Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: rinkworks on July 14, 2011, 11:56:22 am
-
One of my favorite card types is the Duration card. Seems like others like the Duration cards a lot too and, like me, want to see more in the future. It seemed to me initially that the space for vanilla Duration cards was largely filled, but then I started wondering about Duration cards that don't do *anything* for you on the turn you play them, only on the one afterward.
Tactician is like this, but to a greater extreme. Not only doesn't Tactician do anything that first turn, it actively sabotages what's left of it. But how about some middle ground? Duration cards that do nothing but consume a card slot and action when played, with all of the benefit happening on the second turn?
I thought of a few:
Dinghy
$4 - Action/Duration
On your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +1 Coin.
This is sort of like a delayed Market. Sort of, because eating an Action one turn and bumping you up to 2 Actions the next turn is very different from what a Market does, which is simply to replace itself. Still, it seemed close enough to a delayed Market to price 1 coin cheaper. The reasoning behind the name Dinghy is that a Dinghy is a pretty paltry vessel by itself, but eventually it'll take you somewhere bigger.
Sailboat
$4 - Action/Duration
On your next turn, +2 Cards, +1 Action.
This makes a glorious second turn, equivalent to having played two Laboratories and a Village on that second turn. But I still thought $4 was the right price, as it feels significantly weaker than a Wharf, given how it consumes a card and an action on that first turn without providing you any benefit on it.
Huckster
$3 - Action/Duration
On your next turn, +1 Buy, +3 Coins.
Instinctively, $3 seems too cheap for a +3 Coins card. But I arrived at the price two separate ways: (1) Start with Woodcutter. Have it give you an extra coin, and bump up the price to $4 accordingly. Then delay the bonus and knock the cost back down to $3. (2) Start with Horse Traders. Take off the reaction, and it should probably cost $3. Take off the discard requirement, and it could be bumped back up to $4. Delay its effect, and it should probably go back down to $3.
Still, a $3 card with a +$3 bonus feels pretty sweet, and I wonder if it's balanced in practice.
Opinions? Other ideas?
-
Have it give you an extra coin, and bump up the price to $4 accordingly.
Just like Gold costs $1 more than Silver? ;)
-
I'm sure all of these are overpowered, which is the number one thing I see in fan-designed cards (so don't feel bad!). There's one important principle here that the costing of these cards seem to ignore, and that's that having imbalanced hands is generally better than having balanced hands. This is actually the principle behind tactician, and the reason why it can be good even if there are no cards to combo off of it. Two hands at once is better than separately. But at any rate, all these cards trading benefits now for later are pretty strong. Now let's look at the cards one by one.
Dinghy: I would probably prefer this to market like 95% of the time if it were costed at $5. Maybe it's still printable there (seems the strength might be reasonable there, though a little strong), but I think it might also be too close to being 'strictly better'.
Sailboat: Hello. This is so much better than caravan it's not even funny. Printable at $5? Maybe, but it would be one of the top 3 non-attack 5s rather easily, maybe even clearly the strongest, so it's probably not the best idea. It combos with itself so well - you could pretty easily, pretty quickly use only it to be drawing your whole deck every turn.
Huckster: If this gave $2 rather than $3, it would be much better than woodcutter. As is, I think it would be strong and interesting at $5.
-
I like the idea of trading away things now to get a benefit next turn. How about a delayed Cellar variant? Discard any number of cards this turn, draw that many extra cards at the start of your next turn.
-
I'm sure all of these are overpowered, which is the number one thing I see in fan-designed cards (so don't feel bad!).
Heh. This is funny, because my first couple attempts were priced too high. I've self-corrected to the median!
Dinghy: I would probably prefer this to market like 95% of the time if it were costed at $5. Maybe it's still printable there (seems the strength might be reasonable there, though a little strong), but I think it might also be too close to being 'strictly better'.
Easy enough to drop one of the bonuses, I guess. When thinking about this card, I keep -- perhaps incorrectly -- flashing back to the realization that Caravan is exactly (barring a few interactions with Conspirator, Peddler, etc) the same as playing a Laboratory one turn later. But the difference between that and this is that Caravan costs nothing (in terms of a card slot or action) to play, whereas this does.
Therefore, if a delayed Laboratory that's free to play costs one less than Laboratory does, can't a delayed Market that's *not* free to play cost one less? But, as I already pointed out, Dinghy isn't precisely a delayed Market. Maybe it's the +1 Action that it needs to lose.
Sailboat: Hello. This is so much better than caravan it's not even funny. Printable at $5? Maybe, but it would be one of the top 3 non-attack 5s rather easily, maybe even clearly the strongest, so it's probably not the best idea. It combos with itself so well - you could pretty easily, pretty quickly use only it to be drawing your whole deck every turn.
How? Unlike Caravan, where you can freely play as many as you want every turn, Sailboat eats an action when you play it. Wharf seems the closer point of comparison. Sure, if you could play eight Wharves in one turn, you'd have a powerhouse next turn. But it takes a seriously massive infrastructure to be able to do that in the first place -- and then, on your mega-turn, you can't replay those Wharves for the turn after, because they're still in play.
Admittedly, the extra actions from the previous turn's Sailboat(s) give you the extra actions you need to play more Sailboats this turn. Is that what you mean? Even so, I can't quite visualize how these are stackable in a truly sustaining fashion. I'm sure you're right -- you have more experience with this game than I do -- but I can't quite envision it.
Huckster: If this gave $2 rather than $3, it would be much better than woodcutter. As is, I think it would be strong and interesting at $5.
If it gave $2, it would basically be a Woodcutter, just delayed a turn. But I gather you're saying that eating the card/action to play it on an earlier turn, as opposed to the turn in which you reap the benefits, makes it stronger? That makes a lot of sense to me. So if Huckster gave +1 Buy and +2 Coins on the next turn, then $4 would be a reasonable price?
Thanks for your analysis!
-
Dinghy would effectively be a delayed market if it only gave the money and buy, or if you want to be analogous to caravan, gave the card and action immediately, money and buy next turn. As written, it's stronger.
I play one sailboat this turn, two next turn, three the next turn... it blows up quickly. Also a net gain of two cards is ridiculously powerful. So you basically got that.
The modified Huckster you propose with $2 is too weak at 4. Let's face it, woodcutter's not all that strong. You could price it at $3, but then it's too much like woodcutter. I'd test it at $5 giving $3, but I'd be worried about it being too strong.
-
I think the critical thing about "2 hands at once is better than 1 hand at a time" is actually the +buy. I don't think I believe it without the +buy. For example, imagine warf without the +buy. It's really not that good anymore. Doubly so, these actions are all terminals. Using a terminal on a card that does nothing on the turn you play it is beyond risky.
