 84.9% / Median: 88.9% ▲5.8pp / Standard Deviation: 13.6% After climbing a lot of ranks last year, Herald is now even 2 more ranks better and now in the Top 5. Also 6pp is quite a significant boost. It is one rank lower in the unweighted ranking. It was voted first 3 times.
	#4 ▼1 Ironmonger (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 88.4% ▲1.2pp / Unweighted Average: 87.6% / Median: 90.1% ▲0.9pp / Standard Deviation: 9.2% Ironmonger lost one rank, but still has a slightly better average. It's the only card in the Top 8 which has no vote on #1, but is one rank higher in the unweighted ranking. It has a really low deviation.
	#3 ▲3 Wandering Minstrel (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 89.1% ▲4.0pp / Unweighted Average: 85.1% / Median: 89.2% ▲3.0pp / Standard Deviation: 13.9% Wandering Minstrel is 3 ranks better and still the best out of the 9 villages, beating even Throne Room, Herald and Ironmonger which sometimes give you +2 Actions. It was voted first twice and is 2 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking.
	#2 =0 Tournament (Cornucopia) Weighted Average: 92.8% ▲2.5pp / Unweighted Average: 92.4% / Median: 95.8% ▼0.6pp / Standard Deviation: 12.5% Tournament is still on rank #2, but improved in its average. It was voted first 10 times.
	#1 =0 Remake (Cornucopia) Weighted Average: 94.3% ▲1.8pp / Unweighted Average: 92.8% / Median: 98.5% ▲2.1pp / Standard Deviation: 11.0% Remake stays #1, improving its average as well with amazing 21 votes on #1.

[ThetaSigma12]

*Reports Qvist for septuple posting*

[traces Around]

Feodum should have been seen by now.

[Harley_Beckett]

Feodum should have been seen by now.

I respectfully disagree.  Feodum can be a game-winning card if it appears with a good silver-gainer or with trash-for benefit.

Are any of these cards in the bottom rank ever game-winners?  Counting House if combined with Travelling Fair, sure, but that's a very specific circumstance.  I guess Pirate Ship in 3-4 player, but who plays 3-4 player?

[Limetime]

begger gardens

[Amac]

Feodum should have been seen by now.

I respectfully disagree.  Feodum can be a game-winning card if it appears with a good silver-gainer or with trash-for benefit.

Are any of these cards in the bottom rank ever game-winners?  Counting House if combined with Travelling Fair, sure, but that's a very specific circumstance.  I guess Pirate Ship in 3-4 player, but who plays 3-4 player?

Coppersmith can be pretty game-changing if it is a terminal yielding 7, although nowhere near the state of a serious brutal combo. Apart from Coppersmith though, I can't see any of these cards being a game-changer.

There is Counting House, but that is a 5. You at least expect a 5 to have some serious qualities. Although there is Harvest..

[Jacob marley]

Feodum should have been seen by now.

I respectfully disagree.  Feodum can be a game-winning card if it appears with a good silver-gainer or with trash-for benefit.

Are any of these cards in the bottom rank ever game-winners?  Counting House if combined with Travelling Fair, sure, but that's a very specific circumstance.  I guess Pirate Ship in 3-4 player, but who plays 3-4 player?

Lots of people play 3-4 player, they just don't come here to talk about it.

[trivialknot]

It's a shame that Rocks comes up in so few games, requiring multiple people to go for Catapults, or one person to go all in.  For that reason, I don't put much stock in the current ranking of Rocks, and am willing to substitute my personal opinion. 

Rocks is underrated by at least 10 ranks.  Considering that you only get it when there are five catapults floating around, Rocks is basically a curser/militia.  Definitely not the strongest junker, but still much more consistent than say, Embargo, so it's hard to justify it being so low.

[tailred]

It's a shame that Rocks comes up in so few games, requiring multiple people to go for Catapults, or one person to go all in.  For that reason, I don't put much stock in the current ranking of Rocks, and am willing to substitute my personal opinion. 

Rocks is underrated by at least 10 ranks.  Considering that you only get it when there are five catapults floating around, Rocks is basically a curser/militia.  Definitely not the strongest junker, but still much more consistent than say, Embargo, so it's hard to justify it being so low.

Rocks is not a curser militia, it's a oneshot curser militia if you want to look at it that way. This is even before considering the need to collide, etc. Big difference.

[LastFootnote]

Most of Rocks' power is gaining a Silver to hand, not just on-trash, but on-gain too. It's a great combo with most Workshop variants.

[schadd]

rocks ++
pirate ship +
spy -
feodum -

[markusin]

It's a shame that Rocks comes up in so few games, requiring multiple people to go for Catapults, or one person to go all in.  For that reason, I don't put much stock in the current ranking of Rocks, and am willing to substitute my personal opinion. 

Rocks is underrated by at least 10 ranks.  Considering that you only get it when there are five catapults floating around, Rocks is basically a curser/militia.  Definitely not the strongest junker, but still much more consistent than say, Embargo, so it's hard to justify it being so low.

Rocks is not a curser militia, it's a oneshot curser militia if you want to look at it that way. This is even before considering the need to collide, etc. Big difference.

Well two-shot if you count being able to trash the Silver received from trashing Rocks with Catapult at a later time, but you won't get +$2 from trashing Silver like you do from trashing Rocks and getting a Silver in hand to replace it.

[Limetime]

P-ship>Brigand.

[werothegreat]

rocks ++
pirate ship +
spy -
feodum -

Rocks is merrhh.  Not really sure where to place it yet, but it's certainly not top 10 material.
PIRATE SHIP IS BETTAR THAN YARRRR ARRLLL ARRRR MAKING IT AARRRRTT TER BEEEEEEEEE
Fuck Spy
All Feodum needs is a way to gain Silver modestly quickly and BAM it's better than Province.  Let us count the ways:
-MASTERPIECE
-Trader
-Jack
-Amulet
-Raid
-Talisman
-Bureaucrat? probably not, too slow
-Treasure Hunter
-Trusty Steed (if you can get it), probably still too slow
-Delve
-Salt the Earth (with Feodum), surprisingly
-Squire maybe?

[Aleimon Thimble]

It depends on the rest of the kingdom, of course, but on boards with a fairly weak engine Squire/Feodum and Bureaucrat/Feodum are certainly a thing.

On an unrelated note: no redemption for Coppersmith, unfortunately.

[Chris is me]

I don't know how you guys are all playing Catapult games where you run out of real junk to trash and can move on to Rocks and Silver. Do you guys just skip past trashing most of the Coppers and Estates?

Rocks is kinda good though because of how you can use it to throw Silver into your current hand with gainers or trashers, that's handy. I like it more than Catapult. It's still probably bottom 10 though.

Feodum kind of sucks

[Limetime]

I don't know how you guys are all playing Catapult games where you run out of real junk to trash and can move on to Rocks and Silver. Do you guys just skip past trashing most of the Coppers and Estates?

Rocks is kinda good though because of how you can use it to throw Silver into your current hand with gainers or trashers, that's handy. I like it more than Catapult. It's still probably bottom 10 though.

Feodum kind of sucks

There are other thrashers. Also trashing silver is probably better than trashing copper depending how many coins you need that turn.

[Beyond Awesome]

Rocks is bad. It never comes up, and for it to come up, you would need to buy more Catapults than you need, and even if it does come up, I mean, come on.

I'm surprised that Ritual wasn't in the bottom ten. I almost never find a use for it.

[trivialknot]

It's a shame that Rocks comes up in so few games, requiring multiple people to go for Catapults, or one person to go all in.  For that reason, I don't put much stock in the current ranking of Rocks, and am willing to substitute my personal opinion. 

Rocks is underrated by at least 10 ranks.  Considering that you only get it when there are five catapults floating around, Rocks is basically a curser/militia.  Definitely not the strongest junker, but still much more consistent than say, Embargo, so it's hard to justify it being so low.

Rocks is not a curser militia, it's a oneshot curser militia if you want to look at it that way. This is even before considering the need to collide, etc. Big difference.

A oneshot?  You're thinking of silver.  Rocks plus two silver is a three-shot, with multiple chances to collide.  And the first shot could be in the very same shuffle you buy Rocks.

Yeah, buying a card just to be oneshot Catapult food sucks, which is why Catapult isn't a very effective curser on its own.  You need a silver-gainer like Rocks.

[werothegreat]

I'm surprised that Ritual wasn't in the bottom ten. I almost never find a use for it.

Ritual is quite nice - it can help you catch up when you're behind.

[dedicateddan]

Rocks is bad. It never comes up, and for it to come up, you would need to buy more Catapults than you need, and even if it does come up, I mean, come on.

I'm surprised that Ritual wasn't in the bottom ten. I almost never find a use for it.

Remember that 4 catapult game? It rocked!

[aku_chi]

Rocks is probably the hardest card to accurately rank.  First, we need to understand how valuable Catapult is.  Then we need to understand how likely the Catapult pile is to be depleted.  This will help us determine how often Rocks might even be gained when it appears in the kingdom.  Then, in those kingdoms, we need to evaluate how useful Rocks are.

Here's my initial attempt to do this:

Proposition 1: Catapult is likely to be bought as the only Curse trasher in ~33% of kingdoms*.
Proposition 2: In most of the kingdoms specified in Proposition 1, providing Curses via Catapult will be so valuable that it will be worth it to buy extra Catapults to get to Rocks**.
Proposition 3: In most of the kingdoms not specified in Proposition 1, no more than four Catapults will be purchased, and Rocks will not be available***.
Proposition 4: In kingdoms where Rocks can be gained (mostly those specified in Proposition 1), they will be quite valuable - offering immediate economy and three sources to provide a brutal double attack.  In these kingdoms, Rocks will be about as valuable as Ill Gotten Gains in kingdoms with weak curse trashing (Rocks are a slower, but more impactful attack with slightly better economy).  In the presence of gainers like Workshop, they will be even better.
Conclusion: Rocks will not be obtained in ~2/3 of kingdoms it is present in.  Rocks will be quite valuable (~7/10 $4 card?) in ~1/3 of the kingdoms it is present in.  I think Rocks compares favorably to Rats and Feodum, which are also situational cards that are quite valuable in a minority of kingdoms.

* I calculated this value by assuming that Catapult will be purchased as the only Curse trasher if it is not in the same kingdom as: Chapel, Masquerade, Steward, Upgrade, Replace, Ambassador, Lookout, Salvager, Apprentice, Expand, Remake, Jack of all Trades, Trading Post, Forager, Hermit, Urchin, Rats, Junk Dealer, Altar, Butcher, Ratcatcher, Raze, Amulet, Plan, Trade, Temple, Donate.  This is a sloppy assumption, but I think there is sloppiness on both sides (sometimes, Catapult won't be worth pursuing in the absence of these trashers; sometimes, it will be worth pursuing as the only Curse trasher in kingdoms with these trashers).

** For an argument as to why this is, see here.  However, I haven't played many Catapult mirrors.  It is possible that there is a stable equilibrium in a two-player game where each player has two Catapults, and neither player wants to purchase the last Catapult and expose Rocks to their opponent.  Theoretically, additional gains or buys could break this stalemate, but it will be challenging for a player to gain a Catapult and a Rocks in a single turn while being attacked by their opponent's Catapults.  If this equilibrium is common, I will have overestimated the value of Rocks.  <philosophizing>Or, does this equilibrium imply that Rocks are valuable despite the reality that they will rarely be purchased in a game with two skilled players.  I don't believe there is a similar situation in Dominion.</philosophizing>

*** The biggest exception to this proposition, I believe, is the presence of a gainer like Ironworks.  If a player can gain extra Catapults cheaply (trashing the duplicates), then it might be worth it to try to reach Rocks.  The gainer will also make Rocks more valuable - in addition to easier to obtain.

Edit: Because English is hard.

[werothegreat]

I think you mean "proposition"

[trivialknot]

Philosophical question: If Rocks is powerful when it shows up, but only shows up in a small fraction of games, is it good?

Let's compare to Fortune, a card that I suspect will be ranked fairly highly.  Fortune will also only appear in a fraction of games, but it seems intuitive that this is reflective of the power of Gladiator, rather than the power of Fortune.

The difference between Fortune and Catapult is that Fortune is good regardless of whether you were the one who got a Gladiator.  Rocks are usually only good when you have Catapults.  You might gain extra Catapults not because extra Catapults are especially good, but because they give you access to Rocks, which are better for you than for your opponent.

When we rank cards we always take their costs into consideration.  Thus, we rank Fortune knowing that it costs $8+8D, and Rocks knowing that it costs $4.  But unlike Fortune, Rocks also seems to have an extra cost: the opportunity cost of buying perhaps more Catapults than you really wanted.

[drsteelhammer]

non philosophical answer: it's just beyond dumb to rank them seperately and it's mind boggling how anyone thought differently

[Chris is me]

Let's compare to Fortune, a card that I suspect will be ranked fairly highly.  Fortune will also only appear in a fraction of games, but it seems intuitive that this is reflective of the power of Gladiator, rather than the power of Fortune.

For the literal definition of a fraction, yes. But if you mean, less than most games with Gladiator in it, that's wrong. Gladiator is passably good and Fortune is so overwhelmingly powerful that it'll be sought out in I'd say at least 75% of games. You only really need to play it once (MAYBE twice) for it to have been worth it.

[GendoIkari]

Feodum should have been seen by now.

I respectfully disagree.  Feodum can be a game-winning card if it appears with a good silver-gainer or with trash-for benefit.

Are any of these cards in the bottom rank ever game-winners?  Counting House if combined with Travelling Fair, sure, but that's a very specific circumstance.  I guess Pirate Ship in 3-4 player, but who plays 3-4 player?

Lots of people play 3-4 player, they just don't come here to talk about it.

I think 3-4 player only barley makes Pirate Ship better. The only difference real difference it makes is that it's less likely to be a wasted card on a given turn. Even if Pirate Ship were guaranteed to give you a token every time you played it, it wouldn't be very good. It still just helps your opponent thin their Coppers while only eventually turning into decent terminal money. Whether 2 players or 4 players, I'd probably only go Pirate Ship when there's no other action-coin.

[Awaclus]

I think this is the second time I've been surprised by the groundbreaking discovery that you don't actually get 3 tokens if your Pirate Ship hits all opponents in a 4-player game.

[Chris is me]

You guys are missing another thing about Pirate Ship in 3+ player games. Pirate Ship is better in those games not just because it is less likely to be a wasted turn, by because you are being attacked my multiple Ships a turn. You lose your entire Treasure economy much faster as a result, and thus you need to quickly invest in a decently strong virtual Coin source. You know... like Pirate Ship itself.

Not that it becomes a fantastic card - but you can seriously run out of economy before you know it if you aren't careful.

[Qvist]

Part 2

[drsteelhammer]

Why is Nomad Camp so high? It's almost as weak as Woodcutter and it has a lot tougher competetition. Below Rats is just completely unfair.

[Chris is me]

Part 2 thoughts:

My vote didn't work out this way, but I think Rats is definitely better than Death Cart. I honestly can't recall when I've actually used Death Cart as payload excluding games with Fortress (or Rats lol). It's awkward to use, and it needs +Buy. I think when I get it, I'm usually aiming to pile Ruins.

Rats on the other hand, has a lower floor but a much higher ceiling, and the number of useful TFB cards that work with it has skyrocketed lately. Transmogrify, Sacrifice, Advance, Replace, Catapult... it's just a lot more common to find a Rats synergy than it used to be - and a lot harder to find trashing that's truly great for Coppers and Estates with the increased number of cards to pick from. It's skippable a lot of the time, but it has a much higher ceiling than Death Cart.

I don't really mind Nomad Camp escaping the bottom 10, just because the 10 cards below it are so bad and +Buy is usually the most scarce engine resource these days (at least it seems like it for me). But, shouldn't be above Rats.

[Limetime]

Nomad camp is worse than all of these. Like worse than p-ship. If you don't get it for the opening, Nomad camp is literally the worst +buy for a engine(the most common deck that needs +buy) because it may cause a dud.

[Beyond Awesome]

I agree that Rats is better than Death Cart.

Nomad Camp isn't that great, but it does give a buy and sometimes that's what you really need.

[Roadrunner7671]

Still haven't seen Scout yet...

[tristan]

Nomad camp is worse than all of these. Like worse than p-ship. If you don't get it for the opening, Nomad camp is literally the worst +buy for a engine(the most common deck that needs +buy) because it may cause a dud.

Not really. On-gain topdecking can be be valuable during the middle- and endgame as well. In situations in which you are in dire need of an extra buy and are willing to pay a shitload for a Woodcutter anyway (because you generate many coins in all your turns and missed to go for Nomad Camp in the opening) you actually appreciate that this very Woodcutter is landing on top of your deck.

[Qvist]

Still haven't seen Scout yet...

I think you're in denial.

[Awaclus]

Why is Nomad Camp so high? It's almost as weak as Woodcutter and it has a lot tougher competetition. Below Rats is just completely unfair.

You mean, it has a lot tougher competition for the lowest possible ranks. I think Nomad Camp is worse than Woodcutter, but the difference isn't big and there are fewer absolutely horrible $3 cards.

[LastFootnote]

Still haven't seen Scout yet...

Have you tried looking? Like, with your eyes?

[aku_chi]

Why is Nomad Camp so high? It's almost as weak as Woodcutter and it has a lot tougher competetition. Below Rats is just completely unfair.

