Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: ehunt on January 29, 2017, 01:58:55 pm
-
it isn't even that much like herald
-
Vassal is more like Conspirator.
-
It's also not Farmland.
-
When Herald or Vassal work they are of similar strength (Lost City vs. Double Peddler). But Vassal is terminal when it doesn't work which is why it is riskier to play it early and why it costs less than Herald. This is why it is also harder to set up a Vassal chain than a Conspirator chain which is again why Vassal is cheaper than Conspirator.
It is quite interesting that a card which is very similar to two existing cards plays/feels quite a bit different.
-
When Herald or Vassal work they are of similar strength (Lost City vs. Double Peddler).
This isn't really true either. Lost City is worlds better than double Peddler, so they really play quite differently even in a deck full of Actions.
-
When Herald or Vassal work they are of similar strength (Lost City vs. Double Peddler).
This isn't really true either. Lost City is worlds better than double Peddler, so they really play quite differently even in a deck full of Actions.
I disagree.
-
When Herald or Vassal work they are of similar strength (Lost City vs. Double Peddler).
This isn't really true either. Lost City is worlds better than double Peddler, so they really play quite differently even in a deck full of Actions.
I disagree.
It depends on what your engine is lacking, really. If it's a sloggy game, I'd probably rather have 4 double Peddlers than 4 Lost Cities chained in a row.
-
When Herald or Vassal work they are of similar strength (Lost City vs. Double Peddler).
This isn't really true either. Lost City is worlds better than double Peddler, so they really play quite differently even in a deck full of Actions.
I disagree.
It depends on what your engine is lacking, really. If it's a sloggy game, I'd probably rather have 4 double Peddlers than 4 Lost Cities chained in a row.
But if it is a sloggy game, neither is happening.
-
Vassal's discard feature is underrated. If all the good cards in your deck are actions, Vassal is good for cycling.
Same with the "you may". Vassal handles trashers way better.
-
Vassal is fun with +1 action.
-
Chapel/Vassal is often a better opening than Chapel/Silver.
-
But Vassal is terminal when it doesn't work
I've found that a big weakness of Vassal is that it can be terminal even when it does work!
-
When Herald or Vassal work they are of similar strength (Lost City vs. Double Peddler).
This isn't really true either. Lost City is worlds better than double Peddler, so they really play quite differently even in a deck full of Actions.
Two Peddlers cost 4$ whereas a Village and a Lab cost 3$ and 5$. Now two cards baked in one is of course slightly different than those two cards as singles so this is very rough but it still illustrates that "worlds better" is an exaggeration.
Lost City without the drawback would probably be a 6$ and Grand Market without the Buy is arguably even better than 6$. At least it seems virtually always better than Gold to me.
-
When Herald or Vassal work they are of similar strength (Lost City vs. Double Peddler).
This isn't really true either. Lost City is worlds better than double Peddler, so they really play quite differently even in a deck full of Actions.
Two Peddlers cost 4$ whereas a Village and a Lab cost 3$ and 5$. Now two cards baked in one is of course slightly different than those two cards as singles so this is very rough but it still illustrates that "worlds better" is an exaggeration.
Lost City without the drawback would probably be a 6$ and Grand Market without the Buy is arguably even better than 6$. At least it seems virtually always better than Gold to me.
Using cost as a proxy for power is not always the best idea.
You can get economy in many, many different ways. Draw and actions are a much more valuable resource.
-
Especially actions. The problem with actions is usually that you have to buy cards that don't really do anything on their own to get them, and Herald helps with that because it actually does something on its own (although not until you can connect it with other Actions), making it easy to just get a bunch of Heralds without losing a lot of momentum and then you have all this terminal space for free.
-
Two Peddlers cost 4$ whereas a Village and a Lab cost 3$ and 5$. Now two cards baked in one is of course slightly different than those two cards as singles so this is very rough but it still illustrates that "worlds better" is an exaggeration.
Given the important cost difference between (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) and (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), it's not a stretch to argue that even a single average (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) is better than 2 average (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)s, let alone a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) plus a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png).
-
Two Peddlers cost 4$ whereas a Village and a Lab cost 3$ and 5$. Now two cards baked in one is of course slightly different than those two cards as singles so this is very rough but it still illustrates that "worlds better" is an exaggeration.
Given the important cost difference between (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) and (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), it's not a stretch to argue that even a single average (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) is better than 2 average (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)s, let alone a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) plus a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png).