Imagine the following pure-delay:
Late Merchant Ship
+$4 on your next turn.
This card is actually terrible. It would need to be priced pretty low to be worth it. It certainly is junk at $5. It will ruin the turn you play it on. On the next turn, you have no guarantee that the money isn't completely wasted. I mean what if you get $10 on turn 5 with this in a province game? You are still going to buy the same gold that you were able to afford anyways. It's not like you'll get a turn 5 province.
That being said, for colony games, it could be useful to vault yourself to a quick platinum. In a colony game it would be a midgame strong card that turns near useless endgame, when it turns your $11 one-buy turn into a $15 one-buy turn, while screwing your turn previous.
I think the key component to these kind of cards is +buy (or +action to a lesser extent). This is a big reason why Wharf and Tactician are SO much better than Merchant Ship.
-
Ok, reining Sailboat in a bit, how about this?
Sailboat
$5 - Action
On your next turn, +2 Cards and +1 Coin.
The lack of +Actions means they don't chain exponentially from turn to turn. The coin is there to keep it from being (substantially) strictly worse than Wharf at the same price.
I considered pricing a version without the +1 Coin at $4, but then I realized that was basically just a delayed Smithy at the same cost. Kind of boring.
Dinghy
$4 - Action
On your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action.
This is like Caravan that substitutes a delayed Village effect for the cantripness.
-
Imagine the following pure-delay:
Late Merchant Ship
+$4 on your next turn.
This card is actually terrible. It would need to be priced pretty low to be worth it.
I would say that card is potentially broken unless it's at least $5 (and probably more). Getting $4 on my next turn and having 5 cards means it's easy to hit $8 even with only coppers in my deck. If I get two of these and a village, I'm going to buy a province next turn no matter what I draw. Sure, I may not get to spend all my money because I don't have a +buy, but if I'm getting a province every turn after I play it, I don't care. Or, I will gain a card that gives me a +buy. This card is like Tactician, minus the action and buy, but also minus discarding my hand.
Having a +buy on Warf, Council Room, and Tactician is gravy - the extra cards significanly overshadows the +buy. Platinum is +$5 without an extra buy, and a card that's almost a platinum but costs $5 (or less) is scary.
-
Good points. That's mostly because you're thinking about buying stuff, and these guarantee you being able to buy a lot. In a deck where you can't get that level of money, having 6 and 0 is generally better than having 3 and 3. If the point is more setting up a big chain of actions, the extra buys don't matter as much. But +buys are relatively common, so that this kind of card can often be broken, even if it isn't always. And that's a big problem.
Actually, I think Wharf would be good without the buy, just not the clear best non-attack $5 in the game.
Delayed merchant ship would be way too good at $4, and I don't think much worse (if any) than the actual merchant ship at $5. Indeed, it's probably better than the real thing in colony games.
-
I like where your heart is rinkworks, but part of me wonders if all the effort to have a village on your next turn is worth it. It reminds me of the discussion we had regarding a $3 card that reads "+$2, +1 action". 90% of the time, this is a silver. Does it make sense to have such a card for the 10% of games where it is different? Maybe, but it's not that interesting as untapped design space.
That said, these are probably useful exercises for establishing baselines of cost/power in terms of delayed power cards. There might be an effect that is only worthwhile if it has a delay (like Tactician).
One last problem is Haven - that card already does most of what you're trying to do, particularly with non-terminal cards like Market. I can turn any non-terminal action card into a delayed action card with Haven. Is there additional functionality and gameplay from having Haven built into a card? Maybe, but I don't know that Market or Village are the cards where this mechanic could shine.
Anyone know why there aren't any duration attacks?* That seems like the most natural fit to me - a powerful attack that you can see coming. To be interesting, it would probably have to be based on the turn that was played while the duration was on the board. Something like:
Duration Followers
Duration - Action - Attack
On your next turn, each opponent discards 2 cards and gains a curse for each victory card they gained during their last turn.
Or something like that. The duration element becomes relevant because the opponent can take steps to mitigate the attack, which allows the attack itself to be more powerful.
*Oh yeah, they're screwy with Reaction cards, aren't they. That probably makes duration attacks a bad idea. Oh well.
-
I like where your heart is rinkworks, but part of me wonders if all the effort to have a village on your next turn is worth it.
Well, it's also a Laboratory next turn as well, but I didn't mention that, because that's also what a Caravan does. So the full summary of what it would do is eat a card and an action this turn, then set-up next turn as if you had played both a Laboratory and a Village at the start of it. Given that Laboratory is virtually always powerful, and Village is powerful in the right circumstances, I figured it might work.
-
I think Duration-Attacks could work, you'd just need some extra rules saying that Reactions only trigger at the start of the second turn (when the Attack actually happens).
Also maybe a Duration-Reaction? Like "Anytime a player does X while this card is in play, get benefit Y"
Ok, reining Sailboat in a bit, how about this?
Sailboat
$5 - Action
On your next turn, +2 Cards and +1 Coin.
Isn't this way worse than Wharf at the same price? Because Wharf happens on both turns instead of just the next one, and I think I'd rather have the +1 Buy instead of +1 Coin anyway.
-
Sailboat
$5 - Action
On your next turn, +2 Cards and +1 Coin.
Isn't this way worse than Wharf at the same price? Because Wharf happens on both turns instead of just the next one, and I think I'd rather have the +1 Buy instead of +1 Coin anyway.
How about both?
-
To understand the strength of a delayed card, add +1 card +1 action to its delayed effect. E.g. caravan *reads* +1 card next turn, which seems piddly, but is actually equivalent to a laboratory. The only reason caravan is weaker than lab is because you need twice as many caravans as labs to draw your entire deck each turn (you can only draw a caravan when it isn't in duration). So a delayed +1 card +1 action is a delayed city, and a delayed +2 cards is equivalent to playing two labs (!), or a smithy and a village.
Hope that helps. Delayed cards that do nothing on one turn are actually pretty interesting.
-
Huh. My reaction was that these are all kind of weak.
- I think you're underestimating how bad missing the reshuffle is, especially for card drawers are speeding up your shuffling. For drawing your whole deck every turn Caravan is only half a Laboratory. Open Huckster over Silver and 42% of the time both Huckster will miss the 2nd reshuffle and you're shuffling in a card worth $2 less than it would've been. That's pretty devastating.
- +1 Action is something you really want this turn to match supply and demand for actions together. A deck full of caravans can always play all its actions. Not so much for a deck full of Sailboats.
- The imbalanced turn thing is mitigated if you're buying multiples. If you're deferring benefits and then next turn drawing more cards that just defer again the turns are being smoothed back out.