Actually, there are a lot worse $4 cards than $3 cards.  Like, Chancellor is better than Navigator and everything beneath it (plus Coppersmith, IMO).  So, even though Nomad Camp is worse than Woodcutter, it's approximately in the right position; probably a few ranks too high.

Ritual is too high; we should have seen it by now.  It is very rarely better than green.  Consider trashing a Gold with Ritual.  That's $4 for 5VP.  If you had $5 without the Gold, you could have played the Gold for a Province.  And even with $4, you could keep the Gold and buy a Duchy.  You could use Ritual to trash a colliding terminal, but that's only going to provide a net 4VP in the usual case - barely more than a Duchy.  Sure, you could theoretically trash the Curse from Ritual, but it's a pretty weak golden deck payload.  Ritual is really weak and situational.  Island, for instance, seems pretty clearly better.  It would take a Gold gainer and a good trasher to make Ritual a better payload than Island + Province pairs.

Addendum: Ritual + Rats would be an amusing golden deck payload, though.

[Chris is me]

Why is Nomad Camp so high? It's almost as weak as Woodcutter and it has a lot tougher competetition. Below Rats is just completely unfair.

Actually, there are a lot worse $4 cards than $3 cards.  Like, Chancellor is better than Navigator and everything beneath it (plus Coppersmith, IMO).  So, even though Nomad Camp is worse than Woodcutter, it's approximately in the right position; probably a few ranks too high.

Ritual is too high; we should have seen it by now.  It is very rarely better than green.  Consider trashing a Gold with Ritual.  That's $4 for 5VP.  If you had $5 without the Gold, you could have played the Gold for a Province.  And even with $4, you could keep the Gold and buy a Duchy.  You could use Ritual to trash a colliding terminal, but that's only going to provide a net 4VP in the usual case - barely more than a Duchy.  Sure, you could theoretically trash the Curse from Ritual, but it's a pretty weak golden deck payload.  Ritual is really weak and situational.  Island, for instance, seems pretty clearly better.  It would take a Gold gainer and a good trasher to make Ritual a better payload than Island + Province pairs.

Addendum: Ritual + Rats would be an amusing golden deck payload, though.

I'm pretty sure the golden deck is just Rats / Rats / Silver / Silver /  Junk Card (curse after the first cycle). You basically get 4 VP a turn for 10 turns. Not especially overwhelming.

[Limetime]

Why is Nomad Camp so high? It's almost as weak as Woodcutter and it has a lot tougher competetition. Below Rats is just completely unfair.

Actually, there are a lot worse $4 cards than $3 cards.  Like, Chancellor is better than Navigator and everything beneath it (plus Coppersmith, IMO).  So, even though Nomad Camp is worse than Woodcutter, it's approximately in the right position; probably a few ranks too high.

Ritual is too high; we should have seen it by now.  It is very rarely better than green.  Consider trashing a Gold with Ritual.  That's $4 for 5VP.  If you had $5 without the Gold, you could have played the Gold for a Province.  And even with $4, you could keep the Gold and buy a Duchy.  You could use Ritual to trash a colliding terminal, but that's only going to provide a net 4VP in the usual case - barely more than a Duchy.  Sure, you could theoretically trash the Curse from Ritual, but it's a pretty weak golden deck payload.  Ritual is really weak and situational.  Island, for instance, seems pretty clearly better.  It would take a Gold gainer and a good trasher to make Ritual a better payload than Island + Province pairs.

Addendum: Ritual + Rats would be an amusing golden deck payload, though.

I'm pretty sure the golden deck is just Rats / Rats / Silver / Silver /  Junk Card (curse after the first cycle). You basically get 4 VP a turn for 10 turns. Not especially overwhelming.

40 vp isnt bad but it should lose to any fast bm or engine.

[Chris is me]

Why is Nomad Camp so high? It's almost as weak as Woodcutter and it has a lot tougher competetition. Below Rats is just completely unfair.

Actually, there are a lot worse $4 cards than $3 cards.  Like, Chancellor is better than Navigator and everything beneath it (plus Coppersmith, IMO).  So, even though Nomad Camp is worse than Woodcutter, it's approximately in the right position; probably a few ranks too high.

Ritual is too high; we should have seen it by now.  It is very rarely better than green.  Consider trashing a Gold with Ritual.  That's $4 for 5VP.  If you had $5 without the Gold, you could have played the Gold for a Province.  And even with $4, you could keep the Gold and buy a Duchy.  You could use Ritual to trash a colliding terminal, but that's only going to provide a net 4VP in the usual case - barely more than a Duchy.  Sure, you could theoretically trash the Curse from Ritual, but it's a pretty weak golden deck payload.  Ritual is really weak and situational.  Island, for instance, seems pretty clearly better.  It would take a Gold gainer and a good trasher to make Ritual a better payload than Island + Province pairs.

Addendum: Ritual + Rats would be an amusing golden deck payload, though.

I'm pretty sure the golden deck is just Rats / Rats / Silver / Silver /  Junk Card (curse after the first cycle). You basically get 4 VP a turn for 10 turns. Not especially overwhelming.

40 vp isnt bad but it should lose to any fast bm or engine.

I think almost any BM eventually beats this. It takes ~8-10 turns to set this up with e.g. Rats / Steward, and only by turn 20 do you have 40 VP.

[aku_chi]

With support, you could buy Ritual multiple times per turn.  For instance: { Rats x2, Curse x2, Peddler x6, Woodcutter } is a reliable golden deck for 8VP per turn (until the Curses run out).  But, it probably isn't competitive on most boards.

I played a few games against the AI with Ritual.  I discovered that Ritual can help get extra VP on the turn that you pile out with an engine.  Most engines have some redundant components that you can trash with Ritual on the final turn.  If they cost $5 or more, trashing them with Ritual is worth a little more than buying Duchies.  Pretty minor, but it's something.  I also discovered that Ritual is completely worthless in games with a strong Curser.

[Chris is me]

Regardless of how you go about it, your hard cap from Rats / Ritual is 40 VP, and the kind of cards that enable the golden deck (Chapel / Steward / etc) also enable much bigger engines. I could see it as part of an engine payload though? Definitely niche and not dominant.

[faust]

It's curious how everyone seems to assume that Ritual needs to be the centerpiece of a strategy in order to be any good. I think it is a lot more tactical, and useful to get rid of cards that have outlived their utility, or to get an edge in Duchy dancing. I think it's quite decent there.

[aku_chi]

It's curious how everyone seems to assume that Ritual needs to be the centerpiece of a strategy in order to be any good. I think it is a lot more tactical, and useful to get rid of cards that have outlived their utility, or to get an edge in Duchy dancing. I think it's quite decent there.

What kind of cards do you have in mind?  Getting rid of a trasher like Chapel is underwhelming for two reasons: 1) Those cards tend to be cheap, so you don't get much VP, and 2) How do you get rid of the Curse without your trasher?  Using Ritual to get rid of junkers after the Curses are gone doesn't work.  Perhaps Ritual would be nice to get rid of duplicate Junk Dealers; you can get 5 VP and provide an additional target for your remaining Junk Dealer.  As usual, Peddler and Border Village can be good with TFB.  Hunting Grounds is a great target for Ritual.  Anything else?  Perhaps I'm not being sufficiently creative thinking of Ritual synergies.

[Limetime]

It's curious how everyone seems to assume that Ritual needs to be the centerpiece of a strategy in order to be any good. I think it is a lot more tactical, and useful to get rid of cards that have outlived their utility, or to get an edge in Duchy dancing. I think it's quite decent there.

What kind of cards do you have in mind?  Getting rid of a trasher like Chapel is underwhelming for two reasons: 1) Those cards tend to be cheap, so you don't get much VP, and 2) How do you get rid of the Curse without your trasher?  Using Ritual to get rid of junkers after the Curses are gone doesn't work.  Perhaps Ritual would be nice to get rid of duplicate Junk Dealers; you can get 5 VP and provide an additional target for your remaining Junk Dealer.  As usual, Peddler and Border Village can be good with TFB.  Hunting Grounds is a great target for Ritual.  Anything else?  Perhaps I'm not being sufficiently creative thinking of Ritual synergies.

Getting rid of witch instead of giving the last curse. Gold gainers... lurker on prince or stuff like that.

[Awaclus]

It's curious how everyone seems to assume that Ritual needs to be the centerpiece of a strategy in order to be any good. I think it is a lot more tactical, and useful to get rid of cards that have outlived their utility, or to get an edge in Duchy dancing. I think it's quite decent there.

What kind of cards do you have in mind?  Getting rid of a trasher like Chapel is underwhelming for two reasons: 1) Those cards tend to be cheap, so you don't get much VP, and 2) How do you get rid of the Curse without your trasher?  Using Ritual to get rid of junkers after the Curses are gone doesn't work.  Perhaps Ritual would be nice to get rid of duplicate Junk Dealers; you can get 5 VP and provide an additional target for your remaining Junk Dealer.  As usual, Peddler and Border Village can be good with TFB.  Hunting Grounds is a great target for Ritual.  Anything else?  Perhaps I'm not being sufficiently creative thinking of Ritual synergies.

Any card that costs some dollars can be a good target for Ritual if shit hits the fan.

[AdrianHealey]

I tried Ritual once with some peddles on the board. Didn't work out, unfortunately.

[Chris is me]

It's curious how everyone seems to assume that Ritual needs to be the centerpiece of a strategy in order to be any good. I think it is a lot more tactical, and useful to get rid of cards that have outlived their utility, or to get an edge in Duchy dancing. I think it's quite decent there.

I don't think discussing Ritual's potential golden deck utility is at all the same as assuming it is the only, or even the best, use case for the card. It's just where the discussion was going.

Really though its utility over Duchy is kinda marginal and edgecasey. Unless you also need the Curse for trasher fuel, it's fairly rare that the one extra point is going to be worth losing a $5 for.

[markusin]

It's curious how everyone seems to assume that Ritual needs to be the centerpiece of a strategy in order to be any good. I think it is a lot more tactical, and useful to get rid of cards that have outlived their utility, or to get an edge in Duchy dancing. I think it's quite decent there.

I don't think discussing Ritual's potential golden deck utility is at all the same as assuming it is the only, or even the best, use case for the card. It's just where the discussion was going.

Really though its utility over Duchy is kinda marginal and edgecasey. Unless you also need the Curse for trasher fuel, it's fairly rare that the one extra point is going to be worth losing a $5 for.

Though, trashing your Duchy with Ritual gives you an extra point at the cost of a buy, so there is that.

[Shvegait]

Though, trashing your Duchy with Ritual gives you an extra point at the cost of a buy, so there is that.

Not just a buy, but $4 and a buy. So it's like a more expensive Great Hall in that case. Same situation occurs when trashing a Province. If you can trash the Curse, then the net effect of Ritual + trashing the Curse is roughly similar to buying an Island and setting aside the Duchy/Province (+2 VP and thin your deck 1 card, in 2 steps). However, Island is better in terms of VP for setting aside Estates, as Ritual+trasher only gives +1 VP.

Trashing a Gold basically costs you $7 and a buy for 5 VP (plus the Gold is trashed). You need some reason to avoid buying Province for this to be worth it, unless you hit exactly $7 this way and don't care about losing the Gold. An engine with Gold gaining could use this to extend the VP supply, if there is no other better source of alt-VP. This is probably the most common good case for Ritual, but it's still not that strong.

If you have useless actions late in the game, Ritualing one of them (such as Moneylender) could be better and cheaper than buying a Duchy.

I rated it quite low, and as the worst Event in Empires, but maybe it does better when you're playing all random. Empires has so much alt-VP available that something on the power level of Great Hall or Island is just not meaningful most of the time. On average though, I still think this will be about as impactful as Great Hall and Island, except without gainers working on it and with the added requirement of having a card you want to trash in your hand. Mostly I'm surprised that it's been rated higher than Island, which is fairly similar but easier to gain and use.

[markusin]

Wait Ritual costs $4!? I thought it cost $0 when I made my last post.

I mean, I should have known better given that I ranked it with the $4's and we are currently discussing $4's.

So then yeah I am at a loss as to when it is supposed to be good. I'd say the most obvious use of getting extra VP on the last turn is perhaps the strongest use.

[Qvist]

Part 3

[Awaclus]

It's nice that Walled Village is now at least somewhat closer to the other $4 splitters. It's a shame that it isn't higher than Farming Village.

[Chris is me]

I underrated Engineer a lot on my list. It's awesome. It's really so much better that you can have the card get out of the way once you're done with it. Getting an engineer can be worth it even just to gain 3 or 4 cards.

Also Mission's placement here is obscene! I have it at 10.

[drsteelhammer]

Mission is the first card shaped thing that is disastrously rated. It deserves to be atleast 30 spots higher, I guess there wont be any worse one in any list this year.

The question is why? It does align with the +buy meme going around, but other than that I wouldn't know any reason why any person would rate as low as it is now.

[Beyond Awesome]

I rated Mission higher. I don't understand. Engineer is also underrated.

[McGarnacle]

Walled Village is way worse. Silk Road and Pilgrimage should be higher, I think. But then again I didn't rank, so I can't complain.

[LaLight]

Engineer is WAY better. I didn't rank Empires cards and now I'm sad about it.

[Willvon]

It's nice that Walled Village is now at least somewhat closer to the other $4 splitters. It's a shame that it isn't higher than Farming Village.

Just trying to understand: Why do you feel that Walled Village is better than Farming Village?  Any engine would much rather have Farming Village than Walled Village, wouldn't it?  Unless I am totally missing something, Walled Village becomes nothing more than a $4 Village in an engine, but Farming Village helps you get through the junk and get to your actions to feed your engine. 

[Chris is me]

It's nice that Walled Village is now at least somewhat closer to the other $4 splitters. It's a shame that it isn't higher than Farming Village.

Just trying to understand: Why do you feel that Walled Village is better than Farming Village?  Any engine would much rather have Farming Village than Walled Village, wouldn't it?  Unless I am totally missing something, Walled Village becomes nothing more than a $4 Village in an engine, but Farming Village helps you get through the junk and get to your actions to feed your engine.

Awaclus's irrational hatred of Farming Village is itself sort of a meme, but I mean, Farming Village is only rarely significantly better than Village, and obviously it pales in comparison to others like Wandering Minstrel.

Walled Village is nice because it is better in sloggy games than Farming Village, since Walled Village sticks around until you need it.

[werothegreat]

Awaclus's irrational hatred of Farming Village

I thought Seprix was the one who hated Farming Village.  He wrote a whole article about how pointless it was.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I've only seen one thing in this list so far that's more than 4 or 5 ranks off where I had it in my list. I had Ritual about 10 ranks too high (not saying too high because it disagrees with this list but more because I've barely played with it and didn't think about how bad it was). I had Mission at #37.

[werothegreat]

I'm surprised Cutpurse is so low.  Sure, it's useless late game, but it's quite devastating in the early game.

[Awaclus]

It's nice that Walled Village is now at least somewhat closer to the other $4 splitters. It's a shame that it isn't higher than Farming Village.

Just trying to understand: Why do you feel that Walled Village is better than Farming Village?  Any engine would much rather have Farming Village than Walled Village, wouldn't it?  Unless I am totally missing something, Walled Village becomes nothing more than a $4 Village in an engine, but Farming Village helps you get through the junk and get to your actions to feed your engine.

Generally, Farming Village and Walled Village are both just vanilla Villages for $4. However, in the rare case where the ability actually does something, Farming Village just skips over one green card that probably wouldn't have made any difference anyway, whereas Walled Village might save you from an entire shuffle's worth of dead turns.

[Jack Rudd]

It's nice that Walled Village is now at least somewhat closer to the other $4 splitters. It's a shame that it isn't higher than Farming Village.

Just trying to understand: Why do you feel that Walled Village is better than Farming Village?  Any engine would much rather have Farming Village than Walled Village, wouldn't it?  Unless I am totally missing something, Walled Village becomes nothing more than a $4 Village in an engine, but Farming Village helps you get through the junk and get to your actions to feed your engine.

Generally, Farming Village and Walled Village are both just vanilla Villages for $4. However, in the rare case where the ability actually does something, Farming Village just skips over one green card that probably wouldn't have made any difference anyway, whereas Walled Village might save you from an entire shuffle's worth of dead turns.

Farming Village skips over n green cards, where n is the number of green cards on top of your deck. This may well be one, but it may well be more than one. (Consider the not-entirely-uncommon case where your opponent is building a Rabble engine.)

[Awaclus]

It's nice that Walled Village is now at least somewhat closer to the other $4 splitters. It's a shame that it isn't higher than Farming Village.

Just trying to understand: Why do you feel that Walled Village is better than Farming Village?  Any engine would much rather have Farming Village than Walled Village, wouldn't it?  Unless I am totally missing something, Walled Village becomes nothing more than a $4 Village in an engine, but Farming Village helps you get through the junk and get to your actions to feed your engine.

Generally, Farming Village and Walled Village are both just vanilla Villages for $4. However, in the rare case where the ability actually does something, Farming Village just skips over one green card that probably wouldn't have made any difference anyway, whereas Walled Village might save you from an entire shuffle's worth of dead turns.

Farming Village skips over n green cards, where n is the number of green cards on top of your deck. This may well be one, but it may well be more than one. (Consider the not-entirely-uncommon case where your opponent is building a Rabble engine.)

But by far the most likely scenario is that it is 0.

[LaLight]

It's nice that Walled Village is now at least somewhat closer to the other $4 splitters. It's a shame that it isn't higher than Farming Village.