I think it's rare that a single average $5 is better than two average $4s. Like, really rare. I would rather have two Caravans over a Lab almost always.
One way to think of [+2 Cards; +2 Actions] is Border Village/Lab. That's more or less a Lost City without the on-gain penalty, and it costs $6. [+1 Card; +1 Action; +$2] would have to cost more than that, I bet.
-
Two Peddlers cost 4$ whereas a Village and a Lab cost 3$ and 5$. Now two cards baked in one is of course slightly different than those two cards as singles so this is very rough but it still illustrates that "worlds better" is an exaggeration.
Given the important cost difference between (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) and (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), it's not a stretch to argue that even a single average (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) is better than 2 average (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)s, let alone a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) plus a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png).
I think it's rare that a single average $5 is better than two average $4s. Like, really rare. I would rather have two Caravans over a Lab almost always.
One way to think of [+2 Cards; +2 Actions] is Border Village/Lab. That's more or less a Lost City without the on-gain penalty, and it costs $6. [+1 Card; +1 Action; +$2] would have to cost more than that, I bet.
[+1 Card; +1 Action; +$2] was tested at (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=5230.0) $7. It ended up as Grand Market with its weird cost and Copper restriction because testers wanted it to have +Buy, which (apparently) made it too good for $7 but not good enough for $8.
-
At any rate, do we really need any more vanilla cards? Gimme more complicated nonsense cards, bring 'em on
-
I think it's rare that a single average $5 is better than two average $4s. Like, really rare. I would rather have two Caravans over a Lab almost always.
Ball is currently rated 73/96 in the $5 card list. Do you think that's a gross misranking? According to your argument, Ball should be ranked significantly above 50%.
-
I think it's rare that a single average $5 is better than two average $4s. Like, really rare. I would rather have two Caravans over a Lab almost always.
Ball is currently rated 73/96 in the $5 card list. Do you think that's a gross misranking? According to your argument, Ball should be ranked significantly above 50%.
I don't see why. That $1 token is significant.
EDIT: And I should note, Ball didn't always have the $1 token. I personally pushed for it to be nerfed. It was super-nuts before it got that penalty, especially with cost reduction but also just across the board.
-
One way to think of [+2 Cards; +2 Actions] is Border Village/Lab. That's more or less a Lost City without the on-gain penalty, and it costs $6. [+1 Card; +1 Action; +$2] would have to cost more than that, I bet.
This is false; by your argument, [+1 card, +1 action, +$2] is Ball (taking two Peddlers), which costs $5 + -$1 token, which is by any reasonable metirc less than $6.
-
One way to think of [+2 Cards; +2 Actions] is Border Village/Lab. That's more or less a Lost City without the on-gain penalty, and it costs $6. [+1 Card; +1 Action; +$2] would have to cost more than that, I bet.
This is false; by your argument, [+1 card, +1 action, +$2] is Ball (taking two Peddlers), which costs $5 + -$1 token, which is by any reasonable metirc less than $6.
Peddler doesn't cost $4. Poacher does, but it has a penalty.
EDIT: Also, the $1 token is harsher than costing $1 more. It always carries over to your next turn, even if you could pay it off now.
-
One way to think of [+2 Cards; +2 Actions] is Border Village/Lab. That's more or less a Lost City without the on-gain penalty, and it costs $6. [+1 Card; +1 Action; +$2] would have to cost more than that, I bet.
This is false; by your argument, [+1 card, +1 action, +$2] is Ball (taking two Peddlers), which costs $5 + -$1 token, which is by any reasonable metirc less than $6.
Peddler doesn't cost $4. Poacher does, but it has a penalty.
I think Donald X. himself said that Peddler could cost $4, which is which he chose the effect for Poacher because it had to be priced for a situation where no piles run out.
EDIT: this is the quote:
Poacher: This is in a player interaction slot, vacated by Spy. I thought of having some vanilla bonuses with the penalty of discarding a card per empty pile. The vanilla bonuses had to be essentially fair at the price of the card, since you might never empty a pile until the game was over. So really it required a vanilla card I hadn't made yet. Well there was one of those, and it was +1 Card +1 Action +$1 for $4. So there it is. Avoiding making that card all these years finally paid off.