-
I've now playtested all three cards. WanderingWinder, you completely nailed Huckster. As written, the card is a strong, but probably not too strong, $5-cost card.
I revised Dinghy to only offering +1 Card, +1 Action on the next turn. This turned out to be too weak at the $4-cost level, as, using Caravan as the point of comparison, the extra second-turn Village effect was not nearly enough compensation for the loss of first-turn cantripness. Mostly this is because it's hard to predict if you'll need the extra action on the next turn or not. At a cost of $3, it felt better, but it still feels weak and makes me wonder if my original version was really that overpowered at $4. However, I think I'll leave it the way it is.
Sailboat is tough. I haven't figured out what I'm going to do with that one yet. Part of the trouble is that the +2 Cards part makes Wharf the obvious point of comparison, but, given how powerful Wharf is for its cost, trying to be competitive with it probably isn't the best goal.
-
I think I might be winning the Necro Wars:
(http://i.imgur.com/UMGvnNG.png)
-
I think I might be winning the Necro Wars:
(http://i.imgur.com/UMGvnNG.png)
This has to cost 2 as it is strictly weaker than Market Square.
-
I think I might be winning the Necro Wars:
(http://i.imgur.com/UMGvnNG.png)
This has to cost 2 as it is strictly weaker than Market Square.
No it's not. Next turn it's a super-lost-city. Remember that duration effects on your next turn have a +1 Card +1 Action built in. That's why caravan is considered a lab variant.
-
I think I might be winning the Necro Wars:
(http://i.imgur.com/UMGvnNG.png)
This has to cost 2 as it is strictly weaker than Market Square.
No it's not. Next turn it's a super-lost-city. Remember that duration effects on your next turn have a +1 Card +1 Action built in. That's why caravan is considered a lab variant.
Yes it is. Anything now is better than anything latter.
This why a delayed Lab like Caravan costs 4 instead of 5 and why a delayed Peddler (with a bonus!) like Caravan Guard costs 3 instead of 4.
By your logic "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards" is superstrong as it is a Double Lab next turn, ignoring that now it is a dead card and worse than Moat sans reaction.
Your card is a delayed Market Square sans reaction so it is worse in every aspect. Now if it provided something on the current turn it would be a different thing.
-
I think I might be winning the Necro Wars:
(http://i.imgur.com/UMGvnNG.png)
This has to cost 2 as it is strictly weaker than Market Square.
No it's not. Next turn it's a super-lost-city. Remember that duration effects on your next turn have a +1 Card +1 Action built in. That's why caravan is considered a lab variant.
Yes it is. Anything now is better than anything latter.
This why a delayed Lab like Caravan costs 4 instead of 5 and why a delayed Peddler (with a bonus!) like Caravan Guard costs 3 instead of 4.
By your logic "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards" is superstrong as it is a Double Lab next turn, ignoring that now it is a dead card and worse than Moat sans reaction.
Your card is a delayed Market Square sans reaction so it is worse in every aspect. Now if it provided something on the current turn it would be a different thing.
No, next turn it's a Lost City AND a Market Square.
-
I think I might be winning the Necro Wars:
(http://i.imgur.com/UMGvnNG.png)
This has to cost 2 as it is strictly weaker than Market Square.
No it's not. Next turn it's a super-lost-city. Remember that duration effects on your next turn have a +1 Card +1 Action built in. That's why caravan is considered a lab variant.
Yes it is. Anything now is better than anything latter.
This why a delayed Lab like Caravan costs 4 instead of 5 and why a delayed Peddler (with a bonus!) like Caravan Guard costs 3 instead of 4.
By your logic "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards" is superstrong as it is a Double Lab next turn, ignoring that now it is a dead card and worse than Moat sans reaction.
Your card is a delayed Market Square sans reaction so it is worse in every aspect. Now if it provided something on the current turn it would be a different thing.
No, next turn it's a Lost City AND a Market Square.
You are right, a delayed Market Square would be +1 Card, +1 Action and the +1 Buy in the next turn.
Your card is even worse than that as it doesn't just postpone the extra buy but even the cantrip; in the current turn it is dead and you have a much harder time playing Dinghies consistenly than with Market Square.
By your logic At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +2 Actions would be far better than Village as it is TWO VILLAGES AND A LAB !!!! next turn, again ignoring that it is a dead card in the current turn.
If by now you still don't see that anything latter is strictly worse than anything now I cannot help you.
-
I think I might be winning the Necro Wars:
(http://i.imgur.com/UMGvnNG.png)
This has to cost 2 as it is strictly weaker than Market Square.
No it's not. Next turn it's a super-lost-city. Remember that duration effects on your next turn have a +1 Card +1 Action built in. That's why caravan is considered a lab variant.
Yes it is. Anything now is better than anything latter.
This why a delayed Lab like Caravan costs 4 instead of 5 and why a delayed Peddler (with a bonus!) like Caravan Guard costs 3 instead of 4.
By your logic "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards" is superstrong as it is a Double Lab next turn, ignoring that now it is a dead card and worse than Moat sans reaction.
Your card is a delayed Market Square sans reaction so it is worse in every aspect. Now if it provided something on the current turn it would be a different thing.
No, next turn it's a Lost City AND a Market Square.
You are right, a delayed Market Square would be +1 Card, +1 Action and the +1 Buy in the next turn.
Your card is even worse than that as it doesn't just postpone the extra buy but even the cantrip; in the current turn it is dead and you have a much harder time playing Dinghies consistenly than with Market Square.
By your logic At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +2 Actions would be far better than Village as it is TWO VILLAGES AND A LAB next turn, again ignoring that it is a dead card in the current turn.
If by now you still don't see that anything latter is strictly worse than anything now I cannot help you.
Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village. I think tactician demonstrates pretty clearly that even if it's horrible now, being good later can make it up. Also, I was going off of rinworks' quote here:
I revised Dinghy to only offering +1 Card, +1 Action on the next turn. This turned out to be too weak at the $4-cost level, as, using Caravan as the point of comparison, the extra second-turn Village effect was not nearly enough compensation for the loss of first-turn cantripness. Mostly this is because it's hard to predict if you'll need the extra action on the next turn or not. At a cost of $3, it felt better, but it still feels weak and makes me wonder if my original version was really that overpowered at $4. However, I think I'll leave it the way it is.
That's why I added the +Buy, to give it a slight buff.
-
Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.
By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.
This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.
-
Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.
By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.
This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.
Hmm, my logic could be wrong. Whether or not it was, (which it could easily be), the conclusion was right. This is probably a fine card for 3, if on the weaker side. I suggest you re-read the whole thread.