Just trying to understand: Why do you feel that Walled Village is better than Farming Village?  Any engine would much rather have Farming Village than Walled Village, wouldn't it?  Unless I am totally missing something, Walled Village becomes nothing more than a $4 Village in an engine, but Farming Village helps you get through the junk and get to your actions to feed your engine.

Generally, Farming Village and Walled Village are both just vanilla Villages for $4. However, in the rare case where the ability actually does something, Farming Village just skips over one green card that probably wouldn't have made any difference anyway, whereas Walled Village might save you from an entire shuffle's worth of dead turns.

Farming Village skips over n green cards, where n is the number of green cards on top of your deck. This may well be one, but it may well be more than one. (Consider the not-entirely-uncommon case where your opponent is building a Rabble engine.)

Oh right, let's also talk about Scout that can draw even 4 (triple lab!) cards. Farming Village is not useful without deck inspection (scout) at all. It's literally Village for 4. Walled village is much much better.

[Jack Rudd]

It's nice that Walled Village is now at least somewhat closer to the other $4 splitters. It's a shame that it isn't higher than Farming Village.

Just trying to understand: Why do you feel that Walled Village is better than Farming Village?  Any engine would much rather have Farming Village than Walled Village, wouldn't it?  Unless I am totally missing something, Walled Village becomes nothing more than a $4 Village in an engine, but Farming Village helps you get through the junk and get to your actions to feed your engine.

Generally, Farming Village and Walled Village are both just vanilla Villages for $4. However, in the rare case where the ability actually does something, Farming Village just skips over one green card that probably wouldn't have made any difference anyway, whereas Walled Village might save you from an entire shuffle's worth of dead turns.

Farming Village skips over n green cards, where n is the number of green cards on top of your deck. This may well be one, but it may well be more than one. (Consider the not-entirely-uncommon case where your opponent is building a Rabble engine.)

But by far the most likely scenario is that it is 0.

Granted. Both these villages ultimately have the same dynamic: they're villages, so their utility increases as the proportion of actions in the deck approaches one, but as the proportion of actions in the deck approaches one, they become ever more indistinguishable from Village.

[Willvon]

It's nice that Walled Village is now at least somewhat closer to the other $4 splitters. It's a shame that it isn't higher than Farming Village.

Just trying to understand: Why do you feel that Walled Village is better than Farming Village?  Any engine would much rather have Farming Village than Walled Village, wouldn't it?  Unless I am totally missing something, Walled Village becomes nothing more than a $4 Village in an engine, but Farming Village helps you get through the junk and get to your actions to feed your engine.

Generally, Farming Village and Walled Village are both just vanilla Villages for $4. However, in the rare case where the ability actually does something, Farming Village just skips over one green card that probably wouldn't have made any difference anyway, whereas Walled Village might save you from an entire shuffle's worth of dead turns.

Farming Village skips over n green cards, where n is the number of green cards on top of your deck. This may well be one, but it may well be more than one. (Consider the not-entirely-uncommon case where your opponent is building a Rabble engine.)

But by far the most likely scenario is that it is 0.

I agree that there are better villages than either of these, but I still don't get it. If I play either Walled Village or Farming Village, then if the card I draw is an action or treasure, they both will allow me to put it in my hand. But if I draw a victory card or curse, other than minimal cycling, I have gained nothing really from WV, while with FV I get to discard it and draw again until I get that action or treasure.  The ability that WV gives to top deck it is great earlier in the game, but the most likely scenario for it being activated late in the game is just as much 0 as FV not skipping green if you are running any kind of decent engine.

I enjoy learning from all of you, but I am having trouble seeing this one. I have looked back at some earlier posts comparing villages. Everything I find always ranks FV higher than WV. In fact, WV is usually considered a low tier village.

[markusin]

Well, Dominion is a game where something being good "earlier in the game" helps snowball faster. Also, in games where reshuffles don't happen every turn, Walled Village is probably better at lining up with terminal actions than Farming Village.

That said, I ranked Walled Village directly below Farming Village in my full card list ranking. I think they are not distinct from Village for $4 often enough to have a ranking gap between the two.

[Awaclus]

I agree that there are better villages than either of these, but I still don't get it. If I play either Walled Village or Farming Village, then if the card I draw is an action or treasure, they both will allow me to put it in my hand. But if I draw a victory card or curse, other than minimal cycling, I have gained nothing really from WV, while with FV I get to discard it and draw again until I get that action or treasure.  The ability that WV gives to top deck it is great earlier in the game, but the most likely scenario for it being activated late in the game is just as much 0 as FV not skipping green if you are running any kind of decent engine.

I enjoy learning from all of you, but I am having trouble seeing this one. I have looked back at some earlier posts comparing villages. Everything I find always ranks FV higher than WV. In fact, WV is usually considered a low tier village.

The thing is, it is super rare for either of the abilities to do anything. When Farming Village does something, it still doesn't do anything very impressive. When Walled Village does something, it has a game-deciding impact fairly often. I remember tons of games where I had a decent engine going, but shuffle luck had it so that I drew a hand with some splitters and no terminal draw, followed by a hand of terminal draw but not enough splitters, resulting in two (sometimes more) dud turns. I also remember some games where those splitters were Walled Villages and instead of the hand with terminal draw but no splitters, I had a hand that was perfectly capable of kicking off the engine, resulting in only one dud turn, which sometimes was still something that I could recover from. Discarding one green card from the top of your deck probably isn't the equivalent of taking an extra turn very often.

You shouldn't pay too much attention to earlier posts or rankings. Earlier posts are often mistaken about things because they were made at a time when people didn't understand all the things super well yet (nowadays we still don't understand all the things but at least what we post is usually not outdated), and rankings are often mistaken about things because people who aren't that amazing at playing the game still get to influence the rankings.

[aku_chi]

Looking ahead to future rankings (because I'm bored), I've realized that ranks ~11-35 of $4 cards are really hard to sort.  There are a bunch of good cards that are very different from one another.  In this group, I have cards like: Quarry, Conspirator, Envoy, Militia, Marauder, Sacrifice, Bishop, Procession, Mission, Plaza, and Caravan (along with some other cards that share some obvious similarities to these cards).  I could probably be convinced that these cards could be ranked in any arbitrary order.  I don't have anything profound to say, just: keep this in mind when the next few sets of ratings are revealed.  There is bound to be a lot of noise from people like me who have a hard time evaluating which of these cards are more valuable.

That said, there are some cards that I'm more confident about.  Like, the $4 Villages.

IMO: Wandering Minstrel > Villa ~= Port ~= Worker's Village > Fortress ~= Plaza > Mining Village ~= Farming Village ~= Walled Village
And of the other action splitters, Throne Room and Herald are probably in between Wandering Minstrel and Port.  Procession is... tricky to rank.  But probably somewhere between Port and Mining Village.

[weety4]

I agree that there are better villages than either of these, but I still don't get it. If I play either Walled Village or Farming Village, then if the card I draw is an action or treasure, they both will allow me to put it in my hand. But if I draw a victory card or curse, other than minimal cycling, I have gained nothing really from WV, while with FV I get to discard it and draw again until I get that action or treasure.  The ability that WV gives to top deck it is great earlier in the game, but the most likely scenario for it being activated late in the game is just as much 0 as FV not skipping green if you are running any kind of decent engine.

I enjoy learning from all of you, but I am having trouble seeing this one. I have looked back at some earlier posts comparing villages. Everything I find always ranks FV higher than WV. In fact, WV is usually considered a low tier village.

The thing is, it is super rare for either of the abilities to do anything. When Farming Village does something, it still doesn't do anything very impressive. When Walled Village does something, it has a game-deciding impact fairly often. I remember tons of games where I had a decent engine going, but shuffle luck had it so that I drew a hand with some splitters and no terminal draw, followed by a hand of terminal draw but not enough splitters, resulting in two (sometimes more) dud turns. I also remember some games where those splitters were Walled Villages and instead of the hand with terminal draw but no splitters, I had a hand that was perfectly capable of kicking off the engine, resulting in only one dud turn, which sometimes was still something that I could recover from. Discarding one green card from the top of your deck probably isn't the equivalent of taking an extra turn very often.

You are totally right that Walled Village is great in terms of reducing risk. But as others have pointed out, it is just a village once you have an engine running.
Farming Village is decent in the opening, when you have a chance of skipping over some green, good against Rabble, Haunted Woods, Fortune Teller and Sea Hag and in general good in the presence of junkers or alt-VP.

They are probably roughly similar in strength. Not hyperimpressive 4$ villages but most of the times it doesn't really matter that much. If you need a village you pay 4$ for it anyway (or gain it via a gainer).

[ipofanes]

I'm surprised Cutpurse is so low.  Sure, it's useless late game, but it's quite devastating in the early game.

Possibly because, again, people ranking cards here are people who play 2p only.

[Awaclus]

You are totally right that Walled Village is great in terms of reducing risk. But as others have pointed out, it is just a village once you have an engine running.
Farming Village is decent in the opening, when you have a chance of skipping over some green, good against Rabble, Haunted Woods, Fortune Teller and Sea Hag and in general good in the presence of junkers or alt-VP.

It's not just a Village once you have an engine running, it's a Village which is doing all that risk-reducing. Farming Village is just a Village which is not even doing that risk-reducing when you have an engine going. Walled Village is also much better than Farming Village in the opening because FV is still super unlikely to skip over anything, but Walled Village is guaranteed to get topdecked every turn until you need it, which can allow you to buy more terminals early than you would with FV, which is great for tempo.

The more junk or alt-VP you have in your deck, the better WV becomes in comparison to FV for the same reason. You need a ridiculously bloated deck for FV's ability to be reasonably likely to do anything, and in that case, it's starting to get pretty unlikely that FV's +2 Actions is going to do anything, so it's probably better to skip buying splitters altogether and buy some more Treasure cards instead of some of the terminals that you would have needed the splitters for. But if you have WV, you can buy a couple of those and you're almost guaranteed to have them when you need them.

[weety4]

You are totally right that Walled Village is great in terms of reducing risk. But as others have pointed out, it is just a village once you have an engine running.
Farming Village is decent in the opening, when you have a chance of skipping over some green, good against Rabble, Haunted Woods, Fortune Teller and Sea Hag and in general good in the presence of junkers or alt-VP.

It's not just a Village once you have an engine running, it's a Village which is doing all that risk-reducing. Farming Village is just a Village which is not even doing that risk-reducing when you have an engine going. Walled Village is also much better than Farming Village in the opening because FV is still super unlikely to skip over anything, but Walled Village is guaranteed to get topdecked every turn until you need it, which can allow you to buy more terminals early than you would with FV, which is great for tempo.

The more junk or alt-VP you have in your deck, the better WV becomes in comparison to FV for the same reason. You need a ridiculously bloated deck for FV's ability to be reasonably likely to do anything, and in that case, it's starting to get pretty unlikely that FV's +2 Actions is going to do anything, so it's probably better to skip buying splitters altogether and buy some more Treasure cards instead of some of the terminals that you would have needed the splitters for. But if you have WV, you can buy a couple of those and you're almost guaranteed to have them when you need them.

I disagree with that. Once you have an engine running you cannot topdeck Walled Village anymore so it degenerates into an ordinary Village. Its ability only matters while you still build your engine. That is important but it is hardly as superstrong as you claim.

Farming Village does indeed rarely skip over junk but contrary to your claims it is not virtually never. After the opening you have 12 cards and 3 of them are junk so Farming Village has a chance of 25% to go over an Estate and thus be similar to Lost City. Of course the junk to deck ratio will decline from 1/4 after the second cycle, even in a Kingdom with cursers and without trashers. But to pretend that the ratio is virtually zero is wrong.

Both villages are weak 4$ villages of similar strength with a small bonus.

[TheOthin]

Opening Farming Village has a decent chance of being a significant upgrade over opening Walled Village, but both of those are terrible cards to open.

[Awaclus]

I disagree with that. Once you have an engine running you cannot topdeck Walled Village anymore so it degenerates into an ordinary Village. Its ability only matters while you still build your engine. That is important but it is hardly as superstrong as you claim.

Its ability also matters when you have a dud turn without terminal draw while your engine is already running, which is when it basically gives you 1 or 2 extra turns, which is definitely as superstrong as I claim.

Farming Village does indeed rarely skip over junk but contrary to your claims it is not virtually never. After the opening you have 12 cards and 3 of them are junk so Farming Village has a chance of 25% to go over an Estate and thus be similar to Lost City. Of course the junk to deck ratio will decline from 1/4 after the second cycle, even in a Kingdom with cursers and without trashers. But to pretend that the ratio is virtually zero is wrong.

25% of skipping over a card is not as good as 100% of connecting with two other Actions.

[weety4]

is definitely as superstrong as I claim.

Not really, you tremendously exaggerate. The card is just a weak 4$ village with a bonus that sometimes does a little something which is of roughly equivalent strength as the bonus of Farming Village.
All other 4$ villages are better than those two.

[Awaclus]

is definitely as superstrong as I claim.

Not really, you tremendously exaggerate. The card is just a weak 4$ village with a bonus that sometimes does a little something which is of roughly equivalent strength as the bonus of Farming Village.
All other 4$ villages are better than those two.

By what metric is taking an extra turn of roughly equivalent strength as skipping over a green card?

[NoMoreFun]

Connecting with 2 other actions is only good if both of those actions are terminals. Even in kingdoms where every other card is a terminal, Walled Village can inactivate itself.

You could play an enhanced version of Big Money where you buy more terminals than usual and a single walled Village, but that's the only unique situation enabled by it.

Hoping to see statistics come from the new Dominion online that reveal how often Walled Village is useful (eg compared to other villages, how often do terminals go unplayed, or how often are both actions used).

 

[aku_chi]

is definitely as superstrong as I claim.

Not really, you tremendously exaggerate. The card is just a weak 4$ village with a bonus that sometimes does a little something which is of roughly equivalent strength as the bonus of Farming Village.
All other 4$ villages are better than those two.

By what metric is taking an extra turn of roughly equivalent strength as skipping over a green card?

Imagine a hand with one $4 village and four stop cards.  If the next cards in the deck are Estate followed by Smithy, Farming Village has a better outcome than Walled Village; because you save the current turn, as opposed to the next turn.

Yes, this is contrived.  No, Farming Village isn't loads better than Walled Village.  Please, let's leave this dead horse in relative peace.

[Awaclus]

Imagine a hand with one $4 village and four stop cards.  If the next cards in the deck are Estate followed by Smithy, Farming Village has a better outcome than Walled Village; because you save the current turn, as opposed to the next turn.

And how likely is that scenario? Because the scenario where Walled Village saves the next turn is common enough that it actually happens (not very often, but it happens anyway).

[Qvist]

Part 4

[Chris is me]

Awaclus pedantry aside, we can all agree Mining Village should be a fair amount above Farming Village, right? Mining Village does stuff most games.

[LaLight]

Awaclus pedantry aside, we can all agree Mining Village should be a fair amount above Farming Village, right? Mining Village does stuff most games.

Mining village is much better than Farming one obviously.

[tailred]

I'm really salty about how low salt is here.

[SirPeebles]

Regardless of how you go about it, your hard cap from Rats / Ritual is 40 VP, and the kind of cards that enable the golden deck (Chapel / Steward / etc) also enable much bigger engines. I could see it as part of an engine payload though? Definitely niche and not dominant.

There are 20 Rats in the supply, so you can net up to 60 VP. The one exception is if you are playing with just two players, in which case there will only be 10 curses.

[Chris is me]

Regardless of how you go about it, your hard cap from Rats / Ritual is 40 VP, and the kind of cards that enable the golden deck (Chapel / Steward / etc) also enable much bigger engines. I could see it as part of an engine payload though? Definitely niche and not dominant.

There are 20 Rats in the supply, so you can net up to 60 VP. The one exception is if you are playing with just two players, in which case there will only be 10 curses.

Generally 2 player Dominion is presumed here. I was also assuming you didn't keep the Curses.

[Awaclus]

I'm glad Bishop and Salvager are significantly lower this year. I think they're pretty accurately ranked now. Intuitively I'd think Salt the Earth should be higher but I don't have a lot of experience with it.

Also yes, Mining should be higher than Farming, but not by much. All the $4 splitters should be roughly at the same rank, really.

[Jack Rudd]

All the $4 splitters should be roughly at the same rank, really.

Now this is something about $4 Villages I do agree with Awaclus on. The special abilities for $4 Villages tend to be:

Of diminishing utility in multiples (Worker's)
One-shots (Mining)
Not always capable of being meaningfully activated (Plaza, Fortress)
Of lower utility as the deck tends to an all-Action state (Wandering Minstrel, Walled, Farming)
... that sort of thing.

[markusin]

All the $4 splitters should be roughly at the same rank, really.

Now this is something about $4 Villages I do agree with Awaclus on. The special abilities for $4 Villages tend to be:

Of diminishing utility in multiples (Worker's)
One-shots (Mining)
Not always capable of being meaningfully activated (Plaza, Fortress)
Of lower utility as the deck tends to an all-Action state (Wandering Minstrel, Walled, Farming)
... that sort of thing.

I would argue that Wandering Minstrel is a great asset to helping you get to an all-Action state (when trashing is in the picture) considerably faster than the other $4 villages and it's reordering helps in the smoothness of a deck relying a good part on terminals. It functions a lot like Apothecary in a way, except the Coppers are discarded instead of put to hand and it looks at three cards instead of four.

Besides that, I can agree with your assessment on the other villages. I had evaluated Fortress and Plaza higher however for whatever reason I had at the time.

[Lord Rattington]

Rats is 60!!! What an outrage.