-
One way to think of [+2 Cards; +2 Actions] is Border Village/Lab. That's more or less a Lost City without the on-gain penalty, and it costs $6. [+1 Card; +1 Action; +$2] would have to cost more than that, I bet.
This is false; by your argument, [+1 card, +1 action, +$2] is Ball (taking two Peddlers), which costs $5 + -$1 token, which is by any reasonable metirc less than $6.
Peddler doesn't cost $4. Poacher does, but it has a penalty.
I think Donald X. himself said that Peddler could cost $4, which is which he chose the effect for Poacher because it had to be priced for a situation where no piles run out.
Well we're discussing my opinion, I'm pretty sure, and how internally consistent it is. I think Peddler would be too strong at $4 (but too weak at $5).
-
One way to think of [+2 Cards; +2 Actions] is Border Village/Lab. That's more or less a Lost City without the on-gain penalty, and it costs $6. [+1 Card; +1 Action; +$2] would have to cost more than that, I bet.
This is false; by your argument, [+1 card, +1 action, +$2] is Ball (taking two Peddlers), which costs $5 + -$1 token, which is by any reasonable metirc less than $6.
Peddler doesn't cost $4. Poacher does, but it has a penalty.
I think Donald X. himself said that Peddler could cost $4, which is which he chose the effect for Poacher because it had to be priced for a situation where no piles run out.
Well we're discussing my opinion, I'm pretty sure, and how internally consistent it is. I think Peddler would be too strong at $4 (but too weak at $5).
As it is, I routinely open with Poacher, and it very rarely hurts me.
-
I think it's rare that a single average $5 is better than two average $4s. Like, really rare. I would rather have two Caravans over a Lab almost always.
Well, two Caravans are almost exactly one Lab, so I'd rather say that one $5 vs. two $4s is pretty well balanced. Which is why Ball is a thing.
-
This is false; by your argument, [+1 card, +1 action, +$2] is Ball (taking two Peddlers), which costs $5 + -$1 token, which is by any reasonable metirc less than $6.
Whoa, I just read this more closely. No, man, $5 plus your $1 token is not less than $6 "by any reasonable metric". By the metric of not having your next turn made worse, it's costlier than $6. If Ball cost $5 and 1 Debt, I'd agree with you.
-
I think it's rare that a single average $5 is better than two average $4s. Like, really rare. I would rather have two Caravans over a Lab almost always.
Well, two Caravans are almost exactly one Lab, so I'd rather say that one $5 vs. two $4s is pretty well balanced. Which is why Ball is a thing.
Two Caravans are almost exactly one Lab in a deck you draw every turn. In most other decks, it's better.
-
I think it's rare that a single average $5 is better than two average $4s. Like, really rare. I would rather have two Caravans over a Lab almost always.
Well, two Caravans are almost exactly one Lab, so I'd rather say that one $5 vs. two $4s is pretty well balanced. Which is why Ball is a thing.
Two Caravans are almost exactly one Lab in a deck you draw every turn. In most other decks, it's better.
In most other decks, it's also worse than having two Silvers.
-
I think it's rare that a single average $5 is better than two average $4s. Like, really rare. I would rather have two Caravans over a Lab almost always.
Well, two Caravans are almost exactly one Lab, so I'd rather say that one $5 vs. two $4s is pretty well balanced. Which is why Ball is a thing.
Two Caravans are almost exactly one Lab in a deck you draw every turn. In most other decks, it's better.
In most other decks, it's also worse than having two Silvers.
It's possible to have an engine-y deck that draws a lot, but not everything. And it is a general rule that +Card is better than +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png).
-
It's possible to have an engine-y deck that draws a lot, but not everything. And it is a general rule that +Card is better than +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png).
Technically possible, but not very common, and it's still not very much better than one Lab in that deck since the Caravans will still be missing the shuffle a lot. And it is a general rule that Treasure is better than Action.
-
It's possible to have an engine-y deck that draws a lot, but not everything. And it is a general rule that +Card is better than +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png).
Technically possible, but not very common, and it's still not very much better than one Lab in that deck since the Caravans will still be missing the shuffle a lot. And it is a general rule that Treasure is better than Action.
The thing is, even decks that draw themselves don't start out as decks that draw themselves. And probably you're buying Caravans and/or Labs in an attempt to get to the point where you're drawing your deck. And during that period, two Caravans are better than a Lab unless they miss the shuffle every time.
