| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/46/Scout.jpg/200px-Scout.jpg) | #73 =0 Scout (Intrigue) Weighted Average: 2.1% ▼1.5pp / Unweighted Average: 1.8% / Median: 0% =0pp / Standard Deviation: 3.1% Scout continues to stay last since the second edition. It has by far the lowest deviation as its highest vote was 14%. It was voted last 29 times. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Thief.jpg/200px-Thief.jpg) | #72 =0 Thief (Base) Weighted Average: 4.3% ▼1.7pp / Unweighted Average: 4.7% / Median: 1.4% ▼2.2pp / Standard Deviation: 8.5% Thief also didn't change much and has the second lowest deviation. It was voted last 14 times. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/9c/Feast.jpg/200px-Feast.jpg) | #71 ▼1 Feast (Base) Weighted Average: 10.8% ▼1.4pp / Unweighted Average: 11.9% / Median: 6.9% ▼2.3pp / Standard Deviation: 14.2% Feast has a big lead over Thief of about 6.5pp, but lost one rank and is third to last just like 2 years ago. It was voted last once. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/42/Pirate_Ship.jpg/200px-Pirate_Ship.jpg) | #70 ▼2 Pirate Ship (Seaside) Weighted Average: 11.5% ▼2.8pp / Unweighted Average: 12.8% / Median: 11.1% ▲1.3pp / Standard Deviation: 9.5% Pirate Ship lost 2 ranks and has a low deviation. It's ranked worse than ever before. It's the first card with no vote on last and is 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/4d/Bureaucrat.jpg/200px-Bureaucrat.jpg) | #69 ▼2 Bureaucrat (Base) Weighted Average: 12.3% ▼3.5pp / Unweighted Average: 12.9% / Median: 9.7% ▼4.6pp / Standard Deviation: 9.3% Just like Pirate Ship, Bureaucrat lost 2 ranks. It's 5th last just like in the first edition. It was voted last once and has a low deviation as well. It is 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/dd/Navigator.jpg/200px-Navigator.jpg) | #68 ▲3 Navigator (Seaside) Weighted Average: 12.5% ▲0.7pp / Unweighted Average: 12.6% / Median: 8.8% ▼0.7pp / Standard Deviation: 10.5% Navigator won the 3 ranks it lost last year, but its average basically didn't change. It was voted last once. It is one rank lower in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/40/Coppersmith.jpg/200px-Coppersmith.jpg) | #67 ▼1 Coppersmith (Intrigue) Weighted Average: 12.6% ▼3.3pp / Unweighted Average: 11.9% / Median: 10.8% ▼2.3pp / Standard Deviation: 9.1% Ranks #67-#69 are only 0.3pp apart. Coppersmith lost one rank after rising 4 ranks last year. It has the third lowest deviation in this list and is 3 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2e/Rocks.jpg/200px-Rocks.jpg) | #66 Rocks (Empires) Weighted Average: 13.6% / Unweighted Average: 17.4% / Median: 11.1% / Standard Deviation: 16.8% Rocks is the first Empires card in this list. It has therefore a pretty high deviation for such a low ranked card with 4 votes on last. It is 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/61/Treasure_Map.jpg/200px-Treasure_Map.jpg) | #65 ▲3 Treasure Map (Seaside) Weighted Average: 13.8% =0pp / Unweighted Average: 14.8% / Median: 12.5% ▲0.2pp / Standard Deviation: 9.1% Treasure Map is 3 ranks better, but has the same average. It has a low deviation. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/c/cb/Spy.jpg/200px-Spy.jpg) | #64 =0 Spy (Base) Weighted Average: 15.6% ▼0.8pp / Unweighted Average: 14.6% / Median: 11.1% ▼1.4pp / Standard Deviation: 11.7% Spy stays on the same rank, but is 2 ranks worse in the unweighted ranking. It was voted last once. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/63/Noble_Brigand.jpg/200px-Noble_Brigand.jpg) | #63 ▼3 Noble Brigand (Hinterlands) Weighted Average: 17.7% ▼6.3pp / Unweighted Average: 20.3% / Median: 18.1% ▼5.1pp / Standard Deviation: 13.6% Noble Brigand lost quite a lot, 3 ranks and over 6pp and is now in the bottom tier. It was voted last once. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/c/cf/Talisman.jpg/200px-Talisman.jpg) | #62 =0 Talisman (Prosperity) Weighted Average: 20.2% ▼3.4pp / Unweighted Average: 20.9% / Median: 18.1% ▼3.8pp / Standard Deviation: 13.0% After rising at least a little bit the last few years, this year Talisman stays the same, but even loses over 3pp in its average. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/e/e0/Taxman.jpg/200px-Taxman.jpg) | #61 ▲2 Taxman (Guilds) Weighted Average: 21.3% ▲0.5pp / Unweighted Average: 23.2% / Median: 18.1% ▼1.5pp / Standard Deviation: 18.7% Taxman lost 3 ranks last year, now it's 2 ranks back up with basically the same average value. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/70/Rats.jpg/200px-Rats.jpg) | #60 ▲1 Rats (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 22.0% ▼1.9pp / Unweighted Average: 23.4% / Median: 19.4% ▼0.6pp / Standard Deviation: 17.1% Rats continues to slowly gain ranks, this year one rank as well. But it even lost 2pp on the other side. It is one rank higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/89/Nomad_Camp.jpg/200px-Nomad_Camp.jpg) | #59 =0 Nomad Camp (Hinterlands) Weighted Average: 22.0% ▼3.0pp / Unweighted Average: 23.3% / Median: 21.1% ▼0.3pp / Standard Deviation: 12.4% Nomad Camp has a small lead over Rats of 0.05pp. It stays on the same rank, but loses 3pp. It is one rank lower in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/50/Death_Cart.jpg/200px-Death_Cart.jpg) | #58 ▼2 Death Cart (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 22.8% ▼10.4pp / Unweighted Average: 27.9% / Median: 22.2% ▼8.6pp / Standard Deviation: 19.8% Death Cart is 2 ranks, but more importantly over 10pp worse and therefore continues its falling trend. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/1/1f/Feodum.jpg/200px-Feodum.jpg) | #57 ▲1 Feodum (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 25.5% ▼1.5pp / Unweighted Average: 29.8% / Median: 26.2% ▲3.1pp / Standard Deviation: 18.7% This is the first year in which Feodum won ranks, only if it's just one, but it still lost a bit in its average. It's even one rank higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3c/Messenger.jpg/200px-Messenger.jpg) | #56 ▲1 Messenger (Adventures) Weighted Average: 28.0% ▼2.4pp / Unweighted Average: 28.7% / Median: 27.8% ▲0.1pp / Standard Deviation: 12.9% Messenger won one rank, but lost in its average. It's one rank lower in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/fd/Island.jpg/200px-Island.jpg) | #55 ▼2 Island (Seaside) Weighted Average: 32.9% ▼3.7pp / Unweighted Average: 36.1% / Median: 30.4% ▼7.1pp / Standard Deviation: 18.3% After a gap of nearly 6pp we're leaving the bottom tier cards and entering the next tier. Island continues to lose ranks, it lost 2 ranks just like last year. It's 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/1/12/Trader.jpg/200px-Trader.jpg) | #54 ▲1 Trader (Hinterlands) Weighted Average: 33.1% ▼1.7pp / Unweighted Average: 35.1% / Median: 31.8% ▼2.1pp / Standard Deviation: 17.4% For the first time ever, Trader won one rank, but it still has a lower average. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f6/Miser.jpg/200px-Miser.jpg) | #53 ▼4 Miser (Adventures) Weighted Average: 34.6% ▼3.9pp / Unweighted Average: 36.3% / Median: 31.9% ▼4.6pp / Standard Deviation: 17.5% Miser lost 4 ranks and also 4pp. It's one rank higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/a/a7/Armory.jpg/200px-Armory.jpg) | #52 =0 Armory (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 34.9% ▼2.0pp / Unweighted Average: 32.3% / Median: 31.9% ▼2.0pp / Standard Deviation: 15.0% Armory stays where it was after going up year after year. It still lost 2pp and would be even 3 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking, so it's not as appreciated by newer players. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f6/Silk_Road.jpg/200px-Silk_Road.jpg) | #51 ▼1 Silk Road (Hinterlands) Weighted Average: 36.9% ▼1.5pp / Unweighted Average: 39.2% / Median: 34.7% ▲0.8pp / Standard Deviation: 21.1% After losing quite a lot the last 2 years, Silk Road lost one more rank this time. It's 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d1/Ritual.jpg/320px-Ritual.jpg) | #50 Ritual (Empires) Weighted Average: 37.9% / Unweighted Average: 38.3% / Median: 37.5% / Standard Deviation: 21.6% The second new Empires card is exactly on rank #50. It has the highest deviation in this list of the cards we've seen so far. It's one rank lower in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/8c/Gardens.jpg/200px-Gardens.jpg) | #49 ▼3 Gardens (Base) Weighted Average: 38.6% ▼7.5pp / Unweighted Average: 41.2% / Median: 38.9% ▼5.7pp / Standard Deviation: 19.5% Gardens lost consistently at least 5 ranks the last 3 years, this year it still lost 3. It's 3 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking, so it gets overrated by newer players. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/e/ee/Pilgrimage.jpg/320px-Pilgrimage.jpg) | #48 ▼1 Pilgrimage (Adventures) Weighted Average: 39.7% ▼4.1pp / Unweighted Average: 40.3% / Median: 37.5% ▼2.5pp / Standard Deviation: 20.1% Pilgrimage loses over 4pp and one rank. It's still one rank higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/73/Baron.jpg/200px-Baron.jpg) | #47 ▲3 Baron (Intrigue) Weighted Average: 40.5% ▲2.5pp / Unweighted Average: 39.0% / Median: 37.5% ▲0.6pp / Standard Deviation: 14.8% Baron is 3 ranks back up, but would be those 3 ranks worse in the unweighted ranking. It has a pretty low deviation for a card ranked near the middle. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/a/ab/Engineer.jpg/200px-Engineer.jpg) | #46 Engineer (Empires) Weighted Average: 43.3% / Unweighted Average: 44.1% / Median: 40.3% / Standard Deviation: 18.4% Engineer is the third Empires card in this list and the first debt card we've seen. It's 3 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Cutpurse.jpg/200px-Cutpurse.jpg) | #45 ▼1 Cutpurse (Seaside) Weighted Average: 43.6% ▼3.1pp / Unweighted Average: 42.1% / Median: 38.9% ▼5.7pp / Standard Deviation: 17.2% Cutpurse lost one rank and 3pp. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6c/Walled_Village.jpg/200px-Walled_Village.jpg) | #44 ▲8 Walled Village (Promo) Weighted Average: 44.1% ▲8.3pp / Unweighted Average: 39.5% / Median: 38.9% ▲5.0pp / Standard Deviation: 17.2% Walled Village is one of the big winners this year. It's 8 ranks and over 8pp better. But it's still 4 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking, so unexperienced players didn't notice the change that much. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/c/c8/Horse_Traders.jpg/200px-Horse_Traders.jpg) | #43 ▼6 Horse Traders (Cornucopia) Weighted Average: 45.0% ▼8.4pp / Unweighted Average: 47.6% / Median: 45.8% ▼4.2pp / Standard Deviation: 17.0% Horse Traders is nearly opposite to Walled Village. It lost as much as Walled Village won in their average and also nearly in ranks. It's 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d9/Scavenger.jpg/200px-Scavenger.jpg) | #42 ▼1 Scavenger (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 45.7% ▼3.2pp / Unweighted Average: 44.4% / Median: 44.4% ▼4.8pp / Standard Deviation: 15.3% Scavenger's rating fluctuated quite a bit, but now it stayed constant, it only lost one rank. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/34/Mission.jpg/320px-Mission.jpg) | #41 ▼1 Mission (Adventures) Weighted Average: 46.9% ▼3.4pp / Unweighted Average: 42.2% / Median: 36.1% ▼7.0pp / Standard Deviation: 27.3% Mission lost one rank and has by far the highest deviation in this list, a lot of disagreement here. It's 3 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2e/Remodel.jpg/200px-Remodel.jpg) | #40 ▲3 Remodel (Base) Weighted Average: 47.8% =0pp / Unweighted Average: 48.3% / Median: 45.8% ▼0.4pp / Standard Deviation: 16.2% Remodel continues to go up, this year 3 ranks, but has still the same average. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/59/Duplicate.jpg/200px-Duplicate.jpg) | #39 ▼8 Duplicate (Adventures) Weighted Average: 50.8% ▼7.1pp / Unweighted Average: 52.7% / Median: 50.0% ▼10.0pp / Standard Deviation: 15.6% Duplicate crosses the 50% mark, even though we didn't reach the middle yet. It lost quite a lot: 8 ranks and over 7pp. It's 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5e/Advisor.jpg/200px-Advisor.jpg) | #38 ▼2 Advisor (Guilds) Weighted Average: 51.0% ▼2.9pp / Unweighted Average: 49.6% / Median: 47.7% ▼6.2pp / Standard Deviation: 17.6% After being 12 ranks better last year, Advisor lost 2 ranks again. It is one rank lower in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7f/Mining_Village.jpg/200px-Mining_Village.jpg) | #37 ▲5 Mining Village (Intrigue) Weighted Average: 53.8% ▲5.6pp / Unweighted Average: 51.9% / Median: 48.6% ▲0.2pp / Standard Deviation: 15.3% Mining Village is the middle ranked card in this list and the second village which got a big boost, here 5 ranks and over 5pp. It is one rank lower in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/51/Farming_Village.jpg/200px-Farming_Village.jpg) | #36 ▲3 Farming Village (Cornucopia) Weighted Average: 54.2% ▲3.8pp / Unweighted Average: 53.3% / Median: 50.0% ▼2.3pp / Standard Deviation: 19.0% And here's the second village in a row, the third worst in this list. It is also better than last year, but only 3 ranks and nearly 4pp. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/37/Ranger.jpg/200px-Ranger.jpg) | #35 ▲3 Ranger (Adventures) Weighted Average: 55.0% ▲2.7pp / Unweighted Average: 54.2% / Median: 55.6% ▲4.8pp / Standard Deviation: 18.7% Just like Farming Village, Ranger is 3 ranks better as well. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/70/Moneylender.jpg/200px-Moneylender.jpg) | #34 ▼1 Moneylender (Base) Weighted Average: 56.1% ▲0.5pp / Unweighted Average: 55.8% / Median: 54.2% ▲1.0pp / Standard Deviation: 18.5% Beside its rank in the first edition, Moneylender continues to stay in the middle of the field, it basically didn't change all that much. It is one rank higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/66/Salt_the_Earth.jpg/320px-Salt_the_Earth.jpg) | #33 Salt the Earth (Empires) Weighted Average: 58.0% / Unweighted Average: 55.7% / Median: 57.1% / Standard Deviation: 26.1% Salt the Earth is the next new entry in this list. And it has the second highest deviation in this list, a lot of disagreement here. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/89/Salvager.jpg/200px-Salvager.jpg) | #32 ▼5 Salvager (Seaside) Weighted Average: 59.5% ▼0.1pp / Unweighted Average: 61.0% / Median: 62.5% ▲1.0pp / Standard Deviation: 15.0% Salvager continues to lose ranks, this year quite a bit, 5 ranks even though its average didn't change. It's still 4 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/b4/Bishop.jpg/200px-Bishop.jpg) | #31 ▼11 Bishop (Prosperity) Weighted Average: 59.7% ▼8.5pp / Unweighted Average: 64.3% / Median: 58.6% ▼12.2pp / Standard Deviation: 19.6% Bishop is the big loser this year. It's 11 ranks and over 8pp worse. It was 6th once, but continued to fall year after year, this year the big drop. And weaker players way overestimate it still, as it is 7 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/0/0c/Envoy.jpg/200px-Envoy.jpg) | #30 ▼1 Envoy (Promo) Weighted Average: 59.9% ▲1.4pp / Unweighted Average: 58.7% / Median: 62.5% ▼0.6pp / Standard Deviation: 21.3% Envoy has a slightly better average, but still lost one rank. It has a high deviation. It is 2 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/a/a9/Transmogrify.jpg/200px-Transmogrify.jpg) | #29 ▲2 Transmogrify (Adventures) Weighted Average: 60.1% ▲2.7pp / Unweighted Average: 60.5% / Median: 62.5% ▼1.0pp / Standard Deviation: 19.9% Transmogrify is slightly better, 2 ranks and over 2pp. It is one rank lower in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Procession.jpg/200px-Procession.jpg) | #28 =0 Procession (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 60.3% ▲1.2pp / Unweighted Average: 60.5% / Median: 59.7% ▲2.6pp / Standard Deviation: 19.6% After climbing 12 ranks last year, Procession stayed pretty much constant. It is one rank lower in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/76/Ironworks.jpg/200px-Ironworks.jpg) | #27 ▲6 Ironworks (Intrigue) Weighted Average: 61.0% ▲5.7pp / Unweighted Average: 58.8% / Median: 59.7% ▲3.4pp / Standard Deviation: 19.0% Ironworks made a huge jump two years ago, then lost a bit last year. This year it recovered, going 6 ranks back up again. It is 4 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/c/c8/Caravan.jpg/200px-Caravan.jpg) | #26 ▼7 Caravan (Seaside) Weighted Average: 62.1% ▼6.6pp / Unweighted Average: 65.3% / Median: 62.5% ▼11.4pp / Standard Deviation: 16.2% Caravan continues to fall like in the last 2 years, this year even more 7 ranks and even over 11pp in its median. It's still 5 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/51/Sacrifice.jpg/200px-Sacrifice.jpg) | #25 Sacrifice (Empires) Weighted Average: 62.5% / Unweighted Average: 64.2% / Median: 68.1% / Standard Deviation: 22.4% This is the third best Empires card in this list and has of course a high deviation. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/a/ad/Monument.jpg/200px-Monument.jpg) | #24 ▼7 Monument (Prosperity) Weighted Average: 62.6% ▼6.9pp / Unweighted Average: 61.3% / Median: 64.6% ▼6.2pp / Standard Deviation: 19.7% Just like Caravan, Monument lost 7 ranks as well even though it was ranked first once. It has a small lead over Sacrifice of 0.11pp. It is 3 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/8a/Fortress.jpg/200px-Fortress.jpg) | #23 ▲10 Fortress (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 64.0% ▲9.2pp / Unweighted Average: 63.2% / Median: 62.5% ▲7.1pp / Standard Deviation: 14.6% Fortress is the next village, the 6th out of 9 and it also won ranks, quite a lot, 10 ranks and also nearly 10pp. It has a pretty low deviation. It is 3 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5e/Marauder.jpg/200px-Marauder.jpg) | #22 ▼6 Marauder (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 66.1% ▼5.4pp / Unweighted Average: 66.7% / Median: 75.0% ▼0.4pp / Standard Deviation: 22.2% Marauder lost 6 ranks. Its median is way higher than its average, staying at around the same value. It has a high deviation. It is still 3 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/fc/Plaza.jpg/200px-Plaza.jpg) | #21 ▲2 Plaza (Guilds) Weighted Average: 66.1% ▲0.5pp / Unweighted Average: 65.2% / Median: 64.3% ▲3.2pp / Standard Deviation: 15.1% Plaza is the 5th out of 9 villages, so the middle one. It also is a little bit higher, though only 2 ranks. It has a small lead over Marauder of 0.08pp. It is one rank lower in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/9f/Temple.jpg/200px-Temple.jpg) | #20 Temple (Empires) Weighted Average: 68.0% / Unweighted Average: 66.5% / Median: 69.4% / Standard Deviation: 20.3% Temple is the second best Empires card in this list. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/42/Conspirator.jpg/200px-Conspirator.jpg) | #19 ▲4 Conspirator (Intrigue) Weighted Average: 68.2% ▲3.7pp / Unweighted Average: 68.1% / Median: 68.1% ▲0.8pp / Standard Deviation: 15.2% Conspirator went 4 ranks back up and is in the Top 20 again. It is one rank higher in the unweighted ranking. It was voted first once. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/65/Quarry.jpg/200px-Quarry.jpg) | #18 ▲6 Quarry (Prosperity) Weighted Average: 69.9% ▲7.1pp / Unweighted Average: 64.4% / Median: 69.4% ▲5.5pp / Standard Deviation: 21.4% Quarry made a significant jump: 6 ranks and over 7pp better, not quite as big of a change as 2 years ago, but still... It is 5 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking, so really underappreciated by newer players. It was voted first once. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/1/12/Worker%27s_Village.jpg/200px-Worker%27s_Village.jpg) | #17 ▲4 Worker's Village (Prosperity) Weighted Average: 71.8% ▲4.9pp / Unweighted Average: 70.2% / Median: 71.4% ▲2.9pp / Standard Deviation: 12.9% Worker's Village is the 4th out of 9 villages and continues the trend of villages going up, 4 ranks and nearly 5pp. It has a pretty low deviation. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/a/a0/Militia.jpg/200px-Militia.jpg) | #16 ▼4 Militia (Base) Weighted Average: 72.5% ▼1.6pp / Unweighted Average: 71.1% / Median: 75.0% ▼5.0pp / Standard Deviation: 17.8% Militia lost 4 ranks and is lower than ever before. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/36/Smithy.jpg/200px-Smithy.jpg) | #15 ▲4 Smithy (Base) Weighted Average: 74.6% ▲6.8pp / Unweighted Average: 73.7% / Median: 73.9% ▲4.3pp / Standard Deviation: 14.2% Smithy won 4 ranks and is now on #15, just as high as 4 years ago, but with way less cards. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/e/e2/Spice_Merchant.jpg/200px-Spice_Merchant.jpg) | #14 =0 Spice Merchant (Hinterlands) Weighted Average: 75.8% ▲3.8pp / Unweighted Average: 75.3% / Median: 79.0% ▲3.2pp / Standard Deviation: 12.2% Spice Merchant stays on the same rank, but is still nearly 4pp better. It is one rank higher in the unweighted ranking. It has a low deviation. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/8d/Sea_Hag.jpg/200px-Sea_Hag.jpg) | #13 ▼3 Sea Hag (Seaside) Weighted Average: 75.9% ▼1.9pp / Unweighted Average: 79.4% / Median: 87.5% ▲3.6pp Standard Deviation: 20.6% After dropping significantly from #1 last year, Sea Hag still falls a bit. It was voted first 3 times and is still 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking. And its median is quite high in comparism to its average. And it has only a lead of 0.06pp over Spice Merchant. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d0/Port.jpg/200px-Port.jpg) | #12 ▲8 Port (Adventures) Weighted Average: 76.2% ▲8.7pp / Unweighted Average: 74.5% / Median: 77.8% ▲9.5pp / Standard Deviation: 17.6% Port is the 3rd out of 9 villages and it got a huge boost as well: 8 ranks and nearly 9pp. It was voted first once and is 2 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/9e/Young_Witch.jpg/200px-Young_Witch.jpg) | #11 =0 Young Witch (Cornucopia) Weighted Average: 78.2% ▲2.7pp / Unweighted Average: 77.5% / Median: 83.3% ▲4.3pp / Standard Deviation: 19.4% Young Witch stays on the same rank basically but isn't in the Top 10 anymore. It still won a bit in its average. It is one rank lower in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Villa.jpg/200px-Villa.jpg) | #10 Villa (Empires) Weighted Average: 81.3% / Unweighted Average: 81.2% / Median: 83.3% / Standard Deviation: 16.6% Villa is the best Empires card in this list and the second best village in this list. The top 10 consists of all the cards with more than 80%. It was voted first 3 times. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d1/Throne_Room.jpg/200px-Throne_Room.jpg) | #9 ▲3 Throne Room (Base) Weighted Average: 82.2% ▲9.1pp / Unweighted Average: 82.4% / Median: 84.7% ▲6.6pp / Standard Deviation: 12.5% Throne Room is 3 ranks better and higher than ever before, now in the Top 10. It nearly has a by 10pp better average. It is 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/39/Bridge.jpg/200px-Bridge.jpg) | #8 =0 Bridge (Intrigue) Weighted Average: 82.6% ▲1.4pp / Unweighted Average: 81.7% / Median: 86.1% ▲0.2pp / Standard Deviation: 14.6% Bridge is on the same rank and has a slightly better average. It was voted first once. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/1/10/Magpie.jpg/200px-Magpie.jpg) | #7 ▼2 Magpie (Adventures) Weighted Average: 83.2% ▼2.2pp / Unweighted Average: 81.5% / Median: 87.5% ▼3.6pp / Standard Deviation: 17.6% Magpie lost 2 ranks after its start in the Top 5. It is even 2 more ranks lower in the unweighted ranking. It was voted first once. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/38/Jack_of_all_Trades.jpg/200px-Jack_of_all_Trades.jpg) | #6 ▼2 Jack of all Trades (Hinterlands) Weighted Average: 86.8% ▲1.4pp / Unweighted Average: 87.0% / Median: 90.3% ▼2.7pp / Standard Deviation: 10.7% Jack of all Trades is the second former #1 in this list, not in the Top 5 anymore as well. It lost 2 ranks, but has still a slightly better average. It was voted first 4 times and has a low deviation. It's still 2 ranks higher in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/c/c1/Herald.jpg/200px-Herald.jpg) | #5 ▲2 Herald (Guilds) Weighted Average: 87.8% ▲6.0pp / Unweighted Average: 84.9% / Median: 88.9% ▲5.8pp / Standard Deviation: 13.6% After climbing a lot of ranks last year, Herald is now even 2 more ranks better and now in the Top 5. Also 6pp is quite a significant boost. It is one rank lower in the unweighted ranking. It was voted first 3 times. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/93/Ironmonger.jpg/200px-Ironmonger.jpg) | #4 ▼1 Ironmonger (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 88.4% ▲1.2pp / Unweighted Average: 87.6% / Median: 90.1% ▲0.9pp / Standard Deviation: 9.2% Ironmonger lost one rank, but still has a slightly better average. It's the only card in the Top 8 which has no vote on #1, but is one rank higher in the unweighted ranking. It has a really low deviation. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f9/Wandering_Minstrel.jpg/200px-Wandering_Minstrel.jpg) | #3 ▲3 Wandering Minstrel (Dark Ages) Weighted Average: 89.1% ▲4.0pp / Unweighted Average: 85.1% / Median: 89.2% ▲3.0pp / Standard Deviation: 13.9% Wandering Minstrel is 3 ranks better and still the best out of the 9 villages, beating even Throne Room, Herald and Ironmonger which sometimes give you +2 Actions. It was voted first twice and is 2 ranks lower in the unweighted ranking. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/c/c4/Tournament.jpg/200px-Tournament.jpg) | #2 =0 Tournament (Cornucopia) Weighted Average: 92.8% ▲2.5pp / Unweighted Average: 92.4% / Median: 95.8% ▼0.6pp / Standard Deviation: 12.5% Tournament is still on rank #2, but improved in its average. It was voted first 10 times. |
| (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2b/Remake.jpg/200px-Remake.jpg) | #1 =0 Remake (Cornucopia) Weighted Average: 94.3% ▲1.8pp / Unweighted Average: 92.8% / Median: 98.5% ▲2.1pp / Standard Deviation: 11.0% Remake stays #1, improving its average as well with amazing 21 votes on #1. |
Feodum should have been seen by now.
Feodum should have been seen by now.
I respectfully disagree. Feodum can be a game-winning card if it appears with a good silver-gainer or with trash-for benefit.
Are any of these cards in the bottom rank ever game-winners? Counting House if combined with Travelling Fair, sure, but that's a very specific circumstance. I guess Pirate Ship in 3-4 player, but who plays 3-4 player?
Feodum should have been seen by now.
I respectfully disagree. Feodum can be a game-winning card if it appears with a good silver-gainer or with trash-for benefit.
Are any of these cards in the bottom rank ever game-winners? Counting House if combined with Travelling Fair, sure, but that's a very specific circumstance. I guess Pirate Ship in 3-4 player, but who plays 3-4 player?
It's a shame that Rocks comes up in so few games, requiring multiple people to go for Catapults, or one person to go all in. For that reason, I don't put much stock in the current ranking of Rocks, and am willing to substitute my personal opinion. ;DRocks is not a curser militia, it's a oneshot curser militia if you want to look at it that way. This is even before considering the need to collide, etc. Big difference.
Rocks is underrated by at least 10 ranks. Considering that you only get it when there are five catapults floating around, Rocks is basically a curser/militia. Definitely not the strongest junker, but still much more consistent than say, Embargo, so it's hard to justify it being so low.
It's a shame that Rocks comes up in so few games, requiring multiple people to go for Catapults, or one person to go all in. For that reason, I don't put much stock in the current ranking of Rocks, and am willing to substitute my personal opinion. ;DRocks is not a curser militia, it's a oneshot curser militia if you want to look at it that way. This is even before considering the need to collide, etc. Big difference.
Rocks is underrated by at least 10 ranks. Considering that you only get it when there are five catapults floating around, Rocks is basically a curser/militia. Definitely not the strongest junker, but still much more consistent than say, Embargo, so it's hard to justify it being so low.
rocks ++
pirate ship +
spy -
feodum -
I don't know how you guys are all playing Catapult games where you run out of real junk to trash and can move on to Rocks and Silver. Do you guys just skip past trashing most of the Coppers and Estates?There are other thrashers. Also trashing silver is probably better than trashing copper depending how many coins you need that turn.
Rocks is kinda good though because of how you can use it to throw Silver into your current hand with gainers or trashers, that's handy. I like it more than Catapult. It's still probably bottom 10 though.
Feodum kind of sucks
A oneshot? You're thinking of silver. Rocks plus two silver is a three-shot, with multiple chances to collide. And the first shot could be in the very same shuffle you buy Rocks.It's a shame that Rocks comes up in so few games, requiring multiple people to go for Catapults, or one person to go all in. For that reason, I don't put much stock in the current ranking of Rocks, and am willing to substitute my personal opinion. ;DRocks is not a curser militia, it's a oneshot curser militia if you want to look at it that way. This is even before considering the need to collide, etc. Big difference.
Rocks is underrated by at least 10 ranks. Considering that you only get it when there are five catapults floating around, Rocks is basically a curser/militia. Definitely not the strongest junker, but still much more consistent than say, Embargo, so it's hard to justify it being so low.
I'm surprised that Ritual wasn't in the bottom ten. I almost never find a use for it.
Rocks is bad. It never comes up, and for it to come up, you would need to buy more Catapults than you need, and even if it does come up, I mean, come on.
I'm surprised that Ritual wasn't in the bottom ten. I almost never find a use for it.
Let's compare to Fortune, a card that I suspect will be ranked fairly highly. Fortune will also only appear in a fraction of games, but it seems intuitive that this is reflective of the power of Gladiator, rather than the power of Fortune.
Feodum should have been seen by now.
I respectfully disagree. Feodum can be a game-winning card if it appears with a good silver-gainer or with trash-for benefit.
Are any of these cards in the bottom rank ever game-winners? Counting House if combined with Travelling Fair, sure, but that's a very specific circumstance. I guess Pirate Ship in 3-4 player, but who plays 3-4 player?
Lots of people play 3-4 player, they just don't come here to talk about it.
Nomad camp is worse than all of these. Like worse than p-ship. If you don't get it for the opening, Nomad camp is literally the worst +buy for a engine(the most common deck that needs +buy) because it may cause a dud.Not really. On-gain topdecking can be be valuable during the middle- and endgame as well. In situations in which you are in dire need of an extra buy and are willing to pay a shitload for a Woodcutter anyway (because you generate many coins in all your turns and missed to go for Nomad Camp in the opening) you actually appreciate that this very Woodcutter is landing on top of your deck.
Still haven't seen Scout yet...
Why is Nomad Camp so high? It's almost as weak as Woodcutter and it has a lot tougher competetition. Below Rats is just completely unfair.
Still haven't seen Scout yet...
Why is Nomad Camp so high? It's almost as weak as Woodcutter and it has a lot tougher competetition. Below Rats is just completely unfair.Actually, there are a lot worse $4 cards than $3 cards. Like, Chancellor is better than Navigator and everything beneath it (plus Coppersmith, IMO). So, even though Nomad Camp is worse than Woodcutter, it's approximately in the right position; probably a few ranks too high.
Why is Nomad Camp so high? It's almost as weak as Woodcutter and it has a lot tougher competetition. Below Rats is just completely unfair.Actually, there are a lot worse $4 cards than $3 cards. Like, Chancellor is better than Navigator and everything beneath it (plus Coppersmith, IMO). So, even though Nomad Camp is worse than Woodcutter, it's approximately in the right position; probably a few ranks too high.
Ritual is too high; we should have seen it by now. It is very rarely better than green. Consider trashing a Gold with Ritual. That's $4 for 5VP. If you had $5 without the Gold, you could have played the Gold for a Province. And even with $4, you could keep the Gold and buy a Duchy. You could use Ritual to trash a colliding terminal, but that's only going to provide a net 4VP in the usual case - barely more than a Duchy. Sure, you could theoretically trash the Curse from Ritual, but it's a pretty weak golden deck payload. Ritual is really weak and situational. Island, for instance, seems pretty clearly better. It would take a Gold gainer and a good trasher to make Ritual a better payload than Island + Province pairs.