[Chris is me]

Wandering Minstrel is a top ten $4 card. It is on a completely different level than all the other $4 splitters - far more powerful. Even only in "perfect" all thin decks (which is a terrible standard to judge any card by), Minstrel's reordering gives it powerful synergy with top of deck cards and makes sure you draw everything in the right order.

Fortress, Plaza, and Worker's Village are also clearly a cut above the rest but a cut below Minstrel. Arguing that Farming Village and Wandering Minstrel are "about the same" is just ridiculous.

[weety4]

Wandering Ministrel is a powerful 4$ village but there are Kingdoms in which skipping non-Actions hurts, e.g. in the case of a draw engine which relies on Treasures as coin source.

[Qvist]

draw engine which relies on Treasures as coin source.

Especially in those games WM shines as you rather want to draw villages and draw cards first and the treasures last.

[schadd]

Wandering Ministrel is a powerful 4$ village but there are Kingdoms in which skipping non-Actions hurts, e.g. in the case of a draw engine which relies on Treasures as coin source.

i would say that this is the case where WM is at its strongest actually; if you're building the engine right, discarding treasures just mean you don't see them until the end, rather than missing them entirely, which is actually preferable


ppe yes

[Beyond Awesome]

Minstrel is an elite $4-cost

[Awaclus]

Fortress, Plaza, and Worker's Village are also clearly a cut above the rest but a cut below Minstrel. Arguing that Farming Village and Wandering Minstrel are "about the same" is just ridiculous.

Both Farming Village and Wandering Minstrel give you +1 card and +2 actions and don't really do anything groundbreaking in addition to that. Like, a card that was just Wandering Minstrel's ability on a cantrip wouldn't be amazing even if it was a $2 card, it would be something you'd buy when you could get it for free, but not something you'd buy over anything important. Definitely the vast majority of Wandering Minstrel's strength comes from the fact that it's a splitter for $4, and that makes it about the same as any other splitter for $4.

[Chris is me]

Fortress, Plaza, and Worker's Village are also clearly a cut above the rest but a cut below Minstrel. Arguing that Farming Village and Wandering Minstrel are "about the same" is just ridiculous.

Both Farming Village and Wandering Minstrel give you +1 card and +2 actions and don't really do anything groundbreaking in addition to that. Like, a card that was just Wandering Minstrel's ability on a cantrip wouldn't be amazing even if it was a $2 card, it would be something you'd buy when you could get it for free, but not something you'd buy over anything important. Definitely the vast majority of Wandering Minstrel's strength comes from the fact that it's a splitter for $4, and that makes it about the same as any other splitter for $4.

Yeah, I wholeheartedly disagree that Wandering Minstrel "doesn't do anything groundbreaking". It is a card strong enough on several boards to buy when you have no need for +Action at all. It basically lets engines start playing substantially several turns in advance or through decks littered with stop cards. It lets top of deck cards like Hamlet or Vassal or Wishing Well work with more reliability and control. It lets cantrip only engines draw all of the Action cards they need to without choking as quickly on copper. It cycles your deck early on (isn't this why you love Lookout and Loan?)

Quite frankly if you don't think WM is substantially better than Farming Village, you aren't playing it to its full potential, and probably skipping it when you really ought to be playing it. It's a top 10 $4 card, and if it were a $2 cantrip it would certainly be in the top half of $2 cost cards.

[aku_chi]

Both Farming Village and Wandering Minstrel give you +1 card and +2 actions and don't really do anything groundbreaking in addition to that. Like, a card that was just Wandering Minstrel's ability on a cantrip wouldn't be amazing even if it was a $2 card, it would be something you'd buy when you could get it for free, but not something you'd buy over anything important. Definitely the vast majority of Wandering Minstrel's strength comes from the fact that it's a splitter for $4, and that makes it about the same as any other splitter for $4.

I disagree.  Cartographer is a slightly stronger (4 vs. 3 cards), slightly more flexible (you don't have to discard non-actions & can discard actions), cantrip Wandering Minstrel for $5.  I would buy a cantrip Wandering Minstrel for $4 occasionally.  More relevantly, Wandering Minstrel's ability works especially well on a village, because it sets up your terminal draw to draw something useful.  Wandering Minstrel is the best village to use in games with strong junking, or weak trashing, or treasure payload.  Wandering Minstrel is also great with cards that benefit from strong cycling (travellers and Urchin come to mind).  And even when none of those conditions are met, Wandering Minstrel is still a better village than Farming Village and Walled Village.

[Awaclus]

Fortress, Plaza, and Worker's Village are also clearly a cut above the rest but a cut below Minstrel. Arguing that Farming Village and Wandering Minstrel are "about the same" is just ridiculous.

Both Farming Village and Wandering Minstrel give you +1 card and +2 actions and don't really do anything groundbreaking in addition to that. Like, a card that was just Wandering Minstrel's ability on a cantrip wouldn't be amazing even if it was a $2 card, it would be something you'd buy when you could get it for free, but not something you'd buy over anything important. Definitely the vast majority of Wandering Minstrel's strength comes from the fact that it's a splitter for $4, and that makes it about the same as any other splitter for $4.

Yeah, I wholeheartedly disagree that Wandering Minstrel "doesn't do anything groundbreaking". It is a card strong enough on several boards to buy when you have no need for +Action at all. It basically lets engines start playing substantially several turns in advance or through decks littered with stop cards. It lets top of deck cards like Hamlet or Vassal or Wishing Well work with more reliability and control. It lets cantrip only engines draw all of the Action cards they need to without choking as quickly on copper. It cycles your deck early on (isn't this why you love Lookout and Loan?)

Quite frankly if you don't think WM is substantially better than Farming Village, you aren't playing it to its full potential, and probably skipping it when you really ought to be playing it. It's a top 10 $4 card, and if it were a $2 cantrip it would certainly be in the top half of $2 cost cards.

If you don't think all $4 splitters are of roughly equivalent strength, you aren't playing to their full potential, and probably skipping them when you really ought to be playing them. The thing is, if we just ranked the splitters against each other based on their absolute power level, there would be a significant difference between Wandering Minstrel and Farming Village. However, we're also ranking them against other cards such as Militia and Bishop, and we're only putting them in a specific order, not evaluating how much of a difference in power there is between any two ranks. The fact that they're all splitters (which is an extremely strong effect by the way, it usually makes the difference between being or not being able to go for an engine, which tends to be the strongest strategy whenever it's possible) makes so big of a difference that it mostly obscures whatever other effects the card has in this kind of a ranking — Militia and Bishop are definitely not so close to one another in strength that they both fit in between two different splitters.

[Chris is me]

To be blunt, you are using the fact that Wandering Minstrel is a splitter to intentionally ignore the very strong effect it has. It's nowhere near negligible, and it makes the card sometimes worth buying even when you don't need a splitter, which is something you can't say about almost any other Village on the list (maybe Fortress?). If you don't think Minstrel does anything you are bad at playing with it.

[Awaclus]

To be blunt, you are using the fact that Wandering Minstrel is a splitter to intentionally ignore the very strong effect it has.

I definitely am! Splitters are that strong.

[trivialknot]

I rated Port higher than Wandering Minstrel, which implicitly puts me in agreement with Awaclus that the village effect of Wandering Minstrel is more important than its sifting effect.

[Beyond Awesome]

You guys are weird.

Port is a good card though

[Chris is me]

To be blunt, you are using the fact that Wandering Minstrel is a splitter to intentionally ignore the very strong effect it has.

I definitely am! Splitters are that strong.

Plenty of examples of boards you want Minstrel on without even needing a Village. The most obvious one I can think of is Highway / Market (Square), without Copper thinning or draw. You want to play as many Highways and Markets per turn as you can tolerate, but you don't want to trip on all that junk. Folding in a few Wandering Minstrel vastly improves your win rate.

Other examples would be stuff like Vassal or Herald. Herald becomes reliable draw even with hardly any thinning in the presence of Minstrel. Vassal can potentially chain into itself into the next Minstrel, which is pretty cool. Wishing Well and Mystic too.

Like clearly a cantrip minstrel at $2 would be quite good on a lot of boards, as evidenced by many players picking them up for $4 when they don't need more Villages. Topdeck inspection, discarding junk, etc are both very very good.

[markusin]

I rated Port higher than Wandering Minstrel, which implicitly puts me in agreement with Awaclus that the village effect of Wandering Minstrel is more important than its sifting effect.

This doesn't exclude the possibility that a Village can have a very strong effect attached to it, but still be worse than Village that comes with a free Village.

If hypothetically, there was a card that was Village but also had Mountebank attack for $4 or some other strong effect, it is reasonable to not need to rank it next to other $4 villages, unless you already rank $4 villages/splitters higher than every other $4 card. Who knows, maybe you do rank the $4 splitters like that

Ranking all the $4 villages splitters next to Wandering Minstrel would be a major boost to all of them because Wandering Minstrel's topdeck effect is just so good when combined with +1 Card +2 Actions in games where the engine is strong enough to warrant getting splitters I'm the first place.

[werothegreat]

You guys are weird.

I concur, using the term "splitter" seems incredibly deviant and abnormal.

[traces Around]

Some of the discussions here are really stupid, especially when they take away from the real travesties of the latest list.

Salt the Earth is laughably high. With little experience I can see why it would be thought of as powerful but it ends up doing very little in games it is present in. Points are usually better than getting the game closer to an end and the megaturns that can result in buying many of them tend to be able to pile something other than Provinces.

Ranger should be much closer to Smithy than it is. Although it falls short when in comes to total draw across two plays, the first draw of a turn being 5 cards rather than 3 makes a huge difference and the +buy of course doesn't hurt. I would still rank Smithy above Ranger but I would put them very close to each other, certainly not 5+ spots apart.

[LibraryAdventurer]

The only cards I had significantly different from these rankings:
-Farming Village I had #46
-Bishop I had #14.  I think it's crazy how low Bishop is here.
-I didn't rank Salt the Earth because I haven't played with it yet. (It's the only 4 cost that I didn't rank.)

[weety4]

Topdeck inspection, discarding junk, etc are both very very good.

Wandering Ministrels also discards Gold or Platinum which doesn't qualify as junk in my book.
I think that it is weaker than other 4$ villages like Worker's Village or Port.

[Awaclus]

To be blunt, you are using the fact that Wandering Minstrel is a splitter to intentionally ignore the very strong effect it has.

I definitely am! Splitters are that strong.

Plenty of examples of boards you want Minstrel on without even needing a Village. The most obvious one I can think of is Highway / Market (Square), without Copper thinning or draw. You want to play as many Highways and Markets per turn as you can tolerate, but you don't want to trip on all that junk. Folding in a few Wandering Minstrel vastly improves your win rate.

Other examples would be stuff like Vassal or Herald. Herald becomes reliable draw even with hardly any thinning in the presence of Minstrel. Vassal can potentially chain into itself into the next Minstrel, which is pretty cool. Wishing Well and Mystic too.

Like clearly a cantrip minstrel at $2 would be quite good on a lot of boards, as evidenced by many players picking them up for $4 when they don't need more Villages. Topdeck inspection, discarding junk, etc are both very very good.

I could easily come up with way more boards where you want Farming Village without needing the ability to discard green cards. Like, pretty much every board where Farming Village is the only splitter, as well as pretty much every board where Farming Village is not the only splitter but you need so much terminal space that the better splitter pile will run out, as well as pretty much every board where Farming Village is a stronger splitter than another splitter which is present. Compared to your boards, out of which the most obvious one is a 3-card combination (i.e. you're probably not going to see it in a random kingdom during your lifetime even if you play thousands of games) and every other example includes specific cards as well, the ability to split seems at least an order of magnitude more important.

Topdeck inspection, discarding junk, etc are both very very good.

Wandering Ministrels also discards Gold or Platinum which doesn't qualify as junk in my book.
I think that it is weaker than other 4$ villages like Worker's Village or Port.

You definitely want it to discard Gold and Platinum. They might not be junk (although it's a little bit arguable for Gold in some cases), but you don't want to draw them before you've drawn all of your Actions, because otherwise you might not draw all of your Actions. Once you've drawn all of your Actions, you can just reshuffle and draw the Golds and Platinums anyway.


Also, I think that Port is definitely stronger than Wandering Minstrel, but even that difference isn't super big. That's because the main feature of Port still isn't the fact that you're able to gain a second splitter for free, but the fact that you're able to gain the first splitter in the first place. The free Port is just a bonus on top of that.

[weety4]

You definitely want it to discard Gold and Platinum. They might not be junk (although it's a little bit arguable for Gold in some cases), but you don't want to draw them before you've drawn all of your Actions, because otherwise you might not draw all of your Actions. Once you've drawn all of your Actions, you can just reshuffle and draw the Golds and Platinums anyway.

This implicitly assumes that you draw your entire deck or a large part of it. In this case you are totally right.
But if your deck only draws a part of itself that discarded Gold is a liability.

[Awaclus]

You definitely want it to discard Gold and Platinum. They might not be junk (although it's a little bit arguable for Gold in some cases), but you don't want to draw them before you've drawn all of your Actions, because otherwise you might not draw all of your Actions. Once you've drawn all of your Actions, you can just reshuffle and draw the Golds and Platinums anyway.

This implicitly assumes that you draw your entire deck or a large part of it. In this case you are totally right.
But if your deck only draws a part of itself that discarded Gold is a liability.

You draw your entire deck.

[Chris is me]

You definitely want it to discard Gold and Platinum. They might not be junk (although it's a little bit arguable for Gold in some cases), but you don't want to draw them before you've drawn all of your Actions, because otherwise you might not draw all of your Actions. Once you've drawn all of your Actions, you can just reshuffle and draw the Golds and Platinums anyway.

This implicitly assumes that you draw your entire deck or a large part of it. In this case you are totally right.
But if your deck only draws a part of itself that discarded Gold is a liability.

It's a reasonably small edge case where you can't draw your whole deck, you want plenty of Village support, and you would rather draw payload stop cards instead of more actions that let you draw those cards later. In most drawing engines you want your payload last. Minstrel isn't the best there, but it's way more often that Minstrel makes your engine substantially more reliable / more likely to draw deck than this outcome.

I don't really understand this larger discussion of how other cards are the same (or, better?) than WM, because they are also splitters? Yes splitters are strong and have a strong effect. When comparing splitters to each other you are really only comparing the things that make them different. Going "but they are a splitter" is purely derailing in a direct comparison. And WM's differentiator is strong and substantial on many boards, which makes it elite particularly combined with the whole splitting thing.

And I knew Awaclus would pull that "it's a three card combo" "it's an edge case" bullshit if I named any specific example, which is why I didn't before. But it's an argument he can't lose. Either you don't name examples and he doesn't recognize the argument at all, or you do and he dismisses them as things that never happen. It's an EXAMPLE. One of Many. It isn't really even a three card example combo - any combination of Highway, Minstrel, and one of several nonterminal +Buy works. And you can substitute Highway for any cantrip payload! This isn't exactly an exotic uncommon deck that most people don't build.

[weety4]

You definitely want it to discard Gold and Platinum. They might not be junk (although it's a little bit arguable for Gold in some cases), but you don't want to draw them before you've drawn all of your Actions, because otherwise you might not draw all of your Actions. Once you've drawn all of your Actions, you can just reshuffle and draw the Golds and Platinums anyway.

This implicitly assumes that you draw your entire deck or a large part of it. In this case you are totally right.
But if your deck only draws a part of itself that discarded Gold is a liability.

It's a reasonably small edge case where you can't draw your whole deck, you want plenty of Village support, and you would rather draw payload stop cards instead of more actions that let you draw those cards later. In most drawing engines you want your payload last. Minstrel isn't the best there, but it's way more often that Minstrel makes your engine substantially more reliable / more likely to draw deck than this outcome.

Well, perhaps you are simply a better player but decks that draw themselves entirely each turn happen rarely or lately in my games.
So in my experience Wandering Ministrel's ability is often a liability when it takes another 1 or 2 turns until you see that Treasure you just discarded again.

[Awaclus]

I don't really understand this larger discussion of how other cards are the same (or, better?) than WM, because they are also splitters? Yes splitters are strong and have a strong effect. When comparing splitters to each other you are really only comparing the things that make them different.

The thing is, if we just ranked the splitters against each other based on their absolute power level, there would be a significant difference between Wandering Minstrel and Farming Village. However, we're also ranking them against other cards such as Militia and Bishop, and we're only putting them in a specific order, not evaluating how much of a difference in power there is between any two ranks. The fact that they're all splitters (which is an extremely strong effect by the way, it usually makes the difference between being or not being able to go for an engine, which tends to be the strongest strategy whenever it's possible) makes so big of a difference that it mostly obscures whatever other effects the card has in this kind of a ranking — Militia and Bishop are definitely not so close to one another in strength that they both fit in between two different splitters.

And I knew Awaclus would pull that "it's a three card combo" "it's an edge case" bullshit if I named any specific example, which is why I didn't before. But it's an argument he can't lose. Either you don't name examples and he doesn't recognize the argument at all, or you do and he dismisses them as things that never happen. It's an EXAMPLE. One of Many. It isn't really even a three card example combo - any combination of Highway, Minstrel, and one of several nonterminal +Buy works. And you can substitute Highway for any cantrip payload! This isn't exactly an exotic uncommon deck that most people don't build.

But you can't claim that it's anywhere near as common as an engine that has splitters and terminal draw, or that Wandering Minstrel is as important in it as splitters are in splitter/terminal draw engines. If you have just Highways and Market Squares, that isn't an amazing strategy on its own but you can still do it, and it doesn't require a card that does what Wandering Minstrel's ability does to make it the best strategy on the board. If you have just terminal draw, you can't build an engine without a splitter.