-
In a draw-yo-deck engine, two Caravans are like a Schemed Lab or an Alchemist (without needing to play a Potion) - which is better.
-
A Lost City is better than a Double Peddler in a deck that has lots of terminals.
A deck with lots of Vassals is a deck with lots of terminals.
-
It's possible to have an engine-y deck that draws a lot, but not everything. And it is a general rule that +Card is better than +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png).
Technically possible, but not very common, and it's still not very much better than one Lab in that deck since the Caravans will still be missing the shuffle a lot. And it is a general rule that Treasure is better than Action.
The thing is, even decks that draw themselves don't start out as decks that draw themselves. And probably you're buying Caravans and/or Labs in an attempt to get to the point where you're drawing your deck. And during that period, two Caravans are better than a Lab unless they miss the shuffle every time.
On the other hand, if they both miss the shuffle, that's actually super worse than a Lab, because you're getting the benefit one shuffle later which sucks in the early stages of the game. And if your deck is two Caravans and 10 stop cards (not very unrealistic), there is literally no way to play the Caravans and not have them both miss the shuffle.
-
It's possible to have an engine-y deck that draws a lot, but not everything. And it is a general rule that +Card is better than +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png).
Technically possible, but not very common, and it's still not very much better than one Lab in that deck since the Caravans will still be missing the shuffle a lot. And it is a general rule that Treasure is better than Action.
The thing is, even decks that draw themselves don't start out as decks that draw themselves. And probably you're buying Caravans and/or Labs in an attempt to get to the point where you're drawing your deck. And during that period, two Caravans are better than a Lab unless they miss the shuffle every time.
On the other hand, if they both miss the shuffle, that's actually super worse than a Lab, because you're getting the benefit one shuffle later which sucks in the early stages of the game. And if your deck is two Caravans and 10 stop cards (not very unrealistic), there is literally no way to play the Caravans and not have them both miss the shuffle.
Good thing they won't usually all always miss the shuffle, then.
-
Good thing they won't usually all always miss the shuffle, then.
No, they will usually all miss the shuffle.
-
A Lost City is better than a Double Peddler in a deck that has lots of terminals.
A deck with lots of Vassals is a deck with lots of terminals.
That's wrong. Let's say that your deck consists of only Vassals. You could always play all of them as Vassal is only terminal if it doesn't trigger another Action card.
Herald is obviously better than Vassal; it costs more and is less risky to play as it is either non-terminal or a village whereas Vassal is terminal or non-terminal.
But it is definitely wrong that you always prefer a Village+Lab over a Double Peddler. For example if you have a thin deck that always draws itself cantrip payload is what you want as those extra Lost Cities would do nothing.
-
That's wrong. Let's say that your deck consists of only Vassals. You could always play all of them as Vassal is only terminal if it doesn't trigger another Action card.
Except this does'nt work if multiple vassals are in your hand.
-
But it is definitely wrong that you always prefer a Village+Lab over a Double Peddler. For example if you have a thin deck that always draws itself cantrip payload is what you want as those extra Lost Cities would do nothing.
Nobody was saying that you always prefer a Village+Lab over a double Peddler. We were just saying that the former is stronger in general.
-
But it is definitely wrong that you always prefer a Village+Lab over a Double Peddler. For example if you have a thin deck that always draws itself cantrip payload is what you want as those extra Lost Cities would do nothing.
Nobody was saying that you always prefer a Village+Lab over a double Peddler. We were just saying that the former is stronger in general.
Neither is in general superior to the other. As already pointed out, Grand Market without the extra buy was a 7$. Pretty hard to argue that Lost City without the drawback would have to cost more than 7$.
Double Peddler is roughly similar in strength to Lost City and whether the one or other is superior depends situationally on the Kingdom.
-
Neither is in general superior to the other. As already pointed out, Grand Market without the extra buy was a 7$. Pretty hard to argue that Lost City without the drawback would have to cost more than 7$.
Double Peddler is roughly similar in strength to Lost City and whether the one or other is superior depends situationally on the Kingdom.
As already pointed out, price is not a good way to measure card strength. Double Peddler is not roughly similar in strength to Lost City, because the kingdom in which Lost City is situationally stronger is so much more common.
-
Neither is in general superior to the other. As already pointed out, Grand Market without the extra buy was a 7$. Pretty hard to argue that Lost City without the drawback would have to cost more than 7$.
