I wouldn't list Counting House etc. in "works with". Counting House works with opponents Mountebanks, and is actually a pretty good counter to Mountebank.Yeah, counting house gets stronger by mountebank, not the other way around.
I can also right a mountebank article:
Buy it.
I can also right a mountebank article:
Buy it.
I can also right a mountebank article:
Buy it.
Good article, nothing left.
Similarly, courtyards and mandarins can retain curses from one hand to the next.
Similarly, courtyards and mandarins can retain curses from one hand to the next.
Havens too, but that is too expensive a way to try to counter Mountebank
Maybe a better question is: with HP and Mountebank on the board, when do you buy a Mountebank? (compared to when you start/continue buying HP's)
How does Mountebank fare in a Hunting Party world? Conceptually, it feels like a wash to me - on the one hand, Mountebank is an excellent +$2 terminal to round out your Copper-Silver-Gold if running a HP stack; on the other hand, if you are running a HP stack you're already set up to draw past the flood of Coppers and Curses.
Maybe a better question is: with HP and Mountebank on the board, when do you buy a Mountebank? (compared to when you start/continue buying HP's)
How does Mountebank fare in a Hunting Party world? Conceptually, it feels like a wash to me - on the one hand, Mountebank is an excellent +$2 terminal to round out your Copper-Silver-Gold if running a HP stack; on the other hand, if you are running a HP stack you're already set up to draw past the flood of Coppers and Curses.
Maybe a better question is: with HP and Mountebank on the board, when do you buy a Mountebank? (compared to when you start/continue buying HP's)
seems like MB on the first shuffle then HP every five after, not certain.
This would be my guess. I might even not buy gold until the HPs are gone - because the curses are going to make finding your HP chains harder.I would think you might want to have the opposite reaction. Since it's going to be harder to pull off HP chains, you should make HPs a lower priority, not a higher one. Probably get a second MB before even starting on HPs, and always prefer Gold to HP.
Did you guys even read my article? I did mention HP (if only briefly) and how I would play it. Guess I should add some more HP in...I don't think talking specifically about Hunting Party in the article is important. It's just that someone made a comment, and people have different opinions on the right way to play it. It's more of the subject for a simulation challenge or something than the Mountebank article, since it's not a particularly strong combo.
Since it gives 2 junk cards instead of 1, it is nearly impossible to trash your way out, so it kills hopes of engines dead more than any of the other cursers.Yes. I have killed myself so many times trying to build an engine against Mountebank. An engine must be very very good to survive Mountebank. (On the other hand, if you do survive, it's lights out for your opponent once you start multi-Mountebanking every turn. Well, assuming there are enough VPs left. Colonies help.)
I'm just annoyed nobody +1'd my awesome joke grrr
I you can play a Tactician earlier in the game, and play at least two or three Mountebanks, you are likely to get some junk in his deck, which will not only start to waste the curses, but make his Tacticians (or Villages) less likley to synergize with your Mountebanks.
Oops, sorry about that, posting from a kindle.I you can play a Tactician earlier in the game, and play at least two or three Mountebanks, you are likely to get some junk in his deck, which will not only start to waste the curses, but make his Tacticians (or Villages) less likley to synergize with your Mountebanks.
A couple typos... "If", not "I"; and "his Mountebanks", not "your Mountebanks."
Not sure if it's been mentioned yet or not, but Watchtower often makes me and least think about not getting Mountebank.
I've recently won a Mountebank game (IRL) by ignoring it, instead going with Ambassador. Masquerade might work, too. It takes a little luck, sure. But since your opponent is going Mountebank, he likely won't get Ambassador until it's too late (which is why I won).Most Cursers can be ignored with Ambassador on the board.
I you can play a Tactician earlier in the game, and play at least two or three Mountebanks, you are likely to get some junk in his deck, which will not only start to waste the curses, but make his Tacticians (or Villages) less likley to synergize with your Mountebanks.
A couple typos... "If", not "I"; and "his Mountebanks", not "your Mountebanks."
Alot of Mountebanks.
Now that's a scary creature.
You mentioned Cache in the Copper strategy section. I gues I don't see the relevance here. If you are already flooded with coppers, I don't think you'll be wanting that Cache and 2 more coppers. Maybe I am missing something.I think the idea is that the downside of Cache is that typically adding the Coppers will degrade your deck value by adding bad cards. But in a Mountebank game, Copper won't be that far below your average card since you have a lot of Coppers and Curses. And 2 extra cards isn't as significant an increase in deck size. So it may be worth taking that less significant hit to get the cheap Gold.
In these types of games, if the curses are gone, when given the choice on whether to discard a Curse or not, do not discard the curse. The copper is helpful."Not that harmful" is not the same as "helpful".
Nor would I have a Mountebank in every hand. And I mean more that I would try to incorporate a couple of Watchtowers in my strategy. If I don't defend, the chance of later being able to discard a curse with Watchtower in hand gives me +3 draw, which can sorta help mitigate some of the damage done. Yes, I know luck is required for that, but big draws and being able to put buys on top of decks in the same turn is fun (Colliding Mountebanks is bad, but colliding Watchtowers is pretty sweet).Not sure if it's been mentioned yet or not, but Watchtower often makes me and least think about not getting Mountebank.
Why not? They won't have Watchtower in every hand.
Not sure if it's been mentioned yet or not, but Watchtower often makes me and least think about not getting Mountebank.
Why not? They won't have Watchtower in every hand.
Not sure if it's been mentioned yet or not, but Watchtower often makes me and least think about not getting Mountebank.