Well, perhaps you are simply a better player but decks that draw themselves entirely each turn happen rarely or lately in my games.
So in my experience Wandering Ministrel's ability is often a liability when it takes another 1 or 2 turns until you see that Treasure you just discarded again.

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy you have there. Building decks that draw themselves requires not having too many Treasures (or being able to cycle through them), especially in the early game where getting to the next reshuffle as fast as possible is essential. In other words, if you find that your Wandering Minstrel skips over good Treasures often, especially early on, the thing in that whole equation which is the liability is the Treasures, not the fact that they're being skipped.

[markusin]

You definitely want it to discard Gold and Platinum. They might not be junk (although it's a little bit arguable for Gold in some cases), but you don't want to draw them before you've drawn all of your Actions, because otherwise you might not draw all of your Actions. Once you've drawn all of your Actions, you can just reshuffle and draw the Golds and Platinums anyway.

This implicitly assumes that you draw your entire deck or a large part of it. In this case you are totally right.
But if your deck only draws a part of itself that discarded Gold is a liability.

It's a reasonably small edge case where you can't draw your whole deck, you want plenty of Village support, and you would rather draw payload stop cards instead of more actions that let you draw those cards later. In most drawing engines you want your payload last. Minstrel isn't the best there, but it's way more often that Minstrel makes your engine substantially more reliable / more likely to draw deck than this outcome.

Well, perhaps you are simply a better player but decks that draw themselves entirely each turn happen rarely or lately in my games.
So in my experience Wandering Ministrel's ability is often a liability when it takes another 1 or 2 turns until you see that Treasure you just discarded again.

It can be a liability if you make the "village idiot" mistake and have very few actions besides Wandering Minstrel compared to treasure. Thinking Wandering Minstrel is Cartographer and using it to get to your Mountebank or whatever sooner will make you miss your Silver and Gold and you won't have an easy time buying the stuff you really need. Make sure to get proper engine components at the right balance as you gain Wandering Minstrel. Small value cantrips like Pearl Diver and Vagrant don't count.

[weety4]

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy you have there. Building decks that draw themselves requires not having too many Treasures (or being able to cycle through them), especially in the early game where getting to the next reshuffle as fast as possible is essential. In other words, if you find that your Wandering Minstrel skips over good Treasures often, especially early on, the thing in that whole equation which is the liability is the Treasures, not the fact that they're being skipped.

Every Kingdom is different and there are very well ample of Kingdoms in which you need some villages but don't end up with a sublime engine that draws the entire deck every turn. Typical psychological bias, we all love these games and thus forget all the mediocre games or the stuff that is somewhere between engine and BM.

Let's take a junking-intensive game with Cultist and some other terminals around. You definitely do want some villages but Wandering Ministrel would be far worse than Village (early on it would of course be better as you'd draw Cultist earlier)
Now this is an extreme case and of course not every Kingdom without trashers and with junkers requires villages. But some do and in this instance Wandering Ministrel is not a powerhouse if it runs over a Silver or Gold you will only see two or three turns later.

Thinking Wandering Minstrel is Cartographer and using it to get to your Mountebank or whatever sooner will make you miss your Silver and Gold and you won't have an easy time buying the stuff you really need.

This is my entire point, that the card is not, as Chris claims, the hyperflexible powerhouse which is supposedly even good when you don't require a village.

[aku_chi]

Well, perhaps you are simply a better player but decks that draw themselves entirely each turn happen rarely or lately in my games.
So in my experience Wandering Ministrel's ability is often a liability when it takes another 1 or 2 turns until you see that Treasure you just discarded again.

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy you have there. Building decks that draw themselves requires not having too many Treasures (or being able to cycle through them), especially in the early game where getting to the next reshuffle as fast as possible is essential. In other words, if you find that your Wandering Minstrel skips over good Treasures often, especially early on, the thing in that whole equation which is the liability is the Treasures, not the fact that they're being skipped.

To add onto this: if it is possible to draw your deck, you probably shouldn't gain Gold or Platinum before you are at the point where you're reliably drawing your deck.  You might buy a Silver early if it's the only/best way to hit $5 for a key engine piece.

Moreover, even if it isn't feasible to draw your whole deck, Wandering Minstrel's ability is a benefit so long as the average action in your deck is more valuable than the average non-action.  This is almost always the case (possible exception: you are being junked with Ruins).  Why?  Because you start the game with ten bad non-action cards.  If you can get rid of your starting cards, you should be drawing your deck.  In some particular plays of Wandering Minstrel, you might get a bad outcome (like discarding a Platinum), but the average effect will be positive.

[Awaclus]

Every Kingdom is different and there are very well ample of Kingdoms in which you need some villages but don't end up with a sublime engine that draws the entire deck every turn. Typical psychological bias, we all love these games and thus forget all the mediocre games or the stuff that is somewhere between engine and BM.

There is no stuff "somewhere between engine and BM". BM might sound like a simple strategy on the surface because of how easy it is to play, but what allows it to function is a set of very complex and delicate interactions between the rules of the game and the very specific cards you buy. If you try to mix it with something else, you lose those interactions and suddenly you have a deck that sucks.

[weety4]

Every Kingdom is different and there are very well ample of Kingdoms in which you need some villages but don't end up with a sublime engine that draws the entire deck every turn. Typical psychological bias, we all love these games and thus forget all the mediocre games or the stuff that is somewhere between engine and BM.

There is no stuff "somewhere between engine and BM".

Yes there is. The density of Actions and Treasures in your deck is different in every game.  Which is e.g. why you might have some Silvers and some Action card in your deck and which is why Wandering Ministrel can be worse than Village in a particular situation.
As I said, everybody loves sublime engines but you seem to willfully ignore those muddy games in which you have a mix of everything or in which one player goes for more Actions and tries to build up an engine while the other bought some Gold early on and is already greening.

[aku_chi]

Every Kingdom is different and there are very well ample of Kingdoms in which you need some villages but don't end up with a sublime engine that draws the entire deck every turn. Typical psychological bias, we all love these games and thus forget all the mediocre games or the stuff that is somewhere between engine and BM.

There is no stuff "somewhere between engine and BM". BM might sound like a simple strategy on the surface because of how easy it is to play, but what allows it to function is a set of very complex and delicate interactions between the rules of the game and the very specific cards you buy. If you try to mix it with something else, you lose those interactions and suddenly you have a deck that sucks.

I believe weety4 is referring to kingdoms in which it is not feasible to draw one's deck, but the best strategy involves some action splitters.  Whether you call those strategies "engines", "BM", "good stuff", or something else: they exist.  But those kingdoms might be less common than weety4 believes.

[Awaclus]

The kind of BM which involves splitters does exist maybe once every hundred games or so, usually thanks to something like Ironmonger, Border Village, Bandit Camp or Fishing Village (i.e. splitters that you can buy without having to sacrifice a lot of momentum). I don't think there is ever a BM deck where you buy Wandering Minstrels or Farming Villages.

[markusin]

I think the issue is, when villages are bad, Wandering Minstrel is really bad. Worse than if you bought nothing, which is rarely the case for any other Village. This makes the Wandering Minstrel effect feel like a downside at times. I do feel that it is very rare that you really need a village for your strategy to work, but Wandering Minstrel's topdeck effect hinders its function as a village.

It is really a stretch to come up with a scenario where you want to buy say Farming Village over Wandering Minstrel where buying at least one of them is approximately the correct play, as opposed to just buying another Silver or draw card or nothing. Wandering Minstrel's effect is just so synergistic with its vanilla bonuses.

It can be effective even when the +2 Actions is not needed, but I will admit the occurrence of those cases isn't as frequent as one might believe.

[Witherweaver]

I think the issue is, when villages are bad, Wandering Minstrel is really bad. Worse than if you bought nothing, which is rarely the case for any other Village. This makes the Wandering Minstrel effect feel like a downside at times. I do feel that it is very rare that you really need a village for your strategy to work, but Wandering Minstrel's topdeck effect hinders its function as a village.

It is really a stretch to come up with a scenario where you want to buy say Farming Village over Wandering Minstrel where buying at least one of them is approximately the correct play, as opposed to just buying another Silver or draw card or nothing. Wandering Minstrel's effect is just so synergistic with its vanilla bonuses.

It can be effective even when the +2 Actions is not needed, but I will admit the occurrence of those cases isn't as frequent as one might believe.

Wandering Minstrel + Tunnel.  Your discard pile gets so rich!

[markusin]

I think the issue is, when villages are bad, Wandering Minstrel is really bad. Worse than if you bought nothing, which is rarely the case for any other Village. This makes the Wandering Minstrel effect feel like a downside at times. I do feel that it is very rare that you really need a village for your strategy to work, but Wandering Minstrel's topdeck effect hinders its function as a village.

It is really a stretch to come up with a scenario where you want to buy say Farming Village over Wandering Minstrel where buying at least one of them is approximately the correct play, as opposed to just buying another Silver or draw card or nothing. Wandering Minstrel's effect is just so synergistic with its vanilla bonuses.

It can be effective even when the +2 Actions is not needed, but I will admit the occurrence of those cases isn't as frequent as one might believe.

Wandering Minstrel + Tunnel.  Your discard pile gets so rich!

Wandering Minstrel + Tunnel falls into the category of "always works when someone else does it"

[Bowi]

Seems like this Wandering Minstrel vs Generic $4 Village debate can be broken down into four cases:

Case 1: Bad kingdom for villages
In this case Wandering Minstrel = Generic Village, since you won't be buying either. So this case can be ignored basically.

Case 2: Some villages come in handy
Wandering Minstrel's additional effect can hurt in circumstances by skipping over important treasure (or other non-action?) cards. Also if you cause reshuffles at the wrong time you can create dud turns. An edge case is ruins, which totally screw with the top-of-deck-sifting effect. Wandering Minstrel < Generic Village

Case 3: There wouldn't be an engine unless the village was Wandering Minstrel
Having strong sifting on your village can make an otherwise impossible engine possible. Every deck starts with 10 junky cards that you probably want to skip over until the last draws of your engine. In this case you need to be extra careful to draw up all your junk or you will eat it the next turn (or maybe it's a slogging game and you don't mind having boom-and-bust turns?). Still for this case: Wandering Minstrel > Generic Village

Case 4: Strong engine kingdom
You would buy any village available in this case, but you generally want to get your actions before your non-actions. Wandering Minstrel helps ensure that you draw your whole deck reliably. Wandering Minstrel > Generic Village


So the big question is: How common are cases 2 and 3?

To me case 3 seems far more common. A lot of kingdoms with little to no trashing, junking, or early greening fall into case 3. Case 2 feels more like an edge case. So most games where villages are relevant (most games), Wandering Minstrel is very good while the more vanilla villages (i.e. Farming and Walled) are inferior, or worse, aren't enough to make an engine work.

My overall take? Wandering Minstrel, Villa, and Port are all head and shoulders above the other $4 villages

[Awaclus]

So the big question is: How common are cases 2 and 3?

And the big answer is: not at all common. They practically don't happen. If you can build an engine with Wandering Minstrel, you can build the engine with Farming Village — sometimes, it makes more of a difference, sometimes less, but it's not as big of a difference as trying to substitute Bishop for Militia. Thusly, you shouldn't have both Bishop and Militia in between Farming Village and Wandering Minstrel.

>inb4 someone points out that Bishop and Militia do entirely different things (>inb4 someone (correctly) points out that I can't say ">inb4" myself)

Yes, that's precisely why one of them is so much stronger than the other. They, however, fulfill a very similar role in being an engine payload card which specifically helps the engine defeat big money opponents who would otherwise be acquiring points faster than the engine could handle, so the comparison is fair.

[Limetime]

Case 2: Some villages come in handy
Wandering Minstrel's additional effect can hurt in circumstances by skipping over important treasure (or other non-action?) cards. Also if you cause reshuffles at the wrong time you can create dud turns. An edge case is ruins, which totally screw with the top-of-deck-sifting effect. Wandering Minstrel < Generic Village

Actions are almost always better than your average card you will be skipping. So in non ruin cases Wandering Minstrel > Generic Village

The best advantage of wandering minstrel is early when you need to cycle to find your important actions and when you cant trash down.

On the other hand port is better than wandering minstrel in case 4 and maybe case 2.

[Beyond Awesome]

In non-BM decks money exists to kick off your strategy. Later on, you want to see key cards more frequently which makes WM good. Rarely are treasures a key card so skipping over them is a moot point. This should be obvious. I seriously can't believe some of the debate on here.

WM is super good and better than most villages on a majority of boards. The End.

[Qvist]

Part 5

[werothegreat]

Sacrifice is too low.  It is quite good.

[aku_chi]

Responding to Qvist's parting questions in the video:

• I had Envoy adjacent to Smithy, so I think it deserves to be higher.  I want to push back on it being stronger in a trashed engine, though.  If Envoy is your only draw, the opponent can just discard your Envoys when they are revealed.  So, the extra card draw over Smithy tends not to be an advantage.  Envoy does combine nicely with other sources of draw.  A single Envoy in a thin engine is usually better than a single Smithy.  And, as you said, Envoy is more powerful than Smithy in a money strategy with Trade, Save, Delve, or the like.
• Ironworks, I had lower, but still higher than Duplicate.  I haven't been too impressed with Duplicate.  It's really awkward because it's terminal and you're almost never going to get a good Duplicate on the turn you play it (until the late game).  Ironworks is a better tempo play.  But, Duplicate does have a higher ceiling, and I probably haven't used it to its fullest potential.
• Sacrifice vs. Moneylender: I think Sacrifice is better.  You mentioned opening Moneylender on a board with both, and I think I agree, but I would definitely also pick up a Sacrifice on that board if it was the only way to trash Estates.  It can also trash the Moneylender when you're (nearly) out of Copper.  And on boards with a good Estate trasher, but no good way to trash Coppers, Sacrifice is also strong - just not as strong as an opener.  You mentioned Sacrifice's strongest synergies (Rats, Fortress, and Looters), but there are other situations where you might use Sacrifice's action trashing: to get rid of trashers or junkers that have done their job, or to kick off your turn in a pinch (it acts a little like Apprentice here).  Its flexibility is what makes it strong.
• Monument and Marauder: As I said earlier, sorting these good $4 cards is really hard.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that Monument and Marauder are in this list.  Marauder is only a must-buy if there is no way to trash Ruins: and its great here.  It's only sometimes worth it in the presence of Ruins-trashers.  Monument is great in a thin deck with villages, but if terminal space is limited, there are many better single-play payload cards (especially attacks in the $5 list).  By being terminal, Monument often competes against them.

Other reactions: I'm glad to see Fortress, Quarry, and Conspirator rise: well deserved.

[luser]

I found out with new domion online that weaker players may not overrate gardens but is result of them not buying expansions. I played a lot of 8 base 2 other cards and there engines that aim for gardens are quite strong, if you get 4 workshops to play each turn in endgame.

[Willvon]

I was unable to check out the forum this week. So I just was able to look over the village discussion. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the Walled Village vs. Farming Village question.

However, this discussion did bring up another question for me. When did we start calling villages "splitters" and why?  They give you an extra turn, but what exactly are they splitting?

[ThetaSigma12]

what exactly are they splitting?

hairs

[aku_chi]

When did we start calling villages "splitters" and why?  They give you an extra turn, but what exactly are they splitting?

As I understand the terms, an "action-splitter" (sometimes shortened to "splitter") is any card which let's a player play an additional terminal action.  This encompasses all "villages" (cards that explicitly give +2 actions on play*) and cards like Throne Room, Herald, Prince, and Summon.  I don't know where the term comes from, but it makes the most sense to me when I think about how I play Throne Room chains IRL to keep track of which action cards are being duplicated.  I used to play villages this way, too, but now I just stack them and count actions.

*A more narrow definition of "village" only includes cards that provide +2 actions and +1 card.  This excludes Fishing Village and Native Village, which is odd.

[GendoIkari]

I was unable to check out the forum this week. So I just was able to look over the village discussion. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the Walled Village vs. Farming Village question.

However, this discussion did bring up another question for me. When did we start calling villages "splitters" and why?  They give you an extra turn, but what exactly are they splitting?

It's a splitter in the way a headphone splitter is a thing that lets you plug 2 sets of headphones in to 1 jack. Basically, think of available actions as available ports. A splitter gives you more ports than you started with.

[Awaclus]

I was unable to check out the forum this week. So I just was able to look over the village discussion. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the Walled Village vs. Farming Village question.

However, this discussion did bring up another question for me. When did we start calling villages "splitters" and why?  They give you an extra turn, but what exactly are they splitting?

I and some others (but not most people) started calling splitters splitters in 2012* when onigame posted his Dominion Set Generator which used terminology that he, as a Dominion playtester, had been using, including the word "splitter". The reasons why I call them splitters are that there's no question about the definition of a splitter — it's simply anything that lets you split an action — and that one definition is also the most strategically relevant thing to discuss. "Village", however, could mean any of the following:

• The card whose name is just Village
• Any card with the word "village" in its title (sometimes including Ruined Village)
• Any card that always does everything that vanilla Village does
• Any card that always has an effect roughly comparable to Village (e.g. Lost City might not qualify because it's too powerful and Squire might not qualify because it's too weak)
  
• Any card that always or through a choice effect explicitly gives +2 actions
• Any card that is capable of giving +2 actions
• Any splitter
• Any combination of these (for example, to include Ruined Village as well as cards such as Squire)

This doesn't necessarily cause too much confusion because usually you can tell from the context what people mean, but it has the potential to be confusing. Most importantly though, the most popular definition is probably "Any card that always or through a choice effect explicitly gives +2 actions", and that categorization is something that everyone has to unlearn during their process of climbing up the leaderboard from the intermediate ranks to the high level ranks. Like, people used to joke about Marin and Throne Room but these days it's not good enough to joke about it, you actually need to be able to pull it off yourself. I'd rather use the kind of terminology that already pushes people to think in ways which will help them improve as players.