Double Peddler is roughly similar in strength to Lost City and whether the one or other is superior depends situationally on the Kingdom.
As already pointed out, price is not a good way to measure card strength. Double Peddler is not roughly similar in strength to Lost City, because the kingdom in which Lost City is situationally stronger is so much more common.
Your argument is based on a mere subjective preference for actions and cards whereas price is the only way to objectively proxy card strength. And based on that method, Double Peddler would be stronger than Village+Lab. Of course it isn't, they are of roughly similar strength but it is definitely no the other way around. Otherwise a Double Peddler would have to cost the same as Lost City without the drawback, 6$ and this isn't the case except in some funky mirror universe.
All this isn't really surprising if one takes a look at basic vanilla cards. A cantrip with an extra card is more valuable than with an extra coin which is more valuable than with an extra action. Thus it is unsurprising that an extra card and an extra action is roughly similar in strength to an extra coin.
-
Price is not a measure of card strength, "objective" or otherwise. The reason it loosely correlates to Card strength is because price regulates access to cards. Awaclus'a point is way, way more valid than "well a similar card costs this much".
-
Price is not a measure of card strength, "objective" or otherwise. The reason it loosely correlates to Card strength is because price regulates access to cards. Awaclus'a point is way, way more valid than "well a similar card costs this much".
No idea about how you perceive any validity in that claim. Decks that draw themselves don't occur so rarely and in such decks you prefer a double Peddler over a VillageLab. Not that this is the only situation in which Peddlerē is superior to Lost City. If you can trash most of your starting hand you will do better with cantrip payload than with LostCity draw and Gold payload.
The cards are simply of similar strength. Otherwise Kingdoms in which Grand Market is present wouldn't be virtually always focused on GM (sure, the extra buy isn't trivial). You might wanna explain how this situation arises if Village&Lab really were "worlds better" than GM without the extra buy.
-
Chapel must be weak, it only costs $2.
-
Your argument is based on a mere subjective preference for actions and cards
That subjective preference is based on thousands upon thousands games of observing how I win the game and how my opponents win the game. It's not even a particularly radical notion.
No idea about how you perceive any validity in that claim. Decks that draw themselves don't occur so rarely and in such decks you prefer a double Peddler over a VillageLab. Not that this is the only situation in which Peddlerē is superior to Lost City. If you can trash most of your starting hand you will do better with cantrip payload than with LostCity draw and Gold payload.
The cards are simply of similar strength. Otherwise Kingdoms in which Grand Market is present wouldn't be virtually always focused on GM (sure, the extra buy isn't trivial). You might wanna explain how this situation arises if Village&Lab really were "worlds better" than GM without the extra buy.
How do you ever get to the point of having a deck that draws itself if you don't have draw and actions? Sure, Peddlers are pretty convenient in that deck once you've built it, but being able to have that deck in the first place is the important part, and Peddlers don't enable that.
Saying that you'll do better with X than with Lost City draw and Gold payload is like saying that you'll do better with X than with Scout in a deck with no Victory cards. If you have Lost Cities, either you should also be having terminal draw, or your payload should be terminal, both of which are a significant improvement over just having cantrip payload in a thin deck. Of course the +actions you get from Lost City aren't that impressive if you never play any terminal Actions.
And no, the cards are not simply of similar strength. Kingdoms where Grand Market is present aren't virtually always focused on GM, and when they are, it's usually because there's also some actions and draw present.
-
Decks that draw themselves don't occur so rarely and in such decks you prefer a double Peddler over a VillageLab. Not that this is the only situation in which Peddlerē is superior to Lost City. If you can trash most of your starting hand you will do better with cantrip payload than with LostCity draw and Gold payload.
Lost City is better than activated Conspirator if there is terminal payload better than $4. For example, Lost City + Goons is better than two activated Conspirators. Lost City is also better than activated Conspirator if you need to supplement your draw with terminal draw and there are no other action splitters. An activated Conspirator is usually better than Lost City if neither of those two conditions hold. But this is all pretty obvious in context, so I don't think people are disagreeing about anything substantial.
-
How do you ever get to the point of having a deck that draws itself if you don't have draw and actions?
A Peddler draws a card and provides an Action which is why you can easily build decks with all kind of (double) Peddler variants as long as there is decent trashing.
Contrary to your belief not every Kingdom features villages and terminal draw.