-
Being delayed is generally worse, but not even close to strictly worse. Dinghy is probably better at $2 but it might be OK at $3.
-
Dinghy is not a market square next turn.
Dingy turns your next turn into 6 cards, 2 actions and a buy. (Or a lost city + Market square.) That's reasonable at 3, I think. Or, to put it different: a (now) terminal caravan and one additional buy next turn. It could also be a $2 card, I think.
Dingy would be a delayed market square if it just said: +1 Buy next turn. (And then it should probably cost $1 or be an event or something.) The beauty, btw, is that you can play market square AND Dingy.
-
Whether an effect is better now or at the start of your next turn depends on what the effect is, and also on the situation. I believe that most effects are better if you get them now. Terminal draw is often better later because it doesn't draw cards dead. Some simulations were done for Adventures which show that [+3 Cards next turn]-BM slightly edges out Smithy-BM. That doesn't mean that it's always better than Smithy, but certainly situations exist where it is.
Effects that want a larger hand size (like Warehouse/Dungeon) are better now if you have a good way to non-terminally increase your hand size, but are better at the start of your next turn otherwise.
-
Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.
By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.
This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.
Hmm, my logic could be wrong. Whether or not it was, (which it could easily be), the conclusion was right. This is probably a fine card for 3, if on the weaker side. I suggest you re-read the whole thread.
Lab is better than Caravan and Caravan is better than a card which says "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards +1 Action. That's not my opinion but hyperobvious and reflected by the cost of Caravan and Lab.
Same with Market Square and Dingy. The former beats the latter in every respect (no delay, plus the Reaction).
Of course there are rare circumstances in which you might prefer delaying. Suppose there is an Action card which provides 4 coins. Obviously it is better than Merchant Ship but in a particular situation in which you have 6 Coins and no extra buy you would prefer playing a Merchant Ship over the hypothetical "+4 Coins".
The cases in which this happens are trivial compared to the number of cases in which the immediate 4 Coins are far better. Oh, and obviously such a card would probably be balanced around 6$.
-
Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.
By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.
This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.
Hmm, my logic could be wrong. Whether or not it was, (which it could easily be), the conclusion was right. This is probably a fine card for 3, if on the weaker side. I suggest you re-read the whole thread.
Lab is better than Caravan and Caravan is better than a card which says "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards +1 Action. That's not my opinion but hyperobvious and reflected by the cost of Caravan and Lab.
Same with Market Square and Dingy. The former beats the latter in every respect (no delay, plus the Reaction).
Of course there are rare circumstances in which you might prefer delaying. Suppose there is an Action card which provides 4 coins. Obviously it is better than Merchant Ship but in a particular situation in which you have 6 Coins and no extra buy you would prefer playing a Merchant Ship over the hypothetical "+4 Coins".
The cases in which this happens are trivial compared to the number of cases in which the immediate 4 Coins are far better. Oh, and obviously such a card would probably be balanced around 6$.
Wait, a lab next turn is 'obviously' better than a terminal now-lab+lost village next turn? I don't think that's so obviously true.
Dingy is a terminal-next turn lab+market square. This is, again, not obviously that much worse than a market square now. In games with sufficient actions but no trashing, I might prefer dingy to make sure my engine can go off again next turn.
You are aware that Dingy is *not* a delayed market square, right? A delayed market square would be: 'at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy'. That's a delayed market square.
-
Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.
By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.
This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.
Hmm, my logic could be wrong. Whether or not it was, (which it could easily be), the conclusion was right. This is probably a fine card for 3, if on the weaker side. I suggest you re-read the whole thread.
Lab is better than Caravan and Caravan is better than a card which says "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards +1 Action. That's not my opinion but hyperobvious and reflected by the cost of Caravan and Lab.
Same with Market Square and Dingy. The former beats the latter in every respect (no delay, plus the Reaction).
Of course there are rare circumstances in which you might prefer delaying. Suppose there is an Action card which provides 4 coins. Obviously it is better than Merchant Ship but in a particular situation in which you have 6 Coins and no extra buy you would prefer playing a Merchant Ship over the hypothetical "+4 Coins".
The cases in which this happens are trivial compared to the number of cases in which the immediate 4 Coins are far better. Oh, and obviously such a card would probably be balanced around 6$.
Wait, a lab next turn is 'obviously' better than a terminal now-lab+lost village next turn? I don't think that's so obviously true.
Dingy is a terminal-next turn lab+market square. This is, again, not obviously that much worse than a market square now. In games with sufficient actions but no trashing, I might prefer dingy to make sure my engine can go off again next turn.
You are aware that Dingy is *not* a delayed market square, right? A delayed market square would be: 'at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy'. That's a delayed market square.
Yeah, it is dead card now and a Market Square sans reaction next turn, making it worse in every way than a Market Square.
That extra Action and Card which the hyperdelayed Market Square provides are not a supervaluable asset that it makes it stronger than a normal Market Square. It is the very stuff which a normal Market Square would provide in the FIRST instead of just the second turn.
Surely I don't have to explain to an economist that you gotta discount the future, especially in a game which runs around 15-30 turns.
-
Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.
By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.
This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.
Hmm, my logic could be wrong. Whether or not it was, (which it could easily be), the conclusion was right. This is probably a fine card for 3, if on the weaker side. I suggest you re-read the whole thread.
Lab is better than Caravan and Caravan is better than a card which says "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards +1 Action. That's not my opinion but hyperobvious and reflected by the cost of Caravan and Lab.
Same with Market Square and Dingy. The former beats the latter in every respect (no delay, plus the Reaction).
Of course there are rare circumstances in which you might prefer delaying. Suppose there is an Action card which provides 4 coins. Obviously it is better than Merchant Ship but in a particular situation in which you have 6 Coins and no extra buy you would prefer playing a Merchant Ship over the hypothetical "+4 Coins".
The cases in which this happens are trivial compared to the number of cases in which the immediate 4 Coins are far better. Oh, and obviously such a card would probably be balanced around 6$.
Wait, a lab next turn is 'obviously' better than a terminal now-lab+lost village next turn? I don't think that's so obviously true.
Dingy is a terminal-next turn lab+market square. This is, again, not obviously that much worse than a market square now. In games with sufficient actions but no trashing, I might prefer dingy to make sure my engine can go off again next turn.
You are aware that Dingy is *not* a delayed market square, right? A delayed market square would be: 'at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy'. That's a delayed market square.
Yeah, it is dead card now and a Market Square sans reaction next turn, making it worse in every way than a Market Square
Surely I don't have to explain to an economist that you gotta discount the future, especially in a game which runs around 15-30 turns, do I?