*: I couldn't figure out a way to convey the relevant information nicely and accurately, so relevant but inaccurate information conveyed nicely will have to do. To be accurate, I probably didn't start calling them splitters until later when I stumbled upon that thread.


TL;DR: Splitters are splitters because it would be weird to call Summon "a village" and it would also be weird to not group Summon together with Village.

[werothegreat]

"Village", however, could mean any of the following:

• The card whose name is just Village
• Any card with the word "village" in its title (sometimes including Ruined Village)
• Any card that always does everything that vanilla Village does
• Any card that always has an effect roughly comparable to Village (e.g. Lost City might not qualify because it's too powerful and Squire might not qualify because it's too weak)
  
• Any card that always or through a choice effect explicitly gives +2 actions
• Any card that is capable of giving +2 actions
• Any splitter
• Any combination of these (for example, to include Ruined Village as well as cards such as Squire)

I'm reasonably certain you're being willfully obtuse.  There's really only two colloquial uses for "Village" - the card Village, and anything that gives +2 Actions.  Wandering Minstrel is a village, Ruined Village is not.

[markusin]

"Village", however, could mean any of the following:

• The card whose name is just Village
• Any card with the word "village" in its title (sometimes including Ruined Village)
• Any card that always does everything that vanilla Village does
• Any card that always has an effect roughly comparable to Village (e.g. Lost City might not qualify because it's too powerful and Squire might not qualify because it's too weak)
  
• Any card that always or through a choice effect explicitly gives +2 actions
• Any card that is capable of giving +2 actions
• Any splitter
• Any combination of these (for example, to include Ruined Village as well as cards such as Squire)

I'm reasonably certain you're being willfully obtuse.  There's really only two colloquial uses for "Village" - the card Village, and anything that gives +2 Actions.  Wandering Minstrel is a village, Ruined Village is not.

Broadly, "village" can refer to anything that gives +2 actions or more, both explicitly (e.g. Village) and implicitly (e.g. Throne Room). So I mostly agree with you.

Still, there is a dilemma when it comes to whether or not Throne Room, Herald, Golem, etc. are considered a "village". Do consider them villages and you potentially get newer players to be unaware that the the scope of what is a "village" is so wide. Don't consider them as villages and you imply that broad statements about villages weren't also meant to encompass Throne Room, Herald, etc.

Splitter is a nice generic term for something that can be applied to anything that increases the limit of terminal actions (cards which use up an action), but it is not initially obvious what the term splitter is supposed to signify.

Hence the village/splitter terminology debate.

It doesn't help that we throw the term "necropolis" on stuff like Nobles and Squire that do not give +2 actions and card draw on the same play. Whether or not Necropolis is also a Village depends on context in the end.

[sudgy]

But...what about calling the card Village Vanillage?

[markusin]

But...what about calling the card Village Vanillage?

Not gonna lie, I thought everyone forgot about "Vanillage" and using it here would make me seem like I'm trying to be hip.

[ipofanes]

TL;DR: Splitters are splitters because it would be weird to call Summon "a village" and it would also be weird to not group Summon together with Village.

What's going on here? Awaclus is the one making sense.

[Awaclus]

and anything that gives +2 Actions.

and that categorization is something that everyone has to unlearn during their process of climbing up the leaderboard from the intermediate ranks to the high level ranks.

Also, I have literally seen each of those definitions being used for the term "village". Some of them only a couple of times (possibly by the same guy every time), but definitions where Ruined Village is a "village" are not even some of the rarest ones.

[weety4]

Broadly, "village" can refer to anything that gives +2 actions or more, both explicitly (e.g. Village) and implicitly (e.g. Throne Room). So I mostly agree with you.

Still, there is a dilemma when it comes to whether or not Throne Room, Herald, Golem, etc. are considered a "village". Do consider them villages and you potentially get newer players to be unaware that the the scope of what is a "village" is so wide. Don't consider them as villages and you imply that broad statements about villages weren't also meant to encompass Throne Room, Herald, etc.

I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.
Splitter is not a bad term as this is how most folks track their remaining actions but it sounds far too technical for my taste. Dominion is not the most thematic game around, no need to further emphasize that.

[Awaclus]

I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.

I really hope that doesn't result in you thinking that they are different in any meaningful way.

[weety4]

I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.

I really hope that doesn't result in you thinking that they are different in any meaningful way.

Throne Room is a quite different card than Village or Sacrifice.

I call cards like Throne Room, Herald and so on pseudo-villages because they are conditional villages, i.e. they can yield 2 Actions. Ordinary villages on the other hand unconditionally provide 2 Actions.

[Awaclus]

I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.

I really hope that doesn't result in you thinking that they are different in any meaningful way.

Throne Room is a quite different card than Village or Sacrifice.

It's different in the sense that it's a lot more powerful, but not really in any other way.

[weety4]

I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.

I really hope that doesn't result in you thinking that they are different in any meaningful way.

Throne Room is a quite different card than Village or Sacrifice.

It's different in the sense that it's a lot more powerful, but not really in any other way.

That's like saying that Copper and Platinum are identical as they both provide coins. 
You are simply wrong and like other posters here indicate, it probably makes no sense to discuss with you.

Sacrifice, Tribute, Throne Room and Village are 4 totally different cards. The only thing they have in common is that they can (sometimes) yield 2 Actions.  Thus they have even less in common than Silver and all those 5$ 'Silver with an extra' Treasures.
Furthermore TR mainly copies with "villageifying" being a secondary effect. A pseudo-village like Sacrifice can hardly be used like a village at all and a card like Tribute is most of the times a degenerate village whose efficacy depends upon the Action card density in the opponent's deck.

[Awaclus]

I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.

I really hope that doesn't result in you thinking that they are different in any meaningful way.

Throne Room is a quite different card than Village or Sacrifice.

It's different in the sense that it's a lot more powerful, but not really in any other way.

That's like saying that Copper and Platinum are identical as they both provide coins. 
You are simply wrong and like other posters here indicate, it probably makes no sense to discuss with you.

Sacrifice, Tribute, Throne Room and Village are 4 totally different cards. The only thing they have in common is that they can (sometimes) yield 2 Actions.  Thus they have even less in common than Silver and all those 5$ 'Silver with an extra' Treasures.
Furthermore TR mainly copies with "villageifying" being a secondary effect. A pseudo-village like Sacrifice can hardly be used like a village at all and a card like Tribute is most of the times a degenerate village whose efficacy depends upon the Action card density in the opponent's deck.

Well, that is something you will have to unlearn during your process of climbing up the leaderboard from the intermediate ranks to the high level ranks.

[McGarnacle]

I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.

I really hope that doesn't result in you thinking that they are different in any meaningful way.

Throne Room is a quite different card than Village or Sacrifice.

It's different in the sense that it's a lot more powerful, but not really in any other way.

I get your point, but I would say they are quite different. For one, Village gives you draw, which TR does not. Sacrifice trashes. The only thing they have in common is being able to occasionally play 2 more actions. Would you say that Fishing Village and Walled village are not "different in any meaningful way"? Likewise, Village and Sacrifice let you play different cards. Throne Room let's you play the same one. Are Cultist and TR essentially the same, because both just let you play copies of a card?

[Awaclus]

I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.

I really hope that doesn't result in you thinking that they are different in any meaningful way.

Throne Room is a quite different card than Village or Sacrifice.

It's different in the sense that it's a lot more powerful, but not really in any other way.

I get your point, but I would say they are quite different. For one, Village gives you draw, which TR does not. Sacrifice trashes. The only thing they have in common is being able to occasionally play 2 more actions. Would you say that Fishing Village and Walled village are not "different in any meaningful way"? Likewise, Village and Sacrifice let you play different cards. Throne Room let's you play the same one. Are Cultist and TR essentially the same, because both just let you play copies of a card?

I don't think you get my point. The point is that Bridge is on the kingdom. Does the card allow you to play 8 Bridges on a single turn? If yes, it's worth grouping together with all the other cards for which the answer is yes.

Also TR certainly lets you play different cards.

[McGarnacle]

I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.

I really hope that doesn't result in you thinking that they are different in any meaningful way.

Throne Room is a quite different card than Village or Sacrifice.

It's different in the sense that it's a lot more powerful, but not really in any other way.

I get your point, but I would say they are quite different. For one, Village gives you draw, which TR does not. Sacrifice trashes. The only thing they have in common is being able to occasionally play 2 more actions. Would you say that Fishing Village and Walled village are not "different in any meaningful way"? Likewise, Village and Sacrifice let you play different cards. Throne Room let's you play the same one. Are Cultist and TR essentially the same, because both just let you play copies of a card?

I don't think you get my point. The point is that Bridge is on the kingdom. Does the card allow you to play 8 Bridges on a single turn? If yes, it's worth grouping together with all the other cards for which the answer is yes.

Also TR certainly lets you play different cards.

Oh, okay. I thought you were talking in general.

[Chris is me]

I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.

I really hope that doesn't result in you thinking that they are different in any meaningful way.

You're being willfully obtuse again. Yes they are both villages, but it doesn't exactly take a master's degree to determine that a board with Throne as the only splitter plays much differently, and is much harder to get established, than one with the card Village as the splitter.

In general, pseudo Villages take more work / commitment to function properly as Villages. Golem requires the presence of nonterminals to chain more than 2 Actions together. Throne Room either requires nonterminals or requires a hand of at least 2 Thrones and a draw card to do the same; the latter in particular is much more difficult to establish than traditional engines. Royal Carriage flat out doesn't work as a splitter without nonterminals to play again.

Granted some pseudo Villages, like Herald, synergize with themselves well and aren't so limited, but in general, the presence of only a pseudo Village means the engine takes at least some greater amount of effort to make work.

That's not to say there isn't merit to sometimes discussing the union of Villages and Psuedo Villages as one set, but they aren't the same and shouldn't always be treated as interchangeable in function.

[Awaclus]

But the categorization into "villages" and "pseudo-villages" is arbitrary. An engine with Throne Room as the only splitter might easily require less effort to put together than an engine with Nobles as the only splitter. Hell, it might even require less effort to put together than an engine with Village as the only splitter when the conditions are really suitable for TR based engines. The exact way in which TR does the splitting is not a reason to have a separate group, it's just something you have to take into account for each individual card, just like you have to take into account that Nobles is super expensive, Shanty Town is awkward, Necropolis is limited to 1 copy in your deck, Madman is one-shot as well as difficult to acquire, Dame Molly might disappear from your deck every time you play it, etc.

[werothegreat]

But the categorization into "villages" and "pseudo-villages" is arbitrary.

No, it's not.  There's clearly a distinction between a card that gives "+X Actions" and a card that lets you play the same card multiple times.  They may fill a similar role sometimes, but they operate differently.  Throne Room only "splits" if you either hit another Throne Room or a non-terminal.  A village always "splits".

[Awaclus]

But the categorization into "villages" and "pseudo-villages" is arbitrary.

No, it's not.  There's clearly a distinction between a card that gives "+X Actions" and a card that lets you play the same card multiple times.  They may fill a similar role sometimes, but they operate differently.  Throne Room only "splits" if you either hit another Throne Room or a non-terminal.  A village always "splits".

They fill the exact same role every time and that's what matters.

[markusin]

I don't agree that Throne Room being a village/splitter is any more conditional than Necropolis. Both are similarly useless if they do not pair up with another Action card.

Throne Room operates differently than your typical village through. It can be seen as equivalent to "+2 Actions, choose a card, autoplay the chosen card twice (each play costs an action)". Less flexible, but let's you play more Action card effects than you have in your deck. At the end of the day, you can use Throne Rooms to play arbitrarily many terminals, just like any card giving +2 Actions explicitly.

It's perhaps fair to call Throne Room, Herald, Royal Carriage etc. "Pseudo villages" just because they do not behave like vanilla cards that provide +2 Actions. Consider Tactician, the card I think is most deserving of the classification as a "pseudo-village". It requires a crazy chain to get arbitrarily many next-turn effects to activate.

[weety4]

They fill the exact same role every time and that's what matters.

No. Throne Room yields (implicit) Actions: 4 when it hits a village, 2 when it hits a non-terminal and one when it hits a terminal. In the latter case it is clearly not even mildly similar to a village or a "splitter".
For a self-proclaimed top player you are awefully ignorant of the very basics of the game you claim to excel in.

[Chris is me]

They fill the exact same role every time and that's what matters.

No. Throne Room yields (implicit) Actions: 4 when it hits a village, 2 when it hits a non-terminal and one when it hits a terminal. In the latter case it is clearly not even mildly similar to a village or a "splitter".
For a self-proclaimed top player you are awefully ignorant of the very basics of the game you claim to excel in.

What happens when Throne Room hits another Throne Room?

You could do TR TR Smithy TR Smithy TR Smithy... on repeat eventually playing one terminal per Throne Room you have. It requires 3/5 of your starting hand to be perfect though.

This aside, back to Awaclus's point - the distinction isn't arbitrary. Villages give extra actions with the play of a single card. Throne, RC, Golem, even Herald do not. This distinction is worth discussing sometimes, even if sometimes it is not important. I don't understand why several people have to spell all of these points out for you.

[weety4]

They fill the exact same role every time and that's what matters.

No. Throne Room yields (implicit) Actions: 4 when it hits a village, 2 when it hits a non-terminal and one when it hits a terminal. In the latter case it is clearly not even mildly similar to a village or a "splitter".
For a self-proclaimed top player you are awefully ignorant of the very basics of the game you claim to excel in.

What happens when Throne Room hits another Throne Room?

You could do TR TR Smithy TR Smithy TR Smithy... on repeat eventually playing one terminal per Throne Room you have. It requires 3/5 of your starting hand to be perfect though.

This aside, back to Awaclus's point - the distinction isn't arbitrary. Villages give extra actions with the play of a single card. Throne, RC, Golem, even Herald do not. This distinction is worth discussing sometimes, even if sometimes it is not important. I don't understand why several people have to spell all of these points out for you.

TR TR Smithy isn't mysterious, it works precisely after the 1/2/4 scheme:
TR hits a terminal, TR, and yields an implicit action. The throned TR hits Smithy and yields another implicit Action. If the thrones TR then hits another terminal it yields another implicit Action and after that has been played twice you are down to zero Actions. If it hits a non-terminal instead you end up with two Actions, and if it hits a village instead you end up with 4 Actions.

In this instance TR works better than a village in combination with Smithy would but it doesn't technically ever yields 2 Actions (if we focus only on thrones terminals)
As you pointed out, this is why it makes little sense to argue, as Awaclus does, that villages and pseudo-villages, are identical.

It is like he is in some Theory of Everything mode of thinking. Nobody here would deny that villages and pseudo-villages are good to get engines running or to make them run even better ... but nonetheless the cards function very differently. I don't necessarily want a Golem when I want a village and vice versa.

[Awaclus]

For a self-proclaimed top player you are awefully ignorant of the very basics of the game you claim to excel in.

If you want to put my knowledge of the very basics of Dominion to test, we should play a Throne Room cage match.

[markusin]

They fill the exact same role every time and that's what matters.

No. Throne Room yields (implicit) Actions: 4 when it hits a village, 2 when it hits a non-terminal and one when it hits a terminal. In the latter case it is clearly not even mildly similar to a village or a "splitter".
For a self-proclaimed top player you are awefully ignorant of the very basics of the game you claim to excel in.

What happens when Throne Room hits another Throne Room?

You could do TR TR Smithy TR Smithy TR Smithy... on repeat eventually playing one terminal per Throne Room you have. It requires 3/5 of your starting hand to be perfect though.

This aside, back to Awaclus's point - the distinction isn't arbitrary. Villages give extra actions with the play of a single card. Throne, RC, Golem, even Herald do not. This distinction is worth discussing sometimes, even if sometimes it is not important. I don't understand why several people have to spell all of these points out for you.

TR TR Smithy isn't mysterious, it works precisely after the 1/2/4 scheme:
TR hits a terminal, TR, and yields an implicit action. The throned TR hits Smithy and yields another implicit Action. If the thrones TR then hits another terminal it yields another implicit Action and after that has been played twice you are down to zero Actions. If it hits a non-terminal instead you end up with two Actions, and if it hits a village instead you end up with 4 Actions.

In this instance TR works better than a village in combination with Smithy would but it doesn't technically ever yields 2 Actions (if we focus only on thrones terminals)
As you pointed out, this is why it makes little sense to argue, as Awaclus does, that villages and pseudo-villages, are identical.

It is like he is in some Theory of Everything mode of thinking. Nobody here would deny that villages and pseudo-villages are good to get engines running or to make them run even better ... but nonetheless the cards function very differently. I don't necessarily want a Golem when I want a village and vice versa.

This highlights how Village and Throne Room operate differently. However, the goal of a splitter is to help you play your terminals, not increase the Action counter by 2 or more. Functionally, both Village and Throne Room help accomplish the goal of letting you play all your terminals. Succeeding in that, it doesn't matter if you ever increase the Action counter.