Addendum: Ritual + Rats would be an amusing golden deck payload, though.
40 vp isnt bad but it should lose to any fast bm or engine.Why is Nomad Camp so high? It's almost as weak as Woodcutter and it has a lot tougher competetition. Below Rats is just completely unfair.Actually, there are a lot worse $4 cards than $3 cards. Like, Chancellor is better than Navigator and everything beneath it (plus Coppersmith, IMO). So, even though Nomad Camp is worse than Woodcutter, it's approximately in the right position; probably a few ranks too high.
Ritual is too high; we should have seen it by now. It is very rarely better than green. Consider trashing a Gold with Ritual. That's $4 for 5VP. If you had $5 without the Gold, you could have played the Gold for a Province. And even with $4, you could keep the Gold and buy a Duchy. You could use Ritual to trash a colliding terminal, but that's only going to provide a net 4VP in the usual case - barely more than a Duchy. Sure, you could theoretically trash the Curse from Ritual, but it's a pretty weak golden deck payload. Ritual is really weak and situational. Island, for instance, seems pretty clearly better. It would take a Gold gainer and a good trasher to make Ritual a better payload than Island + Province pairs.
Addendum: Ritual + Rats would be an amusing golden deck payload, though.
I'm pretty sure the golden deck is just Rats / Rats / Silver / Silver / Junk Card (curse after the first cycle). You basically get 4 VP a turn for 10 turns. Not especially overwhelming.
40 vp isnt bad but it should lose to any fast bm or engine.Why is Nomad Camp so high? It's almost as weak as Woodcutter and it has a lot tougher competetition. Below Rats is just completely unfair.Actually, there are a lot worse $4 cards than $3 cards. Like, Chancellor is better than Navigator and everything beneath it (plus Coppersmith, IMO). So, even though Nomad Camp is worse than Woodcutter, it's approximately in the right position; probably a few ranks too high.
Ritual is too high; we should have seen it by now. It is very rarely better than green. Consider trashing a Gold with Ritual. That's $4 for 5VP. If you had $5 without the Gold, you could have played the Gold for a Province. And even with $4, you could keep the Gold and buy a Duchy. You could use Ritual to trash a colliding terminal, but that's only going to provide a net 4VP in the usual case - barely more than a Duchy. Sure, you could theoretically trash the Curse from Ritual, but it's a pretty weak golden deck payload. Ritual is really weak and situational. Island, for instance, seems pretty clearly better. It would take a Gold gainer and a good trasher to make Ritual a better payload than Island + Province pairs.
Addendum: Ritual + Rats would be an amusing golden deck payload, though.
I'm pretty sure the golden deck is just Rats / Rats / Silver / Silver / Junk Card (curse after the first cycle). You basically get 4 VP a turn for 10 turns. Not especially overwhelming.
It's curious how everyone seems to assume that Ritual needs to be the centerpiece of a strategy in order to be any good. I think it is a lot more tactical, and useful to get rid of cards that have outlived their utility, or to get an edge in Duchy dancing. I think it's quite decent there.
Getting rid of witch instead of giving the last curse. Gold gainers... lurker on prince or stuff like that.It's curious how everyone seems to assume that Ritual needs to be the centerpiece of a strategy in order to be any good. I think it is a lot more tactical, and useful to get rid of cards that have outlived their utility, or to get an edge in Duchy dancing. I think it's quite decent there.
What kind of cards do you have in mind? Getting rid of a trasher like Chapel is underwhelming for two reasons: 1) Those cards tend to be cheap, so you don't get much VP, and 2) How do you get rid of the Curse without your trasher? Using Ritual to get rid of junkers after the Curses are gone doesn't work. Perhaps Ritual would be nice to get rid of duplicate Junk Dealers; you can get 5 VP and provide an additional target for your remaining Junk Dealer. As usual, Peddler and Border Village can be good with TFB. Hunting Grounds is a great target for Ritual. Anything else? Perhaps I'm not being sufficiently creative thinking of Ritual synergies.
It's curious how everyone seems to assume that Ritual needs to be the centerpiece of a strategy in order to be any good. I think it is a lot more tactical, and useful to get rid of cards that have outlived their utility, or to get an edge in Duchy dancing. I think it's quite decent there.
What kind of cards do you have in mind? Getting rid of a trasher like Chapel is underwhelming for two reasons: 1) Those cards tend to be cheap, so you don't get much VP, and 2) How do you get rid of the Curse without your trasher? Using Ritual to get rid of junkers after the Curses are gone doesn't work. Perhaps Ritual would be nice to get rid of duplicate Junk Dealers; you can get 5 VP and provide an additional target for your remaining Junk Dealer. As usual, Peddler and Border Village can be good with TFB. Hunting Grounds is a great target for Ritual. Anything else? Perhaps I'm not being sufficiently creative thinking of Ritual synergies.
It's curious how everyone seems to assume that Ritual needs to be the centerpiece of a strategy in order to be any good. I think it is a lot more tactical, and useful to get rid of cards that have outlived their utility, or to get an edge in Duchy dancing. I think it's quite decent there.
It's curious how everyone seems to assume that Ritual needs to be the centerpiece of a strategy in order to be any good. I think it is a lot more tactical, and useful to get rid of cards that have outlived their utility, or to get an edge in Duchy dancing. I think it's quite decent there.
I don't think discussing Ritual's potential golden deck utility is at all the same as assuming it is the only, or even the best, use case for the card. It's just where the discussion was going.
Really though its utility over Duchy is kinda marginal and edgecasey. Unless you also need the Curse for trasher fuel, it's fairly rare that the one extra point is going to be worth losing a $5 for.
Though, trashing your Duchy with Ritual gives you an extra point at the cost of a buy, so there is that.
It's nice that Walled Village is now at least somewhat closer to the other $4 splitters. It's a shame that it isn't higher than Farming Village.
It's nice that Walled Village is now at least somewhat closer to the other $4 splitters. It's a shame that it isn't higher than Farming Village.
Just trying to understand: Why do you feel that Walled Village is better than Farming Village? Any engine would much rather have Farming Village than Walled Village, wouldn't it? Unless I am totally missing something, Walled Village becomes nothing more than a $4 Village in an engine, but Farming Village helps you get through the junk and get to your actions to feed your engine.
Awaclus's irrational hatred of Farming Village
It's nice that Walled Village is now at least somewhat closer to the other $4 splitters. It's a shame that it isn't higher than Farming Village.
Just trying to understand: Why do you feel that Walled Village is better than Farming Village? Any engine would much rather have Farming Village than Walled Village, wouldn't it? Unless I am totally missing something, Walled Village becomes nothing more than a $4 Village in an engine, but Farming Village helps you get through the junk and get to your actions to feed your engine.
Farming Village skips over n green cards, where n is the number of green cards on top of your deck. This may well be one, but it may well be more than one. (Consider the not-entirely-uncommon case where your opponent is building a Rabble engine.)It's nice that Walled Village is now at least somewhat closer to the other $4 splitters. It's a shame that it isn't higher than Farming Village.
Just trying to understand: Why do you feel that Walled Village is better than Farming Village? Any engine would much rather have Farming Village than Walled Village, wouldn't it? Unless I am totally missing something, Walled Village becomes nothing more than a $4 Village in an engine, but Farming Village helps you get through the junk and get to your actions to feed your engine.
Generally, Farming Village and Walled Village are both just vanilla Villages for $4. However, in the rare case where the ability actually does something, Farming Village just skips over one green card that probably wouldn't have made any difference anyway, whereas Walled Village might save you from an entire shuffle's worth of dead turns.
But by far the most likely scenario is that it is 0.Farming Village skips over n green cards, where n is the number of green cards on top of your deck. This may well be one, but it may well be more than one. (Consider the not-entirely-uncommon case where your opponent is building a Rabble engine.)It's nice that Walled Village is now at least somewhat closer to the other $4 splitters. It's a shame that it isn't higher than Farming Village.
Just trying to understand: Why do you feel that Walled Village is better than Farming Village? Any engine would much rather have Farming Village than Walled Village, wouldn't it? Unless I am totally missing something, Walled Village becomes nothing more than a $4 Village in an engine, but Farming Village helps you get through the junk and get to your actions to feed your engine.
Generally, Farming Village and Walled Village are both just vanilla Villages for $4. However, in the rare case where the ability actually does something, Farming Village just skips over one green card that probably wouldn't have made any difference anyway, whereas Walled Village might save you from an entire shuffle's worth of dead turns.
Farming Village skips over n green cards, where n is the number of green cards on top of your deck. This may well be one, but it may well be more than one. (Consider the not-entirely-uncommon case where your opponent is building a Rabble engine.)It's nice that Walled Village is now at least somewhat closer to the other $4 splitters. It's a shame that it isn't higher than Farming Village.
Just trying to understand: Why do you feel that Walled Village is better than Farming Village? Any engine would much rather have Farming Village than Walled Village, wouldn't it? Unless I am totally missing something, Walled Village becomes nothing more than a $4 Village in an engine, but Farming Village helps you get through the junk and get to your actions to feed your engine.
Generally, Farming Village and Walled Village are both just vanilla Villages for $4. However, in the rare case where the ability actually does something, Farming Village just skips over one green card that probably wouldn't have made any difference anyway, whereas Walled Village might save you from an entire shuffle's worth of dead turns.
Granted. Both these villages ultimately have the same dynamic: they're villages, so their utility increases as the proportion of actions in the deck approaches one, but as the proportion of actions in the deck approaches one, they become ever more indistinguishable from Village.But by far the most likely scenario is that it is 0.Farming Village skips over n green cards, where n is the number of green cards on top of your deck. This may well be one, but it may well be more than one. (Consider the not-entirely-uncommon case where your opponent is building a Rabble engine.)It's nice that Walled Village is now at least somewhat closer to the other $4 splitters. It's a shame that it isn't higher than Farming Village.
Just trying to understand: Why do you feel that Walled Village is better than Farming Village? Any engine would much rather have Farming Village than Walled Village, wouldn't it? Unless I am totally missing something, Walled Village becomes nothing more than a $4 Village in an engine, but Farming Village helps you get through the junk and get to your actions to feed your engine.
Generally, Farming Village and Walled Village are both just vanilla Villages for $4. However, in the rare case where the ability actually does something, Farming Village just skips over one green card that probably wouldn't have made any difference anyway, whereas Walled Village might save you from an entire shuffle's worth of dead turns.
But by far the most likely scenario is that it is 0.Farming Village skips over n green cards, where n is the number of green cards on top of your deck. This may well be one, but it may well be more than one. (Consider the not-entirely-uncommon case where your opponent is building a Rabble engine.)It's nice that Walled Village is now at least somewhat closer to the other $4 splitters. It's a shame that it isn't higher than Farming Village.
Just trying to understand: Why do you feel that Walled Village is better than Farming Village? Any engine would much rather have Farming Village than Walled Village, wouldn't it? Unless I am totally missing something, Walled Village becomes nothing more than a $4 Village in an engine, but Farming Village helps you get through the junk and get to your actions to feed your engine.