IT"S NOT A MARKET SQUARE NEXT TURN, IT'S A LOST CITY + MARKET SQUARE
sorry for the caps, just trying to make a point.
-
Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.
By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.
This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.
Hmm, my logic could be wrong. Whether or not it was, (which it could easily be), the conclusion was right. This is probably a fine card for 3, if on the weaker side. I suggest you re-read the whole thread.
Lab is better than Caravan and Caravan is better than a card which says "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards +1 Action. That's not my opinion but hyperobvious and reflected by the cost of Caravan and Lab.
Same with Market Square and Dingy. The former beats the latter in every respect (no delay, plus the Reaction).
Of course there are rare circumstances in which you might prefer delaying. Suppose there is an Action card which provides 4 coins. Obviously it is better than Merchant Ship but in a particular situation in which you have 6 Coins and no extra buy you would prefer playing a Merchant Ship over the hypothetical "+4 Coins".
The cases in which this happens are trivial compared to the number of cases in which the immediate 4 Coins are far better. Oh, and obviously such a card would probably be balanced around 6$.
Wait, a lab next turn is 'obviously' better than a terminal now-lab+lost village next turn? I don't think that's so obviously true.
Dingy is a terminal-next turn lab+market square. This is, again, not obviously that much worse than a market square now. In games with sufficient actions but no trashing, I might prefer dingy to make sure my engine can go off again next turn.
You are aware that Dingy is *not* a delayed market square, right? A delayed market square would be: 'at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy'. That's a delayed market square.
Yeah, it is dead card now and a Market Square sans reaction next turn, making it worse in every way than a Market Square
Surely I don't have to explain to an economist that you gotta discount the future, especially in a game which runs around 15-30 turns, do I?
IT"S NOT A MARKET SQUARE NEXT TURN, IT'S A LOST CITY + MARKET SQUARE
sorry for the caps, just trying to make a point.
Yep and it is a dead card this turn.
Anything non-terminal that is dead this turn and does the stuff which card XYZ does on turn 1 instead on turn 2 is worse than card XYZ.
By your weird logic Fishing Village is better than Bazaar. It is a Bazaar next turn which makes it in your opinion better than Bazaar but instead of being a deed card it even does something this turn. Hell, Fishing Village should cost 6!
-
Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.
By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.
This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.
Hmm, my logic could be wrong. Whether or not it was, (which it could easily be), the conclusion was right. This is probably a fine card for 3, if on the weaker side. I suggest you re-read the whole thread.
Lab is better than Caravan and Caravan is better than a card which says "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards +1 Action. That's not my opinion but hyperobvious and reflected by the cost of Caravan and Lab.
Same with Market Square and Dingy. The former beats the latter in every respect (no delay, plus the Reaction).
Of course there are rare circumstances in which you might prefer delaying. Suppose there is an Action card which provides 4 coins. Obviously it is better than Merchant Ship but in a particular situation in which you have 6 Coins and no extra buy you would prefer playing a Merchant Ship over the hypothetical "+4 Coins".
The cases in which this happens are trivial compared to the number of cases in which the immediate 4 Coins are far better. Oh, and obviously such a card would probably be balanced around 6$.
Wait, a lab next turn is 'obviously' better than a terminal now-lab+lost village next turn? I don't think that's so obviously true.
Dingy is a terminal-next turn lab+market square. This is, again, not obviously that much worse than a market square now. In games with sufficient actions but no trashing, I might prefer dingy to make sure my engine can go off again next turn.
You are aware that Dingy is *not* a delayed market square, right? A delayed market square would be: 'at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy'. That's a delayed market square.
Yeah, it is dead card now and a Market Square sans reaction next turn, making it worse in every way than a Market Square
Surely I don't have to explain to an economist that you gotta discount the future, especially in a game which runs around 15-30 turns, do I?
IT"S NOT A MARKET SQUARE NEXT TURN, IT'S A LOST CITY + MARKET SQUARE
sorry for the caps, just trying to make a point.
Yes, this.
A market square replaces itself in your hand. So you start the turn with 5 cards. You play market square. You have 5 cards, 1 action and 2 buys, one more than you started with.
You play a dingy. You have 4 cards. Next turn: you have 6 cards, 2 actions and 2buys. That's pretty good. That's like, like Theta says, playing a lost village *and* a market square. And you get both of those effects... by playing one card in the previous turn. Not as good as tactician, but pretty good for a $3, I'd say.
-
Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.
By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.
This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.
Hmm, my logic could be wrong. Whether or not it was, (which it could easily be), the conclusion was right. This is probably a fine card for 3, if on the weaker side. I suggest you re-read the whole thread.
Lab is better than Caravan and Caravan is better than a card which says "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards +1 Action. That's not my opinion but hyperobvious and reflected by the cost of Caravan and Lab.
Same with Market Square and Dingy. The former beats the latter in every respect (no delay, plus the Reaction).
Of course there are rare circumstances in which you might prefer delaying. Suppose there is an Action card which provides 4 coins. Obviously it is better than Merchant Ship but in a particular situation in which you have 6 Coins and no extra buy you would prefer playing a Merchant Ship over the hypothetical "+4 Coins".
The cases in which this happens are trivial compared to the number of cases in which the immediate 4 Coins are far better. Oh, and obviously such a card would probably be balanced around 6$.
Wait, a lab next turn is 'obviously' better than a terminal now-lab+lost village next turn? I don't think that's so obviously true.
Dingy is a terminal-next turn lab+market square. This is, again, not obviously that much worse than a market square now. In games with sufficient actions but no trashing, I might prefer dingy to make sure my engine can go off again next turn.
You are aware that Dingy is *not* a delayed market square, right? A delayed market square would be: 'at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy'. That's a delayed market square.
Yeah, it is dead card now and a Market Square sans reaction next turn, making it worse in every way than a Market Square
Surely I don't have to explain to an economist that you gotta discount the future, especially in a game which runs around 15-30 turns, do I?
IT"S NOT A MARKET SQUARE NEXT TURN, IT'S A LOST CITY + MARKET SQUARE
sorry for the caps, just trying to make a point.
Yep and it is a dead card this turn.
Anything non-terminal that is dead this turn and does the stuff which card XYZ does on turn 1 instead on turn 2 is worse than card XYZ.
By your weird logic Fishing Village is better than Bazaar. It is a Bazaar next turn which makes it in your opinion better than Bazaar but instead of being a deed card it even does something this turn. Hell, Fishing Village should cost 6!
No it's not. You can't just say that. Didn't you read what LFN posted?