I would say Awaclus is understating the difficulty of pulling off somethinf like a Throne Room chain with no card giving + Action, as it requires two Throne Rooms and a draw card to pull off. The difficulty in pulling off the task of playing lots of terminals is the main thing distinguishing vanilla +2 Actions from stuff like Herald, Vassal, Throne Room, etc.

I mean, yeah you'd climb the leaderboard if you could successfully use every unconventional means of playing additional terminals on almost any given board, but it's really not easy to do that, and surely there are board where it matters if the splitter is Village or Throne Room when it comes to the viability of the engine. Which one is better depends on the rest of the board I guess.

[weety4]

This highlights how Village and Throne Room operate differently. However, the goal of a splitter is to help you play your terminals, not increase the Action counter by 2 or more. Functionally, both Village and Throne Room help accomplish the goal of letting you play all your terminals. Succeeding in that, it doesn't matter if you ever increase the Action counter.

And the goal of the game is to have the most VPs at the end of the game. Doesn't mean that Goons and Province are identical cards though.

As I already said, I don't deny that villages and pseudo-villages are good for engines. Doesn't mean that they play identically though which is the nonsense everybody here is responding to.

[Awaclus]

As I already said, I don't deny that villages and pseudo-villages are good for engines. Doesn't mean that they play identically though which is the nonsense everybody here is responding to.

Actually the goal of the game is to end the game at a time when you have the most VPs.

I'm not saying that Throne Room and Village play identically, but are you saying that Madman and Nobles play more identically than Throne Room and Village?

I'm serious about the cage match by the way.

[weety4]

As I already said, I don't deny that villages and pseudo-villages are good for engines. Doesn't mean that they play identically though which is the nonsense everybody here is responding to.

I'm not saying that Throne Room and Village play identically

Nope:

But the categorization into "villages" and "pseudo-villages" is arbitrary.

No, it's not.  There's clearly a distinction between a card that gives "+X Actions" and a card that lets you play the same card multiple times.  They may fill a similar role sometimes, but they operate differently.  Throne Room only "splits" if you either hit another Throne Room or a non-terminal.  A village always "splits".

They fill the exact same role every time and that's what matters.

Of course we all know that you will know write more intentionally unclear stuff to avoid admitting that you have been totally wrong.

Are you saying that Madman and Nobles play more identically than Throne Room and Village?

Madman, Nobles and Village all provide 2 Actions which is why there are villages.
Throne Room conditionally provides 2 or more Actions which is why it is a pseudo-village.
This is a fact which you denied.

About how they play, all cards differ from each other significantly and thus play very differently.

Any other deflection attempts Mr. TR is a "splitter" and all "splitters" are the same? Because I will now put you on ignore lest I have to tolerate more of this nonsense.

[Awaclus]

As I already said, I don't deny that villages and pseudo-villages are good for engines. Doesn't mean that they play identically though which is the nonsense everybody here is responding to.

I'm not saying that Throne Room and Village play identically

Nope:

But the categorization into "villages" and "pseudo-villages" is arbitrary.

No, it's not.  There's clearly a distinction between a card that gives "+X Actions" and a card that lets you play the same card multiple times.  They may fill a similar role sometimes, but they operate differently.  Throne Room only "splits" if you either hit another Throne Room or a non-terminal.  A village always "splits".

They fill the exact same role every time and that's what matters.

Of course we all know that you will know write more intentionally unclear stuff to avoid admitting that you have been totally wrong.

Filling the same role and playing identically are not the same thing. You can't construct a strawman argument and blame it on me.

About how they play, all cards differ from each other significantly and thus play very differently.

And that's why categorizing the splitters into "villages" and "pseudo-villages" is arbitrary.

You're obviously free to put me on your ignore list, but I suppose that might make it more difficult for us to arrange that cage match. If you're willing to stand by your implied assessment that you're less ignorant about the basics of Dominion than I am, I don't really see why you wouldn't take me up on that offer — it's not like there's anything to fear, right?

[TheOthin]

I don't agree that Throne Room being a village/splitter is any more conditional than Necropolis. Both are similarly useless if they do not pair up with another Action card.

Throne Room operates differently than your typical village through. It can be seen as equivalent to "+2 Actions, choose a card, autoplay the chosen card twice (each play costs an action)". Less flexible, but let's you play more Action card effects than you have in your deck. At the end of the day, you can use Throne Rooms to play arbitrarily many terminals, just like any card giving +2 Actions explicitly.

It's perhaps fair to call Throne Room, Herald, Royal Carriage etc. "Pseudo villages" just because they do not behave like vanilla cards that provide +2 Actions. Consider Tactician, the card I think is most deserving of the classification as a "pseudo-village". It requires a crazy chain to get arbitrarily many next-turn effects to activate.

If you have Necropolis in your hand alongside Smithy or some other terminal draw, you can draw from the Smithy and still have an action left over to continue playing things. Throne Room can't do that on its own: you need another non-terminal to get that result.

[weety4]

You're obviously free to put me on your ignore list, but I suppose that might make it more difficult for us to arrange that cage match. If you're willing to stand by your implied assessment that you're less ignorant about the basics of Dominion than I am, I don't really see why you wouldn't take me up on that offer — it's not like there's anything to fear, right?

You really are an obnoxious troll, aren't you?
Just because you spend your entire free time playing Dominion online (instead of with real people but that runs into the issue of having to actually be a nice guy such that they tolerate you) and probably are good at playing the game doesn't mean that your writing about the game is any good or even just factually true.
You could defeat me a dozen times; Throne Room would still not unconditionally provide 2 Actions.
Not that it will ever happen, boardgaming time is friend time and not troll time for me.

[markusin]

I don't agree that Throne Room being a village/splitter is any more conditional than Necropolis. Both are similarly useless if they do not pair up with another Action card.

Throne Room operates differently than your typical village through. It can be seen as equivalent to "+2 Actions, choose a card, autoplay the chosen card twice (each play costs an action)". Less flexible, but let's you play more Action card effects than you have in your deck. At the end of the day, you can use Throne Rooms to play arbitrarily many terminals, just like any card giving +2 Actions explicitly.

It's perhaps fair to call Throne Room, Herald, Royal Carriage etc. "Pseudo villages" just because they do not behave like vanilla cards that provide +2 Actions. Consider Tactician, the card I think is most deserving of the classification as a "pseudo-village". It requires a crazy chain to get arbitrarily many next-turn effects to activate.

If you have Necropolis in your hand alongside Smithy or some other terminal draw, you can draw from the Smithy and still have an action left over to continue playing things. Throne Room can't do that on its own: you need another non-terminal to get that result.

That's right. This is kind of what I wanted to convey when I interpreted TR as "+2 Actions, choose a card, autoplay the chosen card twice (each play costs an action)". You can't play stuff in between the doubled up Action card. This makes TR troublesome when trying to use it as the only splitter/village when there are no non-terminals. Many of the support cards that help line up TR-TR-draw are non-terminal to begin with, which goes against the spirit of the "Marin" engine. You need the right terminals, strong trashing, possibly gainers, maybe some events, and finesse to get it working.

[Awaclus]

You're obviously free to put me on your ignore list, but I suppose that might make it more difficult for us to arrange that cage match. If you're willing to stand by your implied assessment that you're less ignorant about the basics of Dominion than I am, I don't really see why you wouldn't take me up on that offer — it's not like there's anything to fear, right?

You really are an obnoxious troll, aren't you?
Just because you spend your entire free time playing Dominion online (instead of with real people but that runs into the issue of having to actually be a nice guy such that they tolerate you) and probably are good at playing the game doesn't mean that your writing about the game is any good or even just factually true.
You could defeat me a dozen times; Throne Room would still not unconditionally provide 2 Actions.
Not that it will ever happen, boardgaming time is friend time and not troll time for me.

No, I really am not an obnoxious troll. Just as a quick reminder, out of us two, I'm the one who

• Never attacked an argument you didn't actually make
• Never responded only to a single paragraph/sentence from a post while ignoring the valid arguments in the rest of the post
• Never attacked your writing style as opposed to your arguments
• Never attacked you as a person as opposed to your arguments
• Never turned down a suggested method of trying out the different hypotheses in practice

For the record, the idea that someone would refuse to play Dominion with me because they wouldn't tolerate me is completely foreign to me; even if they refuse to play Dominion, they usually suggest another game or another activity instead. I wonder what inspired you to come up with such an idea.

[LibraryAdventurer]

dead horse is dead

[madeofghosts]

If you think about it, Copper and Province are basically identical.

[faust]

You're obviously free to put me on your ignore list, but I suppose that might make it more difficult for us to arrange that cage match. If you're willing to stand by your implied assessment that you're less ignorant about the basics of Dominion than I am, I don't really see why you wouldn't take me up on that offer — it's not like there's anything to fear, right?

You really are an obnoxious troll, aren't you?
Just because you spend your entire free time playing Dominion online (instead of with real people but that runs into the issue of having to actually be a nice guy such that they tolerate you) and probably are good at playing the game doesn't mean that your writing about the game is any good or even just factually true.
You could defeat me a dozen times; Throne Room would still not unconditionally provide 2 Actions.
Not that it will ever happen, boardgaming time is friend time and not troll time for me.

Yeah, I can already tell that you're a real charmer.

[Qvist]

Part 6

[werothegreat]

I was certain Villa would be in this list.  I mean, it's good, but top 10 good?  If any Empires card should have been in the top 10 for this list, it should have been Sacrifice.

[Witherweaver]

I'm surprised Young Witch snuck ahead Sea Hag. 

[aku_chi]

I was certain Villa would be in this list.  I mean, it's good, but top 10 good?  If any Empires card should have been in the top 10 for this list, it should have been Sacrifice.

I strongly disagree; Sacrifice was properly ranked, IMO.  Temple and Villa are both stronger than Sacrifice.

I didn't rank Villa in the top ten, but it's competitive with ranks 7-10, IMO.  On some boards, Villa is worse than Village, but on some boards it is completely game-warping (draw-to-X).  And on most boards, it's flexibility over Village is a substantial advantage.  And on other boards, it's the only +buy, and a decent one at that.

I believe Temple is a little underrated here.  Getting 3 double-trash turns with 3 VP is a low bar for this card.  Temple is a good defense against junkers (you can trash Curses while trashing Copper).  Temple is also a source of VP chips on gain.  And you can trash duplicate Temples with your first Temple, so the cost is minor.  I don't think the top ten $4 cards list is so stacked that Temple can't find a place, but... time will tell.

Sea Hag and Young Witch... yeah, they're still strong cards.  This is probably around the right place for them.  I think Sea Hag is stronger.  With second edition cards, there are fewer terrible bane cards.  Sea Hag is dominating when there is no way to trash Curses.

[markusin]

Something I noticed with Villa when playing with it for the first time is that it can also act like non-drawing Border Village. With $6 you can buy it, then get a $3 cost card when returning to the buy phase. With $8, you can get Villa with a $5 cost card.

[Awaclus]

I'm also happy to see Young Witch ahead of Sea Hag. With most Banes, Young Witch might fail sometimes but ultimately it gets the job done just as much as Sea Hag, it just takes more plays. With the cycling and sifting, YW helps your current turn as well as your overall cycling speed enough that it might even be faster to play a Young Witch 7 or so times than a Sea Hag 5 times, not to mention it's not awful to buy multiple Young Witches.

[Chris is me]

I was certain Villa would be in this list.  I mean, it's good, but top 10 good?  If any Empires card should have been in the top 10 for this list, it should have been Sacrifice.

I had Villa as #2, and I now think it should have been #1. No card changes the game more dramatically at this cost point than Villa, and it is a tremendous advantage to use it properly.

Sacrifice is pretty good, but it's not really even remotely as dominant or game warping as Villa. It's an average trasher with a neat Hail Mary play most of the time.

[McGarnacle]

I was certain Villa would be in this list.  I mean, it's good, but top 10 good?  If any Empires card should have been in the top 10 for this list, it should have been Sacrifice.

I had Villa as #2, and I now think it should have been #1. No card changes the game more dramatically at this cost point than Villa, and it is a tremendous advantage to use it properly.

Sacrifice is pretty good, but it's not really even remotely as dominant or game warping as Villa. It's an average trasher with a neat Hail Mary play most of the time.

Is it me, or is Empires really power-creepy?

[Beyond Awesome]

I would say Adventures was really power creepy

[Awaclus]

Base set was pretty power creepy. You couldn't even build an engine before the base set!

[trivialknot]

Villa is pretty powerful, but in many cases it's just a village with low opportunity cost.  You might draw some actions dead, and save your turn by buying a Villa, but it still cost $3 to do that so your turn is still somewhat less than amazing.  The only thing that made the turn amazing was that you got an extra Villa, roughly for free.  Late in the game, saving a dud turn can be worth much more than $3, but by this time the Villas may have already piled, or perhaps you have so many Villas that the dud turn is missing draw rather than actions.

I rated Port higher than Villa.  Port is #2 for me.

[trivialknot]

As far as power creep goes, the strongest set by Qvist rankings is clearly Cornucopia.

Although, personally, I think Adventures is one of the strongest sets.

[McGarnacle]

I would say Adventures was really power creepy

I didn't feel that way about Adventures. Whereas Empires has Legionary, Farmer's Market, Fortune, etc.

[markusin]

As far as power creep goes, the strongest set by Qvist rankings is clearly Cornucopia.

Although, personally, I think Adventures is one of the strongest sets.

Well like, Adventures has both Page and Peasant now hanging out close to Chapel in the best $2 rankings. Adventures I feel has more game warping cards even if on average it is not the strongest set.

[ipofanes]

I would say Adventures was really power creepy

Someone said that Seaside was power creepy, with Fishing Village and Diplomat.

I find Empires a bit stronger than Adventures. Legionaire is about the best terminal Gold ever.

[drsteelhammer]

Empires may feel slightly stronger than average, but that is due to lack of awful cards and not due to power creep. And even the weak cards tend to be cantrips so they are not completely useless. Also, every expansion has about 5 power cards that can dominate games with their presence (Farmers' Market and Legionary not being among them).

Seriously, compare the 5 best card from Intrigue 1ed. and Empires and you'll see there is not much difference between the two.

One could argue that Adventures events were quite above average in their strength, but Donald turned that down aswell with his Empires events. Also strong events are not that annoying since they don't dominate (no pun intended) games as much as cards do, in terms of how you build your deck.

[Chris is me]

Villa is pretty powerful, but in many cases it's just a village with low opportunity cost.  You might draw some actions dead, and save your turn by buying a Villa, but it still cost $3 to do that so your turn is still somewhat less than amazing.  The only thing that made the turn amazing was that you got an extra Villa, roughly for free.  Late in the game, saving a dud turn can be worth much more than $3, but by this time the Villas may have already piled, or perhaps you have so many Villas that the dud turn is missing draw rather than actions.

I rated Port higher than Villa.  Port is #2 for me.

That changes how you build the entire deck though. Villa isn't an "oops I fucked up, better buy this to save my turn" card - it is a village you buy only exactly when you need it. You just get terminals first a lot of the time, and then sprinkle in Villa exactly as your deck needs them rather than having to thread them in during the game and having all these awkward turns where cards don't line up. It's way easier to draw your deck this way. It's a whole different game.

Plus there's all the fun cool tricks like Alms / Villa and whatnot.

Port is really good too.

[McGarnacle]

Villa is pretty powerful, but in many cases it's just a village with low opportunity cost.  You might draw some actions dead, and save your turn by buying a Villa, but it still cost $3 to do that so your turn is still somewhat less than amazing.  The only thing that made the turn amazing was that you got an extra Villa, roughly for free.  Late in the game, saving a dud turn can be worth much more than $3, but by this time the Villas may have already piled, or perhaps you have so many Villas that the dud turn is missing draw rather than actions.

I rated Port higher than Villa.  Port is #2 for me.

That changes how you build the entire deck though. Villa isn't an "oops I fucked up, better buy this to save my turn" card - it is a village you buy only exactly when you need it. You just get terminals first a lot of the time, and then sprinkle in Villa exactly as your deck needs them rather than having to thread them in during the game and having all these awkward turns where cards don't line up. It's way easier to draw your deck this way. It's a whole different game.

Plus there's all the fun cool tricks like Alms / Villa and whatnot.

Port is really good too.

Port is also really interesting and unique. It kinda feels like Border Village; pay for one card, get two.

[4est]

Port is really good too.

Port is also really interesting and unique. It kinda feels like Border Village; pay for one card, get two.

Port is particularly unique in its distribution since it only takes six buys to empty the pile instead of ten.  On boards when it's the only village, it's vastly more critical to win the split than with other villages.  Losing the Fishing Village split 4-6 is bad, but losing the Port split is disastrous: you get four villages while your opponent gets eight, i.e. twice the terminal space!  For this reason especially, I think Port definitely earns its place among the villages on this list--each Port purchase is worth so much more than just $4 since they're a limited commodity and more quickly deny terminal space to your opponent.

[Chris is me]

It's weird that sometimes, rushing Port is a necessary thing that changes the game. Splitting those 8-4 is just so dramatic on so many boards. Who's the Village Idiot now?

Legit, easily more than like 20% of Port boards should have players buying Port over other components until they are gone.

[GendoIkari]

Wow, I missed the previous decline of Sea Hag; I still remember it as being pretty constantly #1. The way the metagame changes is just one of the things I love about Dominion.

[Beyond Awesome]

It's weird that sometimes, rushing Port is a necessary thing that changes the game. Splitting those 8-4 is just so dramatic on so many boards. Who's the Village Idiot now?