If you have Lost Cities, either you should also be having terminal draw, or your payload should be terminal, both of which are a significant improvement over just having cantrip payload in a thin deck.
Virtually every Grand Market decks disagree with you.
There are ample of reasons why you want virtual coins in engines. Scrying Pool, Herald and all the Herald variants and so on.
Kinda funny that we come back to Herald with which this all started. With Heralds you definitely want Peddler variants in your deck and not Gold as payload.
-
A Peddler draws a card and provides an Action which is why you can easily build decks with all kind of (double) Peddler variants as long as there is decent trashing.
Contrary to your belief not every Kingdom features villages and terminal draw.
A Peddler also takes up a card slot and an action, which is why the only way in which it improves your situation is by providing the coin, i.e. it doesn't help you build a deck-drawing engine at all. It is super rare for there to be a kingdom in which you can even build a deck with 4 or less stop cards in the first place, and it is even rarer to be able to build such a deck with any kind of sustainability during the greening phase.
I'm aware that there are some kingdoms in which you play big money, rush, slog or combo strategies, but I don't see how those kingdoms are relevant to this discussion.
If you have Lost Cities, either you should also be having terminal draw, or your payload should be terminal, both of which are a significant improvement over just having cantrip payload in a thin deck.
Virtually every Grand Market decks disagree with you.
There are ample of reasons why you want virtual coins in engines. Scrying Pool, Herald and all the Herald variants and so on.
Kinda funny that we come back to Herald with which this all started. With Heralds you definitely want Peddler variants in your deck and not Gold as payload.
None of this makes any sense.
1) So you would build a deck with Lost City for draw and Grand Market for payload? Why would you get all of those actions and then not play any terminal Actions?
2) I don't know why you're bringing up virtual coins.
3) The only one who ever brought up having Gold as payload for a Herald engine is you. You are fighting against your own strawman argument here.
-
Scrying Pool, Herald and all the Herald variants and so on.
List of all Herald variants:
Herald
-
Scrying Pool, Herald and all the Herald variants and so on.
List of all Herald variants:
Herald
Technically, according to the cladistic schema I pulled out of my ass and smeared all over the wiki, Herald is a Golem variant.
-
Scrying Pool, Herald and all the Herald variants and so on.
List of all Herald variants:
Herald
Technically, according to the cladistic schema I pulled out of my ass and smeared all over the wiki, Herald is a Golem variant.
Vassal is also a Herald variant. All three cards have in common that they prefer action cards and thus automatically also action cards that provide payload (respectively in the case of Vassal, are in themselves an action card that provide payload and potentially can be non-terminal).
-
I don't quite get all this arguing...
Vassal and Herald are two sides of the same coin. They're deck-autoplayers. Both are good in engines, but they each provide a different half of the equation (don't quote my math here -- my equation has more than two halves total). Herald provides the cards/actions half, while Vassal provides the payload/money half. If your board is weak in cards/actions, you'd much rather have Herald. If you have plenty of cards/actions, you'd rather have Vassal.
So yeah, Herald is a little better (because generally actions/cards is better), but they're similar in strength overall. Various factors like "may play", "riskiness of playing the action blind", "sifting", and "overpay" all make slight variations that don't really change the overall picture.
-
Vassal certainly conjures visions of a deck filled with Vassals, which plays itself. However, I have yet to see this work. In practice, it seems like more than a few Vassals is just bad.
For people who think Vassal is strong, is this based on actual games you played? What does Vassal even look like at its best? What kind of deck is it in?
-
I think pretty much the only similarity between herald and vassal is how with both you really want very high action density decks. And while both are strong in the right conditions, Iīd say herald is a lot better card. Due to a few reasons
While +coins is important, itīs +cards and +actions, that actually allow us to do crazy stuff. A herald based deck can look at the 9(usually) other action cards in the kingdom and figure out whatīs the best payload. Vassal needs to look at the other 9 kingdom cards and figure out how to build an engine with them. (And thatīs a major point with vassal, itīs definetely an engine card, but it doesnīt actually help much in making the engine work)
Both herald decks and vassal decks will mostly need trashing, but the first will generally be looking for a +coins action card while the second needs village support, my point here is not that the former is more common than the latter (which I believe is true, but I really have no data to back this statement), but that in the later you actually need a village in hand before you can safely play the vassal, this means a vassal based deck is much more prone to duds than a herald based. This also leads to my last point
Vassal fits in a rather clunky space of Dominion cards that Iīll call maybe-terminals, itīs a card that when you play it you donīt know if itīs gonna be a terminal or not (If I recall correctly the only other cards that are like this are Golem and Tribute, but I may be forgetting someone). That can lead to very diffcult decisions where you have a vassal and another terminal and donīt know which to play, itīs the weirdest thing in the card for me...