Whether an effect is better now or at the start of your next turn depends on what the effect is, and also on the situation. I believe that most effects are better if you get them now. Terminal draw is often better later because it doesn't draw cards dead. Some simulations were done for Adventures which show that [+3 Cards next turn]-BM slightly edges out Smithy-BM. That doesn't mean that it's always better than Smithy, but certainly situations exist where it is.
Effects that want a larger hand size (like Warehouse/Dungeon) are better now if you have a good way to non-terminally increase your hand size, but are better at the start of your next turn otherwise.
I can understand Dinghy being weak, rinworks said it was.
-
Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.
By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.
This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.
Hmm, my logic could be wrong. Whether or not it was, (which it could easily be), the conclusion was right. This is probably a fine card for 3, if on the weaker side. I suggest you re-read the whole thread.
Lab is better than Caravan and Caravan is better than a card which says "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards +1 Action. That's not my opinion but hyperobvious and reflected by the cost of Caravan and Lab.
Same with Market Square and Dingy. The former beats the latter in every respect (no delay, plus the Reaction).
Of course there are rare circumstances in which you might prefer delaying. Suppose there is an Action card which provides 4 coins. Obviously it is better than Merchant Ship but in a particular situation in which you have 6 Coins and no extra buy you would prefer playing a Merchant Ship over the hypothetical "+4 Coins".
The cases in which this happens are trivial compared to the number of cases in which the immediate 4 Coins are far better. Oh, and obviously such a card would probably be balanced around 6$.
Wait, a lab next turn is 'obviously' better than a terminal now-lab+lost village next turn? I don't think that's so obviously true.
Dingy is a terminal-next turn lab+market square. This is, again, not obviously that much worse than a market square now. In games with sufficient actions but no trashing, I might prefer dingy to make sure my engine can go off again next turn.
You are aware that Dingy is *not* a delayed market square, right? A delayed market square would be: 'at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy'. That's a delayed market square.
Yeah, it is dead card now and a Market Square sans reaction next turn, making it worse in every way than a Market Square
Surely I don't have to explain to an economist that you gotta discount the future, especially in a game which runs around 15-30 turns, do I?
IT"S NOT A MARKET SQUARE NEXT TURN, IT'S A LOST CITY + MARKET SQUARE
sorry for the caps, just trying to make a point.
Yep and it is a dead card this turn.
Anything non-terminal that is dead this turn and does the stuff which card XYZ does on turn 1 instead on turn 2 is worse than card XYZ.
By your weird logic Fishing Village is better than Bazaar. It is a Bazaar next turn which makes it in your opinion better than Bazaar but instead of being a deed card it even does something this turn. Hell, Fishing Village should cost 6!
Lost city + Market square = $8.
Fishing village costs $2 less than bazaar, so the discounted value of an effect is around $2. So dingy can reliably cost $6 and still be worthwile!
;)
Any case, a delayed market square's costs would be: '+1 Buy next turn'. That's a delayed market square. A delayed lost city-market square is a whole different card, and pretty good. $3 sounds like a plausible number. You can probably even make it $5 if it's +1 Action now, which would make it a better card, imo.
-
You play a dingy. You have 4 cards. Next turn: you have 6 cards, 2 actions and 2buys. That's pretty good. That's like, like Theta says, playing a lost village *and* a market square. And you get both of those effects... by playing one card in the previous turn. Not as good as tactician, but pretty good for a $3, I'd say.
Man, Enchantress kicks ass. It is a Double Lab next turn! For a mere 3! And with an attack on top! Totally overpowered!
Ignoring that a card is dead and just focusing on the duration effect leads you to totally misjudging any Duration card. Swamp Hag is a triple Peddler. Wharf is a Double Lab with a Market Square on top! Fishing Village is a Bazaar! Lighthouse is a Peddler!
-
No it's not. You can't just say that. Didn't you read what LFN posted?
I did. You seemingly didn't.
He made good point about terminal draw being potentially good when delayed which is why I explicitly said non-terminals.
-
What if we simply had a delayed cantrip?
Delayed Cantrip - $2 Action/Duration
At the beginning of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action.
Obviously this is extremely weak. But is it so weak that you would prefer not to have it at all? Or are there situations where you'd want it if you can get it for free? Maybe it could be combined with some other weak effects:
Delayed Scoutess - $2 Action/Duration
At the beginning of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action.
Then reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put the revealed Victory cards into your hand. Put the other cards on top of your deck in any order.
In games using this, when you gain a Duchy, you may gain a Delayed Scoutess.
-
You play a dingy. You have 4 cards. Next turn: you have 6 cards, 2 actions and 2buys. That's pretty good. That's like, like Theta says, playing a lost village *and* a market square. And you get both of those effects... by playing one card in the previous turn. Not as good as tactician, but pretty good for a $3, I'd say.
Man, Enchantress kicks ass. It is a Double Lab next turn! For a mere 3! And with an attack on top! Totally overpowered!
Ignoring that a card is dead and just focusing on the duration effect leads you to totally misjudging any Duration card. Swamp Hag is a triple Peddler. Wharf is a Double Lab with a Market Square on top! Fishing Village is a Bazaar! Lighthouse is a Peddler!
And they all cost accordingly less. Fishing village costs $2 less, lighthouse costs $2 less, swamp hag costs $7 less ($12 as benchmark), wharf $8 less ($13 as benchmark) We notice a trend: non-terminals cost about $2 less and terminals costs a lot (around 7-8) more less.
So lost city + market square = $8. Delayed, it would be fine at $5-$6 if non-terminal and $3 ($5 less) if terminal seem ok. Although $2 ($6 less) might also work. Wharf is considered pretty good. Sea hag needs the +$3 bonus because it's mere presence makes it less likely you buy a lot of cards, so what you buy needs to be *good*.
-
What if we simply had a delayed cantrip?
Delayed Cantrip - $2 Action/Duration
At the beginning of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action.
Obviously this is extremely weak. But is it so weak that you would prefer not to have it at all? Or are there situations where you'd want it if you can get it for free?
If you want that extra Action the card provides you play with many Action cards. If you play with many Action cards it hurts that the Delayed Cantrip is dead this turn. So the only useful thing it does for you is providing one card. But instead of getting it immediately you get it next turn.
So most of the times it is worse than a cantrip. AdrianHealey is right that it does transfer resources if you play with only one or two copies. But if you play with several it is worse than a normal cantrip as stuff is simply delayed.
Take Market Square and hyperdelayed Market Square. If I just need the buys I want some normal Market Squares. If I want some Minitacticians hyperdelayed Market Square is OK-ish. But if I want these Minitacticians to hit every turn I fool myself as I need the extra Action and extra Card just to play another hyperdelayed Market Square so I would be better off with the normal Market Square that hits earlier and doesn't miss reshuffles.