Why not? They won't have Watchtower in every hand.
Besides, the more Curses you block now, the less likely that you will be able to discard one later and avoid future Curses. In some games without +Action Mountebank reaches almost an equilibrium point where it very rarely works, and Watchtower won't really affect the equilibrium point so much as delay it, like Moat does for most Cursers.
Sometimes Mountebank doesn't run the Curses out at all. With most Cursers Watchtower depletes their ammunition, which is sometimes an advantage, but with Mountebank this might not even matter. And of course it's not going to deplete the Copper. (On the other hand if YOU'RE using Mountebanks too, you would probably prefer not to deplete the ammo and it's much more likely to matter.)
Obviously Watchtower is a pretty decent Reaction but Mountebank probably minds it less than any other Curser, at a guess.
[quote author=WheresMyElephant link
First of all, I'm a little confused as to which side you're arguing. First, you say that Watchtower only delays the equilibrium process, but then you mention how it depletes the ammunition, which actually decreases the saturation all together. Then you say that, with Mountebank, it doesn't even matter. If anything, it matters more.
With Moat, the number of curses (thus, the number of chances Mountebank can give you a curse) stays the same. Watchtower decrease that number with the trashing ability. That's kind of a big deal.I don't really want to clog up this thread by arguing excessively in more posts, but you seem to be overlooking the central issue of my point 1. That is: it does not matter if Watchtower trashes a few Curses, because a single player playing a single Mountebank per turn generally wouldn't use up all the Curses anyhow. We could easily play a game where I Watchtower 2 Curses, you give me 7, but then my Curse discards consistently nullify your Mountebanks and the tenth Curse remains in the supply until the end. The Mountebanks became almost toothless without even needing to deplete the Curse pile, so what is so great about the trashing ability?
[quote author=WheresMyElephant link
First of all, I'm a little confused as to which side you're arguing. First, you say that Watchtower only delays the equilibrium process, but then you mention how it depletes the ammunition, which actually decreases the saturation all together. Then you say that, with Mountebank, it doesn't even matter. If anything, it matters more.
I'm saying,
1. if your opponent takes a Mountebank and you don't, without +Actions a Watchtower is about the same as a Moat. Why? Without +Actions to play multiples, Mountebank's potency is going to drop off sharply once you once you have, say, 6-7 Curses in your deck. At that point it doesn't matter much whether the rest of the Curses are in the Trash or the Supply. "Depleting the ammo" seems irrelevant when the gun's jammed! (If you actually manage to block as many as 4 or 5 Curses you could maybe deplete the Curses while Mountebank was still dangerous, but that's unlikely). Never mind that even if the Curses did run out he could still give you Copper. Watchtower can delay the inevitable, the way Moat usually does, but we know that's not that strong.
2. If you DO retaliate with Mountebank, the Curses become more likely to run out. But like any Curser, if you retaliate you'd probably rather have Moat than Watchtower. If you have defenses and he doesn't, why do you want the ammo to run out? You're winning the fight!
But on reflection, I was wrong to say the so-called "equilibrium point" won't be much affected. Actually since Curses basically act as Moats themselves, a Moat (or a Watchtower) is basically just like having one extra Curse. Thus his Mountebank should crap out approximately one Curse sooner. So that's surprisingly decent I guess; you could probably make the case you'd rather buy a Watchtower or a Moat now than get a Curse+Copper later. The original point of this comparison was that Moat sucks and thus Watchtower must too; but maybe they're both a little better than I thought. Especially Moat on a $2 turn (the Silver test is probably a tougher question).
And no, I wasn't really suggesting you should intentionally take Curses as a defense. Just that realistically you're going to get them sooner or later anyway.
I countered a Mountebank strategy by buying gardens. At the end of the game, my deck was 63 cards with 4 gardens, 7 curses, some duchies and states. Simply I used DO NOT discard the curses. My oponent deck's was only 32 cards.DID YOU WIN?
So, Mountebank doesnt work with Gardens.
I countered a Mountebank strategy by buying gardens. At the end of the game, my deck was 63 cards with 4 gardens, 7 curses, some duchies and states. Simply I used DO NOT discard the curses. My oponent deck's was only 32 cards.
I countered a Mountebank strategy by buying gardens. At the end of the game, my deck was 63 cards with 4 gardens, 7 curses, some duchies and states. Simply I used DO NOT discard the curses. My oponent deck's was only 32 cards.
You should still have discarded the curses until they ran out. Every curse you took cost you 1 VP, and gained you 0.2 VPs per Gardens, as well as making Gardens harder to get. Once the curses were out, gaining a copper is 0.1 VPs per garden and probably improves your deck, so you might as well take the benefit from the opponent's Mountebank.
It's easy to not notice it, or not think of it this way, but Mountebank shares with Torturer the property of not being just a cursing attack but actually a "choose one: discard or take a curse" attack. Mountebank's cursing is a lot stronger than Torturer's, of course, and its discarding is a lot weaker, but there are certainly plenty of cases where the discard still feels like an attack.
Fun fact: my purpose in writing this article was to have one on a curser. Not normally done. In fact, if you look at my article list, never done until now. May as well have one.
Oh, wow, you're right. Ehhh, no we should write one on Witch.Fun fact: my purpose in writing this article was to have one on a curser. Not normally done. In fact, if you look at my article list, never done until now. May as well have one.
*Cough* Young Witch *Cough*
*Cough* Torturer *Cough*
*Cough* Ill-Gotten Gains *Cough*
*Cough* Sea Hag *Cough*
*Cough* Swindler *Cough*
::)