Legit, easily more than like 20% of Port boards should have players buying Port over other components until they are gone.

If Port is the only Village, rushing it is legit

[weety4]

Villa is pretty powerful, but in many cases it's just a village with low opportunity cost.  You might draw some actions dead, and save your turn by buying a Villa, but it still cost $3 to do that so your turn is still somewhat less than amazing.  The only thing that made the turn amazing was that you got an extra Villa, roughly for free.  Late in the game, saving a dud turn can be worth much more than $3, but by this time the Villas may have already piled, or perhaps you have so many Villas that the dud turn is missing draw rather than actions.

I rated Port higher than Villa.  Port is #2 for me.

That changes how you build the entire deck though. Villa isn't an "oops I fucked up, better buy this to save my turn" card - it is a village you buy only exactly when you need it. You just get terminals first a lot of the time, and then sprinkle in Villa exactly as your deck needs them rather than having to thread them in during the game and having all these awkward turns where cards don't line up. It's way easier to draw your deck this way. It's a whole different game.

Plus there's all the fun cool tricks like Alms / Villa and whatnot.

Port is really good too.

Port is also really interesting and unique. It kinda feels like Border Village; pay for one card, get two.

Good point. It uses a quite similar mechanism as Border Village, buy a village, pay one more and get an extra village (instead of buy any 5, pay one more and get an extra village).

[Aleimon Thimble]

Port is also one of the best cards in the game for the token events, along with Magpie.

Buy a Lost City/Bazaar, get another Lost City/Bazaar for free!

[Qvist]

Part 7, the final one.

[allanfieldhouse]

I feel like Remake only improved (its average) because everyone just auto-voted it first. It's been first for a while, and nothing has obviously replaced it, so everyone just puts it first again (it picked up the last remaining Sea Hag votes).

Edit: "a while" being one year apparently...

[Qvist]

It's been first for a while

No, it got first the first time last year.

[Aleimon Thimble]

Yay, Herald is in the top 5 now

[Witherweaver]

Herald is #1 in my <3.

[LaLight]

Herald is #1 in my <3.

^

[trivialknot]

There's an error in the video--it says Magpie went up from #19 to #12.

[Qvist]

There's an error in the video--it says Magpie went up from #19 to #12.

Oops, sorry. Copy & paste error from Port.

[aku_chi]

I'm beginning to resist the Herald hype.  I'm doubtful that it's a top 10 $4 card.  Herald can help make engines that are lacking either +actions or +card (or both), which is powerful, of course.  But it is a mediocre card on boards where you can't get thin, or there isn't good payload.  I feel like that is almost ~50% of games where Herald is mediocre.

In general, I have a higher opinion of the cards that are great in all decks: Ironmonger, Jack of all Trades, and Magpie.

Edit: Qvist comments that all the top 10 $4 cards are engine cards now.  I don't think that's accurate.  Throne Room, Bridge, Herald, and Remake are all engine-only cards, but the rest can be good in a variety of decks.  Magpie, Ironmonger, and Jack of all Trades are great in nearly every deck type, but thin engines least so.  Tournament works well in a good stuff deck that just aims to reach $8 and 1 buy each turn.  Wandering Minstrel is great in engines, but also good in slogs.  Villa enables sloppy money + terminal draw hybrid strategies (okay, that's a reach).

[allanfieldhouse]

I'm beginning to resist the Herald hype.  I'm doubtful that it's a top 10 $4 card.  Herald can help make engines that are lacking either +actions or +card (or both), which is powerful, of course.  But it is a mediocre card on boards where you can't get thin, or there isn't good payload.  I feel like that is almost ~50% of games where Herald is mediocre.

In general, I have a higher opinion of the cards that are great in all decks: Ironmonger, Jack of all Trades, and Magpie.

Yeah, there was that whole Herald vs Ironmonger thread a while back. Herald is just so much fun when it works though!

[Chris is me]

Content with the very top of the list, except Villa should be Top 4.

Happy that Wandering Minstrel is where it deserves to be, even if some people think a card being a splitter means any other value it has must automatically be negligible...

[Aleimon Thimble]

I'm beginning to resist the Herald hype.  I'm doubtful that it's a top 10 $4 card.  Herald can help make engines that are lacking either +actions or +card (or both), which is powerful, of course.  But it is a mediocre card on boards where you can't get thin, or there isn't good payload.  I feel like that is almost ~50% of games where Herald is mediocre.

In general, I have a higher opinion of the cards that are great in all decks: Ironmonger, Jack of all Trades, and Magpie.

Herald is not a mediocre card on boards where you can't get thin. I mean, sure, you don't want it in BM or slogs, but engines have been getting more and more common over the past few expansions, and it's one of the best engine cards in the game.

Say you're running an engine without any form of trashing - they are fairly rare, but do exist, especially if there's some other form of guaranteeing consistency (for example: delayed draw, Scheme, Summon, Prince on a Colony board). In those cases, you'll probably buy an Action card every turn, and it's likely there are gainers or +Buy so you'll acquire them even faster. So after 7 or 8 turns, you probably have 10 Action cards and your Action density is 50%, and it only goes up from there.

Say you have an Action density of 50%, and assume the average thing happens with 2 Heralds. You play one Herald, hitting C/E (so it's a cantrip), and then another, hitting an Action card (so it's basically a Lost City). Vanilla Cantrip + Lost City = Village + Laboratory. So your two Heralds are as good as a Village and a Lab, which I wouldn't call mediocre. And as you add more and more Action cards, your odds of hitting one with Herald increases, meaning you get more Lost Cities and fewer vanilla cantrips.

Of course, the other extreme case is where you trash all your starting cards, in which case every Herald is a Lost City without the drawback of giving your opponent +1 Card upon buying it. That's pretty insane for $4.

[Dingan]

Can anyone explain why Spice Merchant is #14 and has a low deviation?  I had it at #3.  I feel it's almost always an auto-open, and one of the best thinners that isn't a remodeler, possibly even the best besides the powerhouses (Chapel, Amb, Masq, Donate).  Even with remodelers (like the #1 $4), I often like the Spice first, and then the Spice itself is a good remodel target once it's done its job.  There must be something I'm not seeing.

[LastFootnote]

Can anyone explain why Spice Merchant is #14 and has a low deviation?  I had it at #3.  I feel it's almost always an auto-open, and one of the best thinners that isn't a remodeler, possibly even the best besides the powerhouses (Chapel, Amb, Masq, Donate).  Even with remodelers (like the #1 $4), I often like the Spice first, and then the Spice itself is a good remodel target once it's done its job.  There must be something I'm not seeing.

It's a fantastic Copper trasher. All the cards above it are just more important, though? At least that's how the voters felt, and I think it's a reasonable claim.

[Awaclus]

Can anyone explain why Spice Merchant is #14 and has a low deviation?  I had it at #3.  I feel it's almost always an auto-open, and one of the best thinners that isn't a remodeler, possibly even the best besides the powerhouses (Chapel, Amb, Masq, Donate).  Even with remodelers (like the #1 $4), I often like the Spice first, and then the Spice itself is a good remodel target once it's done its job.  There must be something I'm not seeing.

No, I actually think there's something that you are seeing and a lot of others aren't. Spice Merchant is equivalent to playing a Lab and a cantrip trasher, which is insanely good for $4, plus it comes with extra versatility. In general, I think that people tend to evaluate these cards less based on how much the cards actually affect the game and more based on how it feels to play the card, and cards such as Spice Merchant don't feel that amazing until you really pay attention to how much faster it makes your engine come together. The same is true for Loan, which was even more underrated than SM (but not as good either).

[LibraryAdventurer]

I had Herald #28. (I love the card, I just don't think it's top #10 in strength.)
Villa #19
and Jack of all Trades #18

...even if some people think a card being a splitter means any other value it has must automatically be negligible...

I agree with you, but bury the dead horse man.

[aku_chi]

Say you have an Action density of 50%, and assume the average thing happens with 2 Heralds. You play one Herald, hitting C/E (so it's a cantrip), and then another, hitting an Action card (so it's basically a Lost City). Vanilla Cantrip + Lost City = Village + Laboratory. So your two Heralds are as good as a Village and a Lab, which I wouldn't call mediocre. And as you add more and more Action cards, your odds of hitting one with Herald increases, meaning you get more Lost Cities and fewer vanilla cantrips.

This is a good point.  Herald can also be pretty good in the absence of trashing if there is a way to gain multiple actions per turn in the building phase.  Herald can also be good in combination with the few cards that let you set up the second card in your deck (e.g. Secret Passage, Apothecary, Cartographer).  Herald does get worse again once you start to green, of course.

Of course, the other extreme case is where you trash all your starting cards, in which case every Herald is a Lost City without the drawback of giving your opponent +1 Card upon buying it. That's pretty insane for $4.

Herald is amazing in a thin deck with a lot of actions, but it isn't as good as a Lost City for a few reasons:

• Play order often matters.  You don't want to play that Junk Dealer until you have your junk in hand.  You don't want to play your Baron until you have your Estate in hand.  You don't want to play your Throne Room until you have your payload card in hand.  These are a few of the many examples.
• It's harder to set up your next turn with a Herald stack.  Sometimes you want to stop before drawing your deck because you have all of your payload and want to save the redundant engine components to kick off the next turn.  This problem is compounded with actions that can help you save cards for your next turn (e.g. Gear, Courtyard, Haven): they might be played before you have what you want to save.
  
• Herald doesn't provide +action once you've drawn your deck.

[weety4]

I'm beginning to resist the Herald hype.  I'm doubtful that it's a top 10 $4 card.  Herald can help make engines that are lacking either +actions or +card (or both), which is powerful, of course.  But it is a mediocre card on boards where you can't get thin, or there isn't good payload.  I feel like that is almost ~50% of games where Herald is mediocre.

In general, I have a higher opinion of the cards that are great in all decks: Ironmonger, Jack of all Trades, and Magpie.

Herald is not a mediocre card on boards where you can't get thin. I mean, sure, you don't want it in BM or slogs, but engines have been getting more and more common over the past few expansions, and it's one of the best engine cards in the game.

Say you're running an engine without any form of trashing - they are fairly rare, but do exist, especially if there's some other form of guaranteeing consistency (for example: delayed draw, Scheme, Summon, Prince on a Colony board). In those cases, you'll probably buy an Action card every turn, and it's likely there are gainers or +Buy so you'll acquire them even faster. So after 7 or 8 turns, you probably have 10 Action cards and your Action density is 50%, and it only goes up from there.

Say you have an Action density of 50%, and assume the average thing happens with 2 Heralds. You play one Herald, hitting C/E (so it's a cantrip), and then another, hitting an Action card (so it's basically a Lost City). Vanilla Cantrip + Lost City = Village + Laboratory. So your two Heralds are as good as a Village and a Lab, which I wouldn't call mediocre. And as you add more and more Action cards, your odds of hitting one with Herald increases, meaning you get more Lost Cities and fewer vanilla cantrips.

Of course, the other extreme case is where you trash all your starting cards, in which case every Herald is a Lost City without the drawback of giving your opponent +1 Card upon buying it. That's pretty insane for $4.

Herald is very good but only after some time and definitely not in all Kingdoms. Furthermore, it is risky; e.g. the presence of trashers makes it easier to increase the Action card density but if you have a forced trasher in your deck Herald's autoplay can backfire.

[Dingan]

Herald pretty much needs thinning -- thinning of both the starting 10 cards plus any additional junk.  Yes, it's awesome when you have 80% action cards and can reliably chain 7 Heralds in a row.  But how strong can a card that relies on other cards be?  Ambassador, Masquerade, Tournament, etc. are good just by themselves.

I just played a game where Explorer/Bureaucrat/Masterpiece big money handily beat a deck that had 8 Heralds, 5 Highways, and like 6 Market Squares. [sidenote: can we get logs for games w/ the new client???]

A card shouldn't be upper-tier if it depends on other cards.  My 2 cents.

[faust]

Herald pretty much needs thinning -- thinning of both the starting 10 cards plus any additional junk.  Yes, it's awesome when you have 80% action cards and can reliably chain 7 Heralds in a row.  But how strong can a card that relies on other cards be?  Ambassador, Masquerade, Tournament, etc. are good just by themselves.

I just played a game where Explorer/Bureaucrat/Masterpiece big money handily beat a deck that had 8 Heralds, 5 Highways, and like 6 Market Squares. [sidenote: can we get logs for games w/ the new client???]

A card shouldn't be upper-tier if it depends on other cards.  My 2 cents.

1. Herald doesn't need thinning, but it's definitely more likely to be a game-changer if thinning is available. Even for this, Estate-trashing is more than enough to make Herald really good.
2. Herald relies on other cards, yes. But the thing is, every game of Dominion has other cards.
3. "A card shouldn't be upper-tier if it depends on other cards" - so how would you rate Chapel?

[Witherweaver]

Herald pretty much needs thinning -- thinning of both the starting 10 cards plus any additional junk.  Yes, it's awesome when you have 80% action cards and can reliably chain 7 Heralds in a row.  But how strong can a card that relies on other cards be?  Ambassador, Masquerade, Tournament, etc. are good just by themselves.

I just played a game where Explorer/Bureaucrat/Masterpiece big money handily beat a deck that had 8 Heralds, 5 Highways, and like 6 Market Squares. [sidenote: can we get logs for games w/ the new client???]

A card shouldn't be upper-tier if it depends on other cards.  My 2 cents.

Wouldn't that necessitate all Villages are at the bottom of lists?

[Witherweaver]

Herald can take a while to be useful; you have to get the Heralds and some other stuff to play, and that might take time.   That's true of engines in general, though.

[Chris is me]

Herald pretty much needs thinning -- thinning of both the starting 10 cards plus any additional junk.  Yes, it's awesome when you have 80% action cards and can reliably chain 7 Heralds in a row.  But how strong can a card that relies on other cards be?  Ambassador, Masquerade, Tournament, etc. are good just by themselves.

I just played a game where Explorer/Bureaucrat/Masterpiece big money handily beat a deck that had 8 Heralds, 5 Highways, and like 6 Market Squares. [sidenote: can we get logs for games w/ the new client???]

A card shouldn't be upper-tier if it depends on other cards.  My 2 cents.

Herald can work with modest thinning. It doesn't need to connect every time to be worth it.

Remake is barely good if it's the only engine card on the board, and most Villages are useless without other Actions. Therefore, they can't be upper tier, right?

[Aleimon Thimble]

For that matter, King's Court is also useless by itself, but it's still one of the strongest cards in the game.

The thing that makes Herald so strong is that it can function as both a Village and draw in an engine, so with Herald present, you have 2 of the most important elements for an engine already. Basically, you only need some kind of payload and preferably some modest (non-forced) trashing, and your engine will flow smoothly. Ironmonger can do that too in theory, but it's not quite as reliable, unless you have a ton of Nobles/Mills.

[weety4]

For that matter, King's Court is also useless by itself, but it's still one of the strongest cards in the game.

The thing that makes Herald so strong is that it can function as both a Village and draw in an engine, so with Herald present, you have 2 of the most important elements for an engine already. Basically, you only need some kind of payload and preferably some modest (non-forced) trashing, and your engine will flow smoothly. Ironmonger can do that too in theory, but it's not quite as reliable, unless you have a ton of Nobles/Mills.

Herald is good but it is not as super powerful as it is often made out to be. It is a Lost City with forced Action play which is probably similar in strength to a double Peddler aka triggered Conspirator. Conspirator also hits more often that Herald but when it misses it is a terminal Silver instead of a cantrip, i.e. the risk is larger. This is IMO the actual strength of Herald: it plays smoothly with low risk.

[Oyvind]

Feodum should have been seen by now.

I respectfully disagree.  Feodum can be a game-winning card if it appears with a good silver-gainer or with trash-for benefit.

Are any of these cards in the bottom rank ever game-winners?  Counting House if combined with Travelling Fair, sure, but that's a very specific circumstance.  I guess Pirate Ship in 3-4 player, but who plays 3-4 player?

Lots of people play 3-4 player, they just don't come here to talk about it.

I agree! Almost all my games are 3p or 4p. Sure, I play some two-player online, because it takes forever and a day to get enough people for multiplayer games. I feel that the newest implementation of the online game almost prefers that everyone plays 2p, which is not half the fun of a 3p game, as the starting page let you play an "Equal opponent" or "Any opponent". Whatever you choose, you can only play 2p games without switching to "New table" or "Tables", and 90 % of the listed games there are abandoned. So they're really not tables you can just join and play. Pretty frustrating. I occasionally even play 5p and 6p, but of course that takes a lot of time. To me, nothing beats face-to-face three-player games of Dominion, and I even prefer four-player games to duels.

[Omastar68]

A card shouldn't be upper-tier if it depends on other cards.  My 2 cents.

Is this reasoning why all the $4 alt-VP cards are so low? I don't know enough to really agree or disagree strongly with any ranking, and they're all board dependent, but Feodum, Gardens, and Silk Road being quite low seems odd. If most people are playing on Shuffle iT then you're also going to see cards that combo with these three in games where they show up, at least most of the time.

Ofc, these kinds of lists are never foolproof. Some blanket statements are still pretty watertight ofc, you'd be hard pressed to make a board where Duchess is better than Chapel for instance. But for the most part the usefulness of any card will vary greatly depending on the board, so evaluating them like this doesn't work great. So I feel like these cards just might be too hard to evaluate, since they all can be pretty crumby on some boards. Anyone else feel the ranks for these are kinda random?