Generally, Farming Village and Walled Village are both just vanilla Villages for $4. However, in the rare case where the ability actually does something, Farming Village just skips over one green card that probably wouldn't have made any difference anyway, whereas Walled Village might save you from an entire shuffle's worth of dead turns.
I agree that there are better villages than either of these, but I still don't get it. If I play either Walled Village or Farming Village, then if the card I draw is an action or treasure, they both will allow me to put it in my hand. But if I draw a victory card or curse, other than minimal cycling, I have gained nothing really from WV, while with FV I get to discard it and draw again until I get that action or treasure. The ability that WV gives to top deck it is great earlier in the game, but the most likely scenario for it being activated late in the game is just as much 0 as FV not skipping green if you are running any kind of decent engine.
I enjoy learning from all of you, but I am having trouble seeing this one. I have looked back at some earlier posts comparing villages. Everything I find always ranks FV higher than WV. In fact, WV is usually considered a low tier village.
You are totally right that Walled Village is great in terms of reducing risk. But as others have pointed out, it is just a village once you have an engine running.I agree that there are better villages than either of these, but I still don't get it. If I play either Walled Village or Farming Village, then if the card I draw is an action or treasure, they both will allow me to put it in my hand. But if I draw a victory card or curse, other than minimal cycling, I have gained nothing really from WV, while with FV I get to discard it and draw again until I get that action or treasure. The ability that WV gives to top deck it is great earlier in the game, but the most likely scenario for it being activated late in the game is just as much 0 as FV not skipping green if you are running any kind of decent engine.
I enjoy learning from all of you, but I am having trouble seeing this one. I have looked back at some earlier posts comparing villages. Everything I find always ranks FV higher than WV. In fact, WV is usually considered a low tier village.
The thing is, it is super rare for either of the abilities to do anything. When Farming Village does something, it still doesn't do anything very impressive. When Walled Village does something, it has a game-deciding impact fairly often. I remember tons of games where I had a decent engine going, but shuffle luck had it so that I drew a hand with some splitters and no terminal draw, followed by a hand of terminal draw but not enough splitters, resulting in two (sometimes more) dud turns. I also remember some games where those splitters were Walled Villages and instead of the hand with terminal draw but no splitters, I had a hand that was perfectly capable of kicking off the engine, resulting in only one dud turn, which sometimes was still something that I could recover from. Discarding one green card from the top of your deck probably isn't the equivalent of taking an extra turn very often.
I'm surprised Cutpurse is so low. Sure, it's useless late game, but it's quite devastating in the early game.
You are totally right that Walled Village is great in terms of reducing risk. But as others have pointed out, it is just a village once you have an engine running.
Farming Village is decent in the opening, when you have a chance of skipping over some green, good against Rabble, Haunted Woods, Fortune Teller and Sea Hag and in general good in the presence of junkers or alt-VP.
I disagree with that. Once you have an engine running you cannot topdeck Walled Village anymore so it degenerates into an ordinary Village. Its ability only matters while you still build your engine. That is important but it is hardly as superstrong as you claim.You are totally right that Walled Village is great in terms of reducing risk. But as others have pointed out, it is just a village once you have an engine running.
Farming Village is decent in the opening, when you have a chance of skipping over some green, good against Rabble, Haunted Woods, Fortune Teller and Sea Hag and in general good in the presence of junkers or alt-VP.
It's not just a Village once you have an engine running, it's a Village which is doing all that risk-reducing. Farming Village is just a Village which is not even doing that risk-reducing when you have an engine going. Walled Village is also much better than Farming Village in the opening because FV is still super unlikely to skip over anything, but Walled Village is guaranteed to get topdecked every turn until you need it, which can allow you to buy more terminals early than you would with FV, which is great for tempo.
The more junk or alt-VP you have in your deck, the better WV becomes in comparison to FV for the same reason. You need a ridiculously bloated deck for FV's ability to be reasonably likely to do anything, and in that case, it's starting to get pretty unlikely that FV's +2 Actions is going to do anything, so it's probably better to skip buying splitters altogether and buy some more Treasure cards instead of some of the terminals that you would have needed the splitters for. But if you have WV, you can buy a couple of those and you're almost guaranteed to have them when you need them.
I disagree with that. Once you have an engine running you cannot topdeck Walled Village anymore so it degenerates into an ordinary Village. Its ability only matters while you still build your engine. That is important but it is hardly as superstrong as you claim.
Farming Village does indeed rarely skip over junk but contrary to your claims it is not virtually never. After the opening you have 12 cards and 3 of them are junk so Farming Village has a chance of 25% to go over an Estate and thus be similar to Lost City. Of course the junk to deck ratio will decline from 1/4 after the second cycle, even in a Kingdom with cursers and without trashers. But to pretend that the ratio is virtually zero is wrong.
is definitely as superstrong as I claim.Not really, you tremendously exaggerate. The card is just a weak 4$ village with a bonus that sometimes does a little something which is of roughly equivalent strength as the bonus of Farming Village.
is definitely as superstrong as I claim.Not really, you tremendously exaggerate. The card is just a weak 4$ village with a bonus that sometimes does a little something which is of roughly equivalent strength as the bonus of Farming Village.
All other 4$ villages are better than those two.
is definitely as superstrong as I claim.Not really, you tremendously exaggerate. The card is just a weak 4$ village with a bonus that sometimes does a little something which is of roughly equivalent strength as the bonus of Farming Village.
All other 4$ villages are better than those two.
By what metric is taking an extra turn of roughly equivalent strength as skipping over a green card?
Imagine a hand with one $4 village and four stop cards. If the next cards in the deck are Estate followed by Smithy, Farming Village has a better outcome than Walled Village; because you save the current turn, as opposed to the next turn.
Awaclus pedantry aside, we can all agree Mining Village should be a fair amount above Farming Village, right? Mining Village does stuff most games.
Regardless of how you go about it, your hard cap from Rats / Ritual is 40 VP, and the kind of cards that enable the golden deck (Chapel / Steward / etc) also enable much bigger engines. I could see it as part of an engine payload though? Definitely niche and not dominant.
Regardless of how you go about it, your hard cap from Rats / Ritual is 40 VP, and the kind of cards that enable the golden deck (Chapel / Steward / etc) also enable much bigger engines. I could see it as part of an engine payload though? Definitely niche and not dominant.
There are 20 Rats in the supply, so you can net up to 60 VP. The one exception is if you are playing with just two players, in which case there will only be 10 curses.
All the $4 splitters should be roughly at the same rank, really.Now this is something about $4 Villages I do agree with Awaclus on. The special abilities for $4 Villages tend to be:
All the $4 splitters should be roughly at the same rank, really.Now this is something about $4 Villages I do agree with Awaclus on. The special abilities for $4 Villages tend to be:
Of diminishing utility in multiples (Worker's)
One-shots (Mining)
Not always capable of being meaningfully activated (Plaza, Fortress)
Of lower utility as the deck tends to an all-Action state (Wandering Minstrel, Walled, Farming)
... that sort of thing.
draw engine which relies on Treasures as coin source.
Wandering Ministrel is a powerful 4$ village but there are Kingdoms in which skipping non-Actions hurts, e.g. in the case of a draw engine which relies on Treasures as coin source.i would say that this is the case where WM is at its strongest actually; if you're building the engine right, discarding treasures just mean you don't see them until the end, rather than missing them entirely, which is actually preferable
Fortress, Plaza, and Worker's Village are also clearly a cut above the rest but a cut below Minstrel. Arguing that Farming Village and Wandering Minstrel are "about the same" is just ridiculous.
Fortress, Plaza, and Worker's Village are also clearly a cut above the rest but a cut below Minstrel. Arguing that Farming Village and Wandering Minstrel are "about the same" is just ridiculous.
Both Farming Village and Wandering Minstrel give you +1 card and +2 actions and don't really do anything groundbreaking in addition to that. Like, a card that was just Wandering Minstrel's ability on a cantrip wouldn't be amazing even if it was a $2 card, it would be something you'd buy when you could get it for free, but not something you'd buy over anything important. Definitely the vast majority of Wandering Minstrel's strength comes from the fact that it's a splitter for $4, and that makes it about the same as any other splitter for $4.
Both Farming Village and Wandering Minstrel give you +1 card and +2 actions and don't really do anything groundbreaking in addition to that. Like, a card that was just Wandering Minstrel's ability on a cantrip wouldn't be amazing even if it was a $2 card, it would be something you'd buy when you could get it for free, but not something you'd buy over anything important. Definitely the vast majority of Wandering Minstrel's strength comes from the fact that it's a splitter for $4, and that makes it about the same as any other splitter for $4.
Fortress, Plaza, and Worker's Village are also clearly a cut above the rest but a cut below Minstrel. Arguing that Farming Village and Wandering Minstrel are "about the same" is just ridiculous.
Both Farming Village and Wandering Minstrel give you +1 card and +2 actions and don't really do anything groundbreaking in addition to that. Like, a card that was just Wandering Minstrel's ability on a cantrip wouldn't be amazing even if it was a $2 card, it would be something you'd buy when you could get it for free, but not something you'd buy over anything important. Definitely the vast majority of Wandering Minstrel's strength comes from the fact that it's a splitter for $4, and that makes it about the same as any other splitter for $4.
Yeah, I wholeheartedly disagree that Wandering Minstrel "doesn't do anything groundbreaking". It is a card strong enough on several boards to buy when you have no need for +Action at all. It basically lets engines start playing substantially several turns in advance or through decks littered with stop cards. It lets top of deck cards like Hamlet or Vassal or Wishing Well work with more reliability and control. It lets cantrip only engines draw all of the Action cards they need to without choking as quickly on copper. It cycles your deck early on (isn't this why you love Lookout and Loan?)
Quite frankly if you don't think WM is substantially better than Farming Village, you aren't playing it to its full potential, and probably skipping it when you really ought to be playing it. It's a top 10 $4 card, and if it were a $2 cantrip it would certainly be in the top half of $2 cost cards.
To be blunt, you are using the fact that Wandering Minstrel is a splitter to intentionally ignore the very strong effect it has.
To be blunt, you are using the fact that Wandering Minstrel is a splitter to intentionally ignore the very strong effect it has.
I definitely am! Splitters are that strong.
I rated Port higher than Wandering Minstrel, which implicitly puts me in agreement with Awaclus that the village effect of Wandering Minstrel is more important than its sifting effect.
You guys are weird.
Topdeck inspection, discarding junk, etc are both very very good.Wandering Ministrels also discards Gold or Platinum which doesn't qualify as junk in my book.
To be blunt, you are using the fact that Wandering Minstrel is a splitter to intentionally ignore the very strong effect it has.
I definitely am! Splitters are that strong.
Plenty of examples of boards you want Minstrel on without even needing a Village. The most obvious one I can think of is Highway / Market (Square), without Copper thinning or draw. You want to play as many Highways and Markets per turn as you can tolerate, but you don't want to trip on all that junk. Folding in a few Wandering Minstrel vastly improves your win rate.
Other examples would be stuff like Vassal or Herald. Herald becomes reliable draw even with hardly any thinning in the presence of Minstrel. Vassal can potentially chain into itself into the next Minstrel, which is pretty cool. Wishing Well and Mystic too.