-
I do agree with tristan that Hyperdelayed Market Square is probably much weaker than normal Market Square (even without factoring in the Reaction). The cost of getting nothing on the turn you play it is very steep. And I think "mini-Tactician" is overselling the next-turn effect; +1 Card vs. +5 Cards is just too great a gulf.
EDIT: So to circle back to the original argument, although I don't think it makes sense to call Dinghy "strictly worse" than Market Square, it does seem really weak. Probably too weak to be a Kingdom card that you buy by normal means. Duchess would probably fall into this category too if it didn't have the "when you gain a Duchy" clause.
-
I stand by my jusgement: dingy seems decent in a non-trashing engine deck, with spare +actions. Those happen. I think it should be $2, for opening purposes.
Or make it non-terminal for 5. That would be abtter card imo.
Also, if it's the only +buy, it gets really interesting.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/9p8M9gR.png)
Better?
-
I stand by my jusgement: dingy seems decent in a non-trashing engine deck, with spare +actions. Those happen.
Also, if it's the only +buy, it gets really interesting.
I think if Dinghy is the only +Buy, you're sad that there isn't another +Buy and grudgingly buy two Dinghies for your engine. I wouldn't call it interesting.
Non-trashing engine decks are hard to build and need powerful draw. I think Dinghy actively sabotages such a deck as much as it helps it. If a Dinghy in your hand had been a cantrip (or nothing), you'd have a much better chance to draw the Village/Smithy/whatever you needed to draw your deck that turn. The fact that it gives you +1 Card and +1 Action on your next turn is at best a wash and quite often worse.
EDIT: And you can't forget that an engine that draws your deck needs two Dinghies just to get the same value of one Market Square, since you can only play each one every other turn.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/9p8M9gR.png)
Better?
Yes-ish? I mean it's certainly stronger, but I'm not sure it's enough better. You might try it at $2 first.
-
It's interesting to see WanderingWinder's analyses in the old posts of this thread. I think he misses the mark by a lot, and it just goes to show that even the best players are not infallible, especially when trying to estimate the power of cards they've never played with. This is nothing against WW specifically; nobody's perfect and everybody learns over time.
In particular, I think the myth of "one bad turn and one good turn beats two normal turns" needs to be debunked. In the absence of combos, Tactician is a pretty poor card! Giving up a turn really hurts! It's just that there usually are combos, ways to get value out of a turn before you play Tactician.
-
I think a card that just gives +1 card/+1 action on the next turn could give a good action reliability boost to the right type of engine and would be worth getting two of in a lot of cases. With one of these in play each turn, you don't need to draw a Village in your starting hand, and can have better reliability in a deck that doesn't have a ton of excess actions. Since you are playing this "Village" on the previous turn, it doesn't matter if your other one is the last card in your deck.
In the right context, this type of effect is stronger, the problem is, you need twice as many cards to get that effect every turn, so to compare it to the regular version of the card, you have to double the price and use 2 buys. (This considers only the drawing your deck case.) If I have a deck setup that draws itself entirely from duration effects, and then just plays new durations to set up the next turn, then it is 100% reliable. The same cards that take effect this turn lose some reliability, but the cost is much lower because I don't have to buy 2 copies of everything.
-
I think a card that just gives +1 card/+1 action on the next turn could give a good action reliability boost to the right type of engine and would be worth getting two of in a lot of cases. With one of these in play each turn, you don't need to draw a Village in your starting hand, and can have better reliability in a deck that doesn't have a ton of excess actions. Since you are playing this "Village" on the previous turn, it doesn't matter if your other one is the last card in your deck.
But it does matter if it isn't the last card in your deck because it's a stop card. The +1 Card and +1 Action you gain, you also lose when you have to play it.
[At the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action] is Ruins-bad. I mean it might be the strongest Ruins, but it's still in that ballpark.
-
I think a card that just gives +1 card/+1 action on the next turn could give a good action reliability boost to the right type of engine and would be worth getting two of in a lot of cases. With one of these in play each turn, you don't need to draw a Village in your starting hand, and can have better reliability in a deck that doesn't have a ton of excess actions. Since you are playing this "Village" on the previous turn, it doesn't matter if your other one is the last card in your deck.
But it does matter if it isn't the last card in your deck because it's a stop card. The +1 Card and +1 Action you gain, you also lose when you have to play it.
[At the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action] is Ruins-bad. I mean it might be the strongest Ruins, but it's still in that ballpark.
but I get an extra card at the start of my turn, so I am no more likely to dud than I was without this card. If I have a deck that needs to over-buy draw to have reliability, this card potentially reduces the need to over-buy Villages also.
-
I think a card that just gives +1 card/+1 action on the next turn could give a good action reliability boost to the right type of engine and would be worth getting two of in a lot of cases. With one of these in play each turn, you don't need to draw a Village in your starting hand, and can have better reliability in a deck that doesn't have a ton of excess actions. Since you are playing this "Village" on the previous turn, it doesn't matter if your other one is the last card in your deck.
But it does matter if it isn't the last card in your deck because it's a stop card. The +1 Card and +1 Action you gain, you also lose when you have to play it.
[At the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action] is Ruins-bad. I mean it might be the strongest Ruins, but it's still in that ballpark.
but I get an extra card at the start of my turn, so I am no more likely to dud than I was without this card. If I have a deck that needs to over-buy draw to have reliability, this card potentially reduces the need to over-buy Villages also.
Yes, you are more likely to dud. And no, it doesn't reduce the need to overbuy Villages. This card (which I will call Layabout for convenience) makes your deck less reliable, not more.
You seem to be sort of tacitly assuming that you will always find Layabout at the bottom of your deck. But that's false, and it will be an anchor around your neck whenever you draw it earlier. Every time you draw a Layabout, you could have drawn something else, like a Village or Smithy variant. And that's not all: thanks to Layabout being a stop card, you will have lots of hands where you have the option between playing a Layabout and playing something better. If you play the better card, your Layabout was dead this shuffle, no better than a Ruined Village. If you play the Layabout, it only breaks even (about as good as a cantrip) but your other, better card is dead this shuffle.
I could maybe see a card that gave you an option. "Choose one: +1 Card and +1 Action; or at the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action." That might be worth $2. Layabout is garbage that clogs your deck only slightly less than a Ruins.
-
Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.
By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.
This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.
FV is better than bazaar in many cases especially if you don't ignore costs.
Having the three coins happen tommorow makes this better at hitting high price points.
-
FV is better than bazaar in many cases especially if you don't ignore costs.
Agreed.