Well... That said, I donīt think Vassal is a weak card, itīs very interesting engine payload, you just shouldnīt expect there to be vassal decks in the same way that we see herald decks...
-
Vassal is also a Herald variant. All three cards have in common that they prefer action cards and thus automatically also action cards that provide payload (respectively in the case of Vassal, are in themselves an action card that provide payload and potentially can be non-terminal).
If you had high action density, you wouldn't get much use out of the deep deck inspection that Golem offers, so I don't see that it "prefers actions" as vassal and herald do.
-
It's also not Farmland.
Of course not. Vassals work the Farmland.
-
Vassal certainly conjures visions of a deck filled with Vassals, which plays itself. However, I have yet to see this work. In practice, it seems like more than a few Vassals is just bad.
For people who think Vassal is strong, is this based on actual games you played? What does Vassal even look like at its best? What kind of deck is it in?
I once played a (base) game with around 8 or 9 Vassals, some other non-terminals and no village. It was obviously only possible due to strong trashing via Chapel (and because my opponent neglected Vassal) but I was kind of surprised that it worked without village support.
Normally a Vassal deck is far more risky and much harder to set up than a Conspirator deck which is why Vassal only costs 3$. But if a Vassal deck is feasible you can more or less go for it as early as Herald, i.e. immediately, whereas with Conspirator you gotta wait a bit.
One interesting and non-trivial feature of Vassal is the discarding of non-Actions. It is not as important and strong as e.g. in the case of Ironmonger but it definitely helps.
-
From my limited experience so far, a "Vassal deck" is not a thing without pretty good support.
You can throw a few Vassals into an otherwise-good deck, but that's hardly a Vassal deck. So far I've only built bona fide Vassal decks in the presence of good cantrip deck-inspectors, like Cartographer, Apothecary, etc. Those were pretty damn strong.
-
I once princed a Courtyard. Vassal was amazing there.
(Edit: Didn't want to post already.)
Vassal is not also similar to Herald, it's also comparable to Golem. Both auto-play action cards and you might get unlucky hitting terminal(s).
To me Vassal is a very strong card. It needs more support than Herald, usually by buying some cards that give +2 Actions, so that you can play Vassals without risk or some cards that order the top of your deck (or of course even both). But when Vassal is good, it might be even better than Herald because Herald alone just gives you the ability to do with your deck whatever you want, while Vassal adds payload to your engine without losing the strength of your engine (mainly the ability to draw your deck). Herald engines sometimes have the problem just spinning circles, playing a lot of action cards but doing nothing, the engine needs good payload to be worth it, but Vassal already offers the payload. It's for sure weaker than Herald without doubt, but it only costs $3 and be easily picked up in masses if you have the gains.
-
I once princed a Courtyard. Vassal was amazing there.
I think this is an important observation. There are a lot more ways to manipulate/know the top card of your deck than the card below that. This gives Vassal synergies that Herald doesn't have (similarly to Wishing Well vs Mystic)
-
Who said you couldn't have both Vassal AND Herald? ;)
-
Vassal certainly conjures visions of a deck filled with Vassals, which plays itself. However, I have yet to see this work. In practice, it seems like more than a few Vassals is just bad.
For people who think Vassal is strong, is this based on actual games you played? What does Vassal even look like at its best? What kind of deck is it in?
I once played a (base) game with around 8 or 9 Vassals, some other non-terminals and no village. It was obviously only possible due to strong trashing via Chapel (and because my opponent neglected Vassal) but I was kind of surprised that it worked without village support.
Normally a Vassal deck is far more risky and much harder to set up than a Conspirator deck which is why Vassal only costs 3$. But if a Vassal deck is feasible you can more or less go for it as early as Herald, i.e. immediately, whereas with Conspirator you gotta wait a bit.
What were the other supporting cards? Sentry, Poacher, Merchant, Cellar, Throne Room? If the non-terminals are cantrips, it seems bad because you'd end up with a hand of 4 dead Vassals every turn.