Like clearly a cantrip minstrel at $2 would be quite good on a lot of boards, as evidenced by many players picking them up for $4 when they don't need more Villages. Topdeck inspection, discarding junk, etc are both very very good.
Topdeck inspection, discarding junk, etc are both very very good.Wandering Ministrels also discards Gold or Platinum which doesn't qualify as junk in my book.
I think that it is weaker than other 4$ villages like Worker's Village or Port.
You definitely want it to discard Gold and Platinum. They might not be junk (although it's a little bit arguable for Gold in some cases), but you don't want to draw them before you've drawn all of your Actions, because otherwise you might not draw all of your Actions. Once you've drawn all of your Actions, you can just reshuffle and draw the Golds and Platinums anyway.This implicitly assumes that you draw your entire deck or a large part of it. In this case you are totally right.
You definitely want it to discard Gold and Platinum. They might not be junk (although it's a little bit arguable for Gold in some cases), but you don't want to draw them before you've drawn all of your Actions, because otherwise you might not draw all of your Actions. Once you've drawn all of your Actions, you can just reshuffle and draw the Golds and Platinums anyway.This implicitly assumes that you draw your entire deck or a large part of it. In this case you are totally right.
But if your deck only draws a part of itself that discarded Gold is a liability.
You definitely want it to discard Gold and Platinum. They might not be junk (although it's a little bit arguable for Gold in some cases), but you don't want to draw them before you've drawn all of your Actions, because otherwise you might not draw all of your Actions. Once you've drawn all of your Actions, you can just reshuffle and draw the Golds and Platinums anyway.This implicitly assumes that you draw your entire deck or a large part of it. In this case you are totally right.
But if your deck only draws a part of itself that discarded Gold is a liability.
Well, perhaps you are simply a better player but decks that draw themselves entirely each turn happen rarely or lately in my games.You definitely want it to discard Gold and Platinum. They might not be junk (although it's a little bit arguable for Gold in some cases), but you don't want to draw them before you've drawn all of your Actions, because otherwise you might not draw all of your Actions. Once you've drawn all of your Actions, you can just reshuffle and draw the Golds and Platinums anyway.This implicitly assumes that you draw your entire deck or a large part of it. In this case you are totally right.
But if your deck only draws a part of itself that discarded Gold is a liability.
It's a reasonably small edge case where you can't draw your whole deck, you want plenty of Village support, and you would rather draw payload stop cards instead of more actions that let you draw those cards later. In most drawing engines you want your payload last. Minstrel isn't the best there, but it's way more often that Minstrel makes your engine substantially more reliable / more likely to draw deck than this outcome.
I don't really understand this larger discussion of how other cards are the same (or, better?) than WM, because they are also splitters? Yes splitters are strong and have a strong effect. When comparing splitters to each other you are really only comparing the things that make them different.
The thing is, if we just ranked the splitters against each other based on their absolute power level, there would be a significant difference between Wandering Minstrel and Farming Village. However, we're also ranking them against other cards such as Militia and Bishop, and we're only putting them in a specific order, not evaluating how much of a difference in power there is between any two ranks. The fact that they're all splitters (which is an extremely strong effect by the way, it usually makes the difference between being or not being able to go for an engine, which tends to be the strongest strategy whenever it's possible) makes so big of a difference that it mostly obscures whatever other effects the card has in this kind of a ranking — Militia and Bishop are definitely not so close to one another in strength that they both fit in between two different splitters.
And I knew Awaclus would pull that "it's a three card combo" "it's an edge case" bullshit if I named any specific example, which is why I didn't before. But it's an argument he can't lose. Either you don't name examples and he doesn't recognize the argument at all, or you do and he dismisses them as things that never happen. It's an EXAMPLE. One of Many. It isn't really even a three card example combo - any combination of Highway, Minstrel, and one of several nonterminal +Buy works. And you can substitute Highway for any cantrip payload! This isn't exactly an exotic uncommon deck that most people don't build.
Well, perhaps you are simply a better player but decks that draw themselves entirely each turn happen rarely or lately in my games.
So in my experience Wandering Ministrel's ability is often a liability when it takes another 1 or 2 turns until you see that Treasure you just discarded again.
Well, perhaps you are simply a better player but decks that draw themselves entirely each turn happen rarely or lately in my games.You definitely want it to discard Gold and Platinum. They might not be junk (although it's a little bit arguable for Gold in some cases), but you don't want to draw them before you've drawn all of your Actions, because otherwise you might not draw all of your Actions. Once you've drawn all of your Actions, you can just reshuffle and draw the Golds and Platinums anyway.This implicitly assumes that you draw your entire deck or a large part of it. In this case you are totally right.
But if your deck only draws a part of itself that discarded Gold is a liability.
It's a reasonably small edge case where you can't draw your whole deck, you want plenty of Village support, and you would rather draw payload stop cards instead of more actions that let you draw those cards later. In most drawing engines you want your payload last. Minstrel isn't the best there, but it's way more often that Minstrel makes your engine substantially more reliable / more likely to draw deck than this outcome.
So in my experience Wandering Ministrel's ability is often a liability when it takes another 1 or 2 turns until you see that Treasure you just discarded again.
That's a self-fulfilling prophecy you have there. Building decks that draw themselves requires not having too many Treasures (or being able to cycle through them), especially in the early game where getting to the next reshuffle as fast as possible is essential. In other words, if you find that your Wandering Minstrel skips over good Treasures often, especially early on, the thing in that whole equation which is the liability is the Treasures, not the fact that they're being skipped.Every Kingdom is different and there are very well ample of Kingdoms in which you need some villages but don't end up with a sublime engine that draws the entire deck every turn. Typical psychological bias, we all love these games and thus forget all the mediocre games or the stuff that is somewhere between engine and BM.
Thinking Wandering Minstrel is Cartographer and using it to get to your Mountebank or whatever sooner will make you miss your Silver and Gold and you won't have an easy time buying the stuff you really need.This is my entire point, that the card is not, as Chris claims, the hyperflexible powerhouse which is supposedly even good when you don't require a village.
Well, perhaps you are simply a better player but decks that draw themselves entirely each turn happen rarely or lately in my games.
So in my experience Wandering Ministrel's ability is often a liability when it takes another 1 or 2 turns until you see that Treasure you just discarded again.
That's a self-fulfilling prophecy you have there. Building decks that draw themselves requires not having too many Treasures (or being able to cycle through them), especially in the early game where getting to the next reshuffle as fast as possible is essential. In other words, if you find that your Wandering Minstrel skips over good Treasures often, especially early on, the thing in that whole equation which is the liability is the Treasures, not the fact that they're being skipped.
Every Kingdom is different and there are very well ample of Kingdoms in which you need some villages but don't end up with a sublime engine that draws the entire deck every turn. Typical psychological bias, we all love these games and thus forget all the mediocre games or the stuff that is somewhere between engine and BM.
Yes there is. The density of Actions and Treasures in your deck is different in every game. Which is e.g. why you might have some Silvers and some Action card in your deck and which is why Wandering Ministrel can be worse than Village in a particular situation.Every Kingdom is different and there are very well ample of Kingdoms in which you need some villages but don't end up with a sublime engine that draws the entire deck every turn. Typical psychological bias, we all love these games and thus forget all the mediocre games or the stuff that is somewhere between engine and BM.There is no stuff "somewhere between engine and BM".
Every Kingdom is different and there are very well ample of Kingdoms in which you need some villages but don't end up with a sublime engine that draws the entire deck every turn. Typical psychological bias, we all love these games and thus forget all the mediocre games or the stuff that is somewhere between engine and BM.
There is no stuff "somewhere between engine and BM". BM might sound like a simple strategy on the surface because of how easy it is to play, but what allows it to function is a set of very complex and delicate interactions between the rules of the game and the very specific cards you buy. If you try to mix it with something else, you lose those interactions and suddenly you have a deck that sucks.
I think the issue is, when villages are bad, Wandering Minstrel is really bad. Worse than if you bought nothing, which is rarely the case for any other Village. This makes the Wandering Minstrel effect feel like a downside at times. I do feel that it is very rare that you really need a village for your strategy to work, but Wandering Minstrel's topdeck effect hinders its function as a village.
It is really a stretch to come up with a scenario where you want to buy say Farming Village over Wandering Minstrel where buying at least one of them is approximately the correct play, as opposed to just buying another Silver or draw card or nothing. Wandering Minstrel's effect is just so synergistic with its vanilla bonuses.
It can be effective even when the +2 Actions is not needed, but I will admit the occurrence of those cases isn't as frequent as one might believe.
I think the issue is, when villages are bad, Wandering Minstrel is really bad. Worse than if you bought nothing, which is rarely the case for any other Village. This makes the Wandering Minstrel effect feel like a downside at times. I do feel that it is very rare that you really need a village for your strategy to work, but Wandering Minstrel's topdeck effect hinders its function as a village.
It is really a stretch to come up with a scenario where you want to buy say Farming Village over Wandering Minstrel where buying at least one of them is approximately the correct play, as opposed to just buying another Silver or draw card or nothing. Wandering Minstrel's effect is just so synergistic with its vanilla bonuses.
It can be effective even when the +2 Actions is not needed, but I will admit the occurrence of those cases isn't as frequent as one might believe.
Wandering Minstrel + Tunnel. Your discard pile gets so rich!
So the big question is: How common are cases 2 and 3?
Case 2: Some villages come in handyActions are almost always better than your average card you will be skipping. So in non ruin cases Wandering Minstrel > Generic Village
Wandering Minstrel's additional effect can hurt in circumstances by skipping over important treasure (or other non-action?) cards. Also if you cause reshuffles at the wrong time you can create dud turns. An edge case is ruins, which totally screw with the top-of-deck-sifting effect. Wandering Minstrel < Generic Village
what exactly are they splitting?hairs
When did we start calling villages "splitters" and why? They give you an extra turn, but what exactly are they splitting?
I was unable to check out the forum this week. So I just was able to look over the village discussion. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the Walled Village vs. Farming Village question.
However, this discussion did bring up another question for me. When did we start calling villages "splitters" and why? They give you an extra turn, but what exactly are they splitting?
I was unable to check out the forum this week. So I just was able to look over the village discussion. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the Walled Village vs. Farming Village question.
However, this discussion did bring up another question for me. When did we start calling villages "splitters" and why? They give you an extra turn, but what exactly are they splitting?
"Village", however, could mean any of the following:
- The card whose name is just Village
- Any card with the word "village" in its title (sometimes including Ruined Village)
- Any card that always does everything that vanilla Village does
- Any card that always has an effect roughly comparable to Village (e.g. Lost City might not qualify because it's too powerful and Squire might not qualify because it's too weak)
- Any card that always or through a choice effect explicitly gives +2 actions
- Any card that is capable of giving +2 actions
- Any splitter
- Any combination of these (for example, to include Ruined Village as well as cards such as Squire)
"Village", however, could mean any of the following:
- The card whose name is just Village
- Any card with the word "village" in its title (sometimes including Ruined Village)
- Any card that always does everything that vanilla Village does
- Any card that always has an effect roughly comparable to Village (e.g. Lost City might not qualify because it's too powerful and Squire might not qualify because it's too weak)
- Any card that always or through a choice effect explicitly gives +2 actions
- Any card that is capable of giving +2 actions
- Any splitter
- Any combination of these (for example, to include Ruined Village as well as cards such as Squire)
I'm reasonably certain you're being willfully obtuse. There's really only two colloquial uses for "Village" - the card Village, and anything that gives +2 Actions. Wandering Minstrel is a village, Ruined Village is not.