Having the three coins happen tommorow makes this better at hitting high price points.
But this is misleading. Rare is the deck that you need to spike price points. Much more common is the deck that you build up in order to semi-reliably hit that price point. The two situations I can think of that you want to spike high price points are:
• You want to hit a high price point quickly in order to buy a strong Action, Treasure, or Event very early in the game (Forge, Prince, etc.).
• The game is sloggy enough that you can't reliably build up to a high price point that you eventually want to hit (Colony, etc.).
-
Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.
By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.
This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.
FV is better than bazaar in many cases especially if you don't ignore costs.
As it is a "double village" of which you need fewer than "ordinary" villages, no doubt. I only tried to argue against the notion that a Fishing Village version which would do nothing on the current turn, i.e. a hyperdelayed Bazaar, is better than a Bazaar.
-
I think a card that just gives +1 card/+1 action on the next turn could give a good action reliability boost to the right type of engine and would be worth getting two of in a lot of cases. With one of these in play each turn, you don't need to draw a Village in your starting hand, and can have better reliability in a deck that doesn't have a ton of excess actions. Since you are playing this "Village" on the previous turn, it doesn't matter if your other one is the last card in your deck.
But it does matter if it isn't the last card in your deck because it's a stop card. The +1 Card and +1 Action you gain, you also lose when you have to play it.
[At the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action] is Ruins-bad. I mean it might be the strongest Ruins, but it's still in that ballpark.
but I get an extra card at the start of my turn, so I am no more likely to dud than I was without this card. If I have a deck that needs to over-buy draw to have reliability, this card potentially reduces the need to over-buy Villages also.
Yes, you are more likely to dud. And no, it doesn't reduce the need to overbuy Villages. This card (which I will call Layabout for convenience) makes your deck less reliable, not more.
You seem to be sort of tacitly assuming that you will always find Layabout at the bottom of your deck. But that's false, and it will be an anchor around your neck whenever you draw it earlier. Every time you draw a Layabout, you could have drawn something else, like a Village or Smithy variant. And that's not all: thanks to Layabout being a stop card, you will have lots of hands where you have the option between playing a Layabout and playing something better. If you play the better card, your Layabout was dead this shuffle, no better than a Ruined Village. If you play the Layabout, it only breaks even (about as good as a cantrip) but your other, better card is dead this shuffle.
I could maybe see a card that gave you an option. "Choose one: +1 Card and +1 Action; or at the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action." That might be worth $2. Layabout is garbage that clogs your deck only slightly less than a Ruins.
That is not at all what I am assuming. I am assuming I played one on the previous turn. I'm not convinced this card has no usefulness, but I unfortunately got into something I don't have time to explore, so I won't keep attempting to argue for its usefulness. It is a card that ultimately does nothing, so the usefulness cannot be very significant if it exists.
While I'm spending time I shouldn't thinking about this, one example did come to mind.
If you consider a draw engine using a strong draw card (e.g. Hunting Grounds) and Scenic Village (+10 Actions card from the Civilization thread). I am confident adding Layabout to that draw engine would reduce the number of Scenic Villages needed to support it. This allows you to "preload" some of your Scenic Village Actions to the start of your turns.
-
If you consider a draw engine using a strong draw card (e.g. Hunting Grounds) and Scenic Village (+10 Actions card from the Civilization thread). I am confident adding Layabout to that draw engine would reduce the number of Scenic Villages needed to support it. This allows you to "preload" some of your Scenic Village Actions to the start of your turns.
I agree with your example but it is also pretty extreme due to the weird nature of Scenic Village.
Don't forget that even the presence of an expensive village like City doesn't make Layabout good. You can only transfer an action and a card into the next turn, you don't "generate" an extra action like a village does.
Now there are some +3 Action cards (and Tribute can generate 4 Actions but it is obviously not realiable enough) and here one or two Layabouts could do the trick of action transfer into the next turn.
But in all other cases it is worse than a cantrip.
-
If you consider a draw engine using a strong draw card (e.g. Hunting Grounds) and Scenic Village (+10 Actions card from the Civilization thread). I am confident adding Layabout to that draw engine would reduce the number of Scenic Villages needed to support it. This allows you to "preload" some of your Scenic Village Actions to the start of your turns.
I agree with your example but it is also pretty extreme due to the weird nature of Scenic Village.
Don't forget that even the presence of an expensive village like City doesn't make Layabout good. You can only transfer an action and a card into the next turn, you don't "generate" an extra action like a village does.
Now there are some +3 Action cards (and Tribute can generate 4 Actions but it is obviously not realiable enough) and here one or two Layabouts could do the trick of action transfer into the next turn.
But in all other cases it is worse than a cantrip.
Absolutely I don't really disagree with this. Perhaps I didn't frame my assertion properly, but all I am saying is that there could be situations where transferring a card and action to the start of your next turn could be worth doing.
The more important thing I guess I wanted to say is that (IMHO) the delay of getting your card back is a more significant part of why a duration effect (e.g. Caravan vs Lab) is worth less. It is obvious in the case of a deck that draws every turn where I need 2 Caravans to equal what I would get from one Lab. In this situation, the most recent version of Dinghy is only half a Peddler, so a cost of $2 or $3 might be appropriate. Its usage is also made much more awkward due to everything coming on the second turn instead of being card/action now, coin next turn. In general I think that is less of an issue (regarding wanting to buy it) than the card just being super weak.
-
Totally agree. You can always chain your Caravan Guards but the last Dinghy, the hyperdelayed Peddler, requires you to chain over turns Dinghies (you need the Action that the Dinghy in play provides in order to play the new, dead-terminal Dinghy).
And as we established, the cases in which the resource transfer supermini-Tactician part of a hyperdelayed card is good are extremely rare.
-
Totally agree. You can always chain your Caravan Guards but the last Dinghy, the hyperdelayed Peddler, requires you to chain over turns Dinghies (you need the Action that the Dinghy in play provides in order to play the new, dead-terminal Dinghy).
And as we established, the cases in which the resource transfer supermini-Tactician part of a hyperdelayed card is good are extremely rare.
Sure, I think the rareness of that situation is related to the effect being weak. Haunted Woods is a "hyperdelayed" Smithy, but it is good because Smithy is good. Peddler is kind of meh, so the situation where it is worth getting in "hyperdelayed" form is going to be a stretch. Tactician delays your whole turn, and that is good because it gives you more control over your buying options. $0 and then $8 and 2 buys is better than $4 then $4 most of the time, but delaying a turn has a cost, which matters too. If you are drawing your deck every turn, then missing one turn is a really big deal. We see this with dud turns in engine games. If you aren't, the effect is much less significant.