But...what about calling the card Village Vanillage?
TL;DR: Splitters are splitters because it would be weird to call Summon "a village" and it would also be weird to not group Summon together with Village.
and anything that gives +2 Actions.
and that categorization is something that everyone has to unlearn during their process of climbing up the leaderboard from the intermediate ranks to the high level ranks.
I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.
Broadly, "village" can refer to anything that gives +2 actions or more, both explicitly (e.g. Village) and implicitly (e.g. Throne Room). So I mostly agree with you.
Still, there is a dilemma when it comes to whether or not Throne Room, Herald, Golem, etc. are considered a "village". Do consider them villages and you potentially get newer players to be unaware that the the scope of what is a "village" is so wide. Don't consider them as villages and you imply that broad statements about villages weren't also meant to encompass Throne Room, Herald, etc.
I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.
Throne Room is a quite different card than Village or Sacrifice.I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.
I really hope that doesn't result in you thinking that they are different in any meaningful way.
Throne Room is a quite different card than Village or Sacrifice.I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.
I really hope that doesn't result in you thinking that they are different in any meaningful way.
That's like saying that Copper and Platinum are identical as they both provide coins. ::)Throne Room is a quite different card than Village or Sacrifice.I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.
I really hope that doesn't result in you thinking that they are different in any meaningful way.
It's different in the sense that it's a lot more powerful, but not really in any other way.
That's like saying that Copper and Platinum are identical as they both provide coins. ::)Throne Room is a quite different card than Village or Sacrifice.I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.
I really hope that doesn't result in you thinking that they are different in any meaningful way.
It's different in the sense that it's a lot more powerful, but not really in any other way.
You are simply wrong and like other posters here indicate, it probably makes no sense to discuss with you.
Sacrifice, Tribute, Throne Room and Village are 4 totally different cards. The only thing they have in common is that they can (sometimes) yield 2 Actions. Thus they have even less in common than Silver and all those 5$ 'Silver with an extra' Treasures.
Furthermore TR mainly copies with "villageifying" being a secondary effect. A pseudo-village like Sacrifice can hardly be used like a village at all and a card like Tribute is most of the times a degenerate village whose efficacy depends upon the Action card density in the opponent's deck.
Throne Room is a quite different card than Village or Sacrifice.I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.
I really hope that doesn't result in you thinking that they are different in any meaningful way.
It's different in the sense that it's a lot more powerful, but not really in any other way.
Throne Room is a quite different card than Village or Sacrifice.I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.
I really hope that doesn't result in you thinking that they are different in any meaningful way.
It's different in the sense that it's a lot more powerful, but not really in any other way.
I get your point, but I would say they are quite different. For one, Village gives you draw, which TR does not. Sacrifice trashes. The only thing they have in common is being able to occasionally play 2 more actions. Would you say that Fishing Village and Walled village are not "different in any meaningful way"? Likewise, Village and Sacrifice let you play different cards. Throne Room let's you play the same one. Are Cultist and TR essentially the same, because both just let you play copies of a card?
Throne Room is a quite different card than Village or Sacrifice.I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.
I really hope that doesn't result in you thinking that they are different in any meaningful way.
It's different in the sense that it's a lot more powerful, but not really in any other way.
I get your point, but I would say they are quite different. For one, Village gives you draw, which TR does not. Sacrifice trashes. The only thing they have in common is being able to occasionally play 2 more actions. Would you say that Fishing Village and Walled village are not "different in any meaningful way"? Likewise, Village and Sacrifice let you play different cards. Throne Room let's you play the same one. Are Cultist and TR essentially the same, because both just let you play copies of a card?
I don't think you get my point. The point is that Bridge is on the kingdom. Does the card allow you to play 8 Bridges on a single turn? If yes, it's worth grouping together with all the other cards for which the answer is yes.
Also TR certainly lets you play different cards.
I usually call villages villages and stuff like Throne Room and so on pseudo-villages.
I really hope that doesn't result in you thinking that they are different in any meaningful way.
But the categorization into "villages" and "pseudo-villages" is arbitrary.
But the categorization into "villages" and "pseudo-villages" is arbitrary.
No, it's not. There's clearly a distinction between a card that gives "+X Actions" and a card that lets you play the same card multiple times. They may fill a similar role sometimes, but they operate differently. Throne Room only "splits" if you either hit another Throne Room or a non-terminal. A village always "splits".
They fill the exact same role every time and that's what matters.No. Throne Room yields (implicit) Actions: 4 when it hits a village, 2 when it hits a non-terminal and one when it hits a terminal. In the latter case it is clearly not even mildly similar to a village or a "splitter".
They fill the exact same role every time and that's what matters.No. Throne Room yields (implicit) Actions: 4 when it hits a village, 2 when it hits a non-terminal and one when it hits a terminal. In the latter case it is clearly not even mildly similar to a village or a "splitter".
For a self-proclaimed top player you are awefully ignorant of the very basics of the game you claim to excel in.
TR TR Smithy isn't mysterious, it works precisely after the 1/2/4 scheme:They fill the exact same role every time and that's what matters.No. Throne Room yields (implicit) Actions: 4 when it hits a village, 2 when it hits a non-terminal and one when it hits a terminal. In the latter case it is clearly not even mildly similar to a village or a "splitter".
For a self-proclaimed top player you are awefully ignorant of the very basics of the game you claim to excel in.
What happens when Throne Room hits another Throne Room?
You could do TR TR Smithy TR Smithy TR Smithy... on repeat eventually playing one terminal per Throne Room you have. It requires 3/5 of your starting hand to be perfect though.
This aside, back to Awaclus's point - the distinction isn't arbitrary. Villages give extra actions with the play of a single card. Throne, RC, Golem, even Herald do not. This distinction is worth discussing sometimes, even if sometimes it is not important. I don't understand why several people have to spell all of these points out for you.
For a self-proclaimed top player you are awefully ignorant of the very basics of the game you claim to excel in.
TR TR Smithy isn't mysterious, it works precisely after the 1/2/4 scheme:They fill the exact same role every time and that's what matters.No. Throne Room yields (implicit) Actions: 4 when it hits a village, 2 when it hits a non-terminal and one when it hits a terminal. In the latter case it is clearly not even mildly similar to a village or a "splitter".
For a self-proclaimed top player you are awefully ignorant of the very basics of the game you claim to excel in.
What happens when Throne Room hits another Throne Room?
You could do TR TR Smithy TR Smithy TR Smithy... on repeat eventually playing one terminal per Throne Room you have. It requires 3/5 of your starting hand to be perfect though.
This aside, back to Awaclus's point - the distinction isn't arbitrary. Villages give extra actions with the play of a single card. Throne, RC, Golem, even Herald do not. This distinction is worth discussing sometimes, even if sometimes it is not important. I don't understand why several people have to spell all of these points out for you.
TR hits a terminal, TR, and yields an implicit action. The throned TR hits Smithy and yields another implicit Action. If the thrones TR then hits another terminal it yields another implicit Action and after that has been played twice you are down to zero Actions. If it hits a non-terminal instead you end up with two Actions, and if it hits a village instead you end up with 4 Actions.
In this instance TR works better than a village in combination with Smithy would but it doesn't technically ever yields 2 Actions (if we focus only on thrones terminals)
As you pointed out, this is why it makes little sense to argue, as Awaclus does, that villages and pseudo-villages, are identical.
It is like he is in some Theory of Everything mode of thinking. Nobody here would deny that villages and pseudo-villages are good to get engines running or to make them run even better ... but nonetheless the cards function very differently. I don't necessarily want a Golem when I want a village and vice versa.
This highlights how Village and Throne Room operate differently. However, the goal of a splitter is to help you play your terminals, not increase the Action counter by 2 or more. Functionally, both Village and Throne Room help accomplish the goal of letting you play all your terminals. Succeeding in that, it doesn't matter if you ever increase the Action counter.And the goal of the game is to have the most VPs at the end of the game. Doesn't mean that Goons and Province are identical cards though.
As I already said, I don't deny that villages and pseudo-villages are good for engines. Doesn't mean that they play identically though which is the nonsense everybody here is responding to.
As I already said, I don't deny that villages and pseudo-villages are good for engines. Doesn't mean that they play identically though which is the nonsense everybody here is responding to.I'm not saying that Throne Room and Village play identically
But the categorization into "villages" and "pseudo-villages" is arbitrary.
No, it's not. There's clearly a distinction between a card that gives "+X Actions" and a card that lets you play the same card multiple times. They may fill a similar role sometimes, but they operate differently. Throne Room only "splits" if you either hit another Throne Room or a non-terminal. A village always "splits".
They fill the exact same role every time and that's what matters.
Are you saying that Madman and Nobles play more identically than Throne Room and Village?Madman, Nobles and Village all provide 2 Actions which is why there are villages.
As I already said, I don't deny that villages and pseudo-villages are good for engines. Doesn't mean that they play identically though which is the nonsense everybody here is responding to.I'm not saying that Throne Room and Village play identically
Nope:But the categorization into "villages" and "pseudo-villages" is arbitrary.
No, it's not. There's clearly a distinction between a card that gives "+X Actions" and a card that lets you play the same card multiple times. They may fill a similar role sometimes, but they operate differently. Throne Room only "splits" if you either hit another Throne Room or a non-terminal. A village always "splits".
They fill the exact same role every time and that's what matters.
Of course we all know that you will know write more intentionally unclear stuff to avoid admitting that you have been totally wrong.
About how they play, all cards differ from each other significantly and thus play very differently.
I don't agree that Throne Room being a village/splitter is any more conditional than Necropolis. Both are similarly useless if they do not pair up with another Action card.
Throne Room operates differently than your typical village through. It can be seen as equivalent to "+2 Actions, choose a card, autoplay the chosen card twice (each play costs an action)". Less flexible, but let's you play more Action card effects than you have in your deck. At the end of the day, you can use Throne Rooms to play arbitrarily many terminals, just like any card giving +2 Actions explicitly.
It's perhaps fair to call Throne Room, Herald, Royal Carriage etc. "Pseudo villages" just because they do not behave like vanilla cards that provide +2 Actions. Consider Tactician, the card I think is most deserving of the classification as a "pseudo-village". It requires a crazy chain to get arbitrarily many next-turn effects to activate.
You're obviously free to put me on your ignore list, but I suppose that might make it more difficult for us to arrange that cage match. If you're willing to stand by your implied assessment that you're less ignorant about the basics of Dominion than I am, I don't really see why you wouldn't take me up on that offer — it's not like there's anything to fear, right?You really are an obnoxious troll, aren't you?
I don't agree that Throne Room being a village/splitter is any more conditional than Necropolis. Both are similarly useless if they do not pair up with another Action card.
Throne Room operates differently than your typical village through. It can be seen as equivalent to "+2 Actions, choose a card, autoplay the chosen card twice (each play costs an action)". Less flexible, but let's you play more Action card effects than you have in your deck. At the end of the day, you can use Throne Rooms to play arbitrarily many terminals, just like any card giving +2 Actions explicitly.
It's perhaps fair to call Throne Room, Herald, Royal Carriage etc. "Pseudo villages" just because they do not behave like vanilla cards that provide +2 Actions. Consider Tactician, the card I think is most deserving of the classification as a "pseudo-village". It requires a crazy chain to get arbitrarily many next-turn effects to activate.
If you have Necropolis in your hand alongside Smithy or some other terminal draw, you can draw from the Smithy and still have an action left over to continue playing things. Throne Room can't do that on its own: you need another non-terminal to get that result.
You're obviously free to put me on your ignore list, but I suppose that might make it more difficult for us to arrange that cage match. If you're willing to stand by your implied assessment that you're less ignorant about the basics of Dominion than I am, I don't really see why you wouldn't take me up on that offer — it's not like there's anything to fear, right?You really are an obnoxious troll, aren't you?
Just because you spend your entire free time playing Dominion online (instead of with real people but that runs into the issue of having to actually be a nice guy such that they tolerate you) and probably are good at playing the game doesn't mean that your writing about the game is any good or even just factually true.
You could defeat me a dozen times; Throne Room would still not unconditionally provide 2 Actions.
Not that it will ever happen, boardgaming time is friend time and not troll time for me. 8)
Yeah, I can already tell that you're a real charmer.You're obviously free to put me on your ignore list, but I suppose that might make it more difficult for us to arrange that cage match. If you're willing to stand by your implied assessment that you're less ignorant about the basics of Dominion than I am, I don't really see why you wouldn't take me up on that offer — it's not like there's anything to fear, right?You really are an obnoxious troll, aren't you?
Just because you spend your entire free time playing Dominion online (instead of with real people but that runs into the issue of having to actually be a nice guy such that they tolerate you) and probably are good at playing the game doesn't mean that your writing about the game is any good or even just factually true.
You could defeat me a dozen times; Throne Room would still not unconditionally provide 2 Actions.
Not that it will ever happen, boardgaming time is friend time and not troll time for me. 8)
I was certain Villa would be in this list. I mean, it's good, but top 10 good? If any Empires card should have been in the top 10 for this list, it should have been Sacrifice.
I was certain Villa would be in this list. I mean, it's good, but top 10 good? If any Empires card should have been in the top 10 for this list, it should have been Sacrifice.
I was certain Villa would be in this list. I mean, it's good, but top 10 good? If any Empires card should have been in the top 10 for this list, it should have been Sacrifice.
I had Villa as #2, and I now think it should have been #1. No card changes the game more dramatically at this cost point than Villa, and it is a tremendous advantage to use it properly.
Sacrifice is pretty good, but it's not really even remotely as dominant or game warping as Villa. It's an average trasher with a neat Hail Mary play most of the time.
I would say Adventures was really power creepy
As far as power creep goes, the strongest set by Qvist rankings is clearly Cornucopia (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16430.msg649771#msg649771).
Although, personally, I think Adventures is one of the strongest sets.
I would say Adventures was really power creepy
Villa is pretty powerful, but in many cases it's just a village with low opportunity cost. You might draw some actions dead, and save your turn by buying a Villa, but it still cost $3 to do that so your turn is still somewhat less than amazing. The only thing that made the turn amazing was that you got an extra Villa, roughly for free. Late in the game, saving a dud turn can be worth much more than $3, but by this time the Villas may have already piled, or perhaps you have so many Villas that the dud turn is missing draw rather than actions.
I rated Port higher than Villa. Port is #2 for me.
Villa is pretty powerful, but in many cases it's just a village with low opportunity cost. You might draw some actions dead, and save your turn by buying a Villa, but it still cost $3 to do that so your turn is still somewhat less than amazing. The only thing that made the turn amazing was that you got an extra Villa, roughly for free. Late in the game, saving a dud turn can be worth much more than $3, but by this time the Villas may have already piled, or perhaps you have so many Villas that the dud turn is missing draw rather than actions.
I rated Port higher than Villa. Port is #2 for me.
That changes how you build the entire deck though. Villa isn't an "oops I fucked up, better buy this to save my turn" card - it is a village you buy only exactly when you need it. You just get terminals first a lot of the time, and then sprinkle in Villa exactly as your deck needs them rather than having to thread them in during the game and having all these awkward turns where cards don't line up. It's way easier to draw your deck this way. It's a whole different game.
Plus there's all the fun cool tricks like Alms / Villa and whatnot.
Port is really good too.
Port is really good too.
Port is also really interesting and unique. It kinda feels like Border Village; pay for one card, get two.
It's weird that sometimes, rushing Port is a necessary thing that changes the game. Splitting those 8-4 is just so dramatic on so many boards. Who's the Village Idiot now? :)
Legit, easily more than like 20% of Port boards should have players buying Port over other components until they are gone.
Good point. It uses a quite similar mechanism as Border Village, buy a village, pay one more and get an extra village (instead of buy any 5, pay one more and get an extra village).Villa is pretty powerful, but in many cases it's just a village with low opportunity cost. You might draw some actions dead, and save your turn by buying a Villa, but it still cost $3 to do that so your turn is still somewhat less than amazing. The only thing that made the turn amazing was that you got an extra Villa, roughly for free. Late in the game, saving a dud turn can be worth much more than $3, but by this time the Villas may have already piled, or perhaps you have so many Villas that the dud turn is missing draw rather than actions.
I rated Port higher than Villa. Port is #2 for me.
That changes how you build the entire deck though. Villa isn't an "oops I fucked up, better buy this to save my turn" card - it is a village you buy only exactly when you need it. You just get terminals first a lot of the time, and then sprinkle in Villa exactly as your deck needs them rather than having to thread them in during the game and having all these awkward turns where cards don't line up. It's way easier to draw your deck this way. It's a whole different game.
Plus there's all the fun cool tricks like Alms / Villa and whatnot.
Port is really good too.
Port is also really interesting and unique. It kinda feels like Border Village; pay for one card, get two.
It's been first for a while
Herald is #1 in my <3.
There's an error in the video--it says Magpie went up from #19 to #12.
I'm beginning to resist the Herald hype. I'm doubtful that it's a top 10 $4 card. Herald can help make engines that are lacking either +actions or +card (or both), which is powerful, of course. But it is a mediocre card on boards where you can't get thin, or there isn't good payload. I feel like that is almost ~50% of games where Herald is mediocre.
In general, I have a higher opinion of the cards that are great in all decks: Ironmonger, Jack of all Trades, and Magpie.
I'm beginning to resist the Herald hype. I'm doubtful that it's a top 10 $4 card. Herald can help make engines that are lacking either +actions or +card (or both), which is powerful, of course. But it is a mediocre card on boards where you can't get thin, or there isn't good payload. I feel like that is almost ~50% of games where Herald is mediocre.
In general, I have a higher opinion of the cards that are great in all decks: Ironmonger, Jack of all Trades, and Magpie.
Can anyone explain why Spice Merchant is #14 and has a low deviation? I had it at #3. I feel it's almost always an auto-open, and one of the best thinners that isn't a remodeler, possibly even the best besides the powerhouses (Chapel, Amb, Masq, Donate). Even with remodelers (like the #1 $4), I often like the Spice first, and then the Spice itself is a good remodel target once it's done its job. There must be something I'm not seeing.
Can anyone explain why Spice Merchant is #14 and has a low deviation? I had it at #3. I feel it's almost always an auto-open, and one of the best thinners that isn't a remodeler, possibly even the best besides the powerhouses (Chapel, Amb, Masq, Donate). Even with remodelers (like the #1 $4), I often like the Spice first, and then the Spice itself is a good remodel target once it's done its job. There must be something I'm not seeing.
...even if some people think a card being a splitter means any other value it has must automatically be negligible...I agree with you, but bury the dead horse man.
Say you have an Action density of 50%, and assume the average thing happens with 2 Heralds. You play one Herald, hitting C/E (so it's a cantrip), and then another, hitting an Action card (so it's basically a Lost City). Vanilla Cantrip + Lost City = Village + Laboratory. So your two Heralds are as good as a Village and a Lab, which I wouldn't call mediocre. And as you add more and more Action cards, your odds of hitting one with Herald increases, meaning you get more Lost Cities and fewer vanilla cantrips.
Of course, the other extreme case is where you trash all your starting cards, in which case every Herald is a Lost City without the drawback of giving your opponent +1 Card upon buying it. That's pretty insane for $4.
Herald is very good but only after some time and definitely not in all Kingdoms. Furthermore, it is risky; e.g. the presence of trashers makes it easier to increase the Action card density but if you have a forced trasher in your deck Herald's autoplay can backfire.I'm beginning to resist the Herald hype. I'm doubtful that it's a top 10 $4 card. Herald can help make engines that are lacking either +actions or +card (or both), which is powerful, of course. But it is a mediocre card on boards where you can't get thin, or there isn't good payload. I feel like that is almost ~50% of games where Herald is mediocre.
In general, I have a higher opinion of the cards that are great in all decks: Ironmonger, Jack of all Trades, and Magpie.
Herald is not a mediocre card on boards where you can't get thin. I mean, sure, you don't want it in BM or slogs, but engines have been getting more and more common over the past few expansions, and it's one of the best engine cards in the game.
Say you're running an engine without any form of trashing - they are fairly rare, but do exist, especially if there's some other form of guaranteeing consistency (for example: delayed draw, Scheme, Summon, Prince on a Colony board). In those cases, you'll probably buy an Action card every turn, and it's likely there are gainers or +Buy so you'll acquire them even faster. So after 7 or 8 turns, you probably have 10 Action cards and your Action density is 50%, and it only goes up from there.
Say you have an Action density of 50%, and assume the average thing happens with 2 Heralds. You play one Herald, hitting C/E (so it's a cantrip), and then another, hitting an Action card (so it's basically a Lost City). Vanilla Cantrip + Lost City = Village + Laboratory. So your two Heralds are as good as a Village and a Lab, which I wouldn't call mediocre. And as you add more and more Action cards, your odds of hitting one with Herald increases, meaning you get more Lost Cities and fewer vanilla cantrips.
Of course, the other extreme case is where you trash all your starting cards, in which case every Herald is a Lost City without the drawback of giving your opponent +1 Card upon buying it. That's pretty insane for $4.
Herald pretty much needs thinning -- thinning of both the starting 10 cards plus any additional junk. Yes, it's awesome when you have 80% action cards and can reliably chain 7 Heralds in a row. But how strong can a card that relies on other cards be? Ambassador, Masquerade, Tournament, etc. are good just by themselves.
I just played a game where Explorer/Bureaucrat/Masterpiece big money handily beat a deck that had 8 Heralds, 5 Highways, and like 6 Market Squares. [sidenote: can we get logs for games w/ the new client???]
A card shouldn't be upper-tier if it depends on other cards. My 2 cents.
Herald pretty much needs thinning -- thinning of both the starting 10 cards plus any additional junk. Yes, it's awesome when you have 80% action cards and can reliably chain 7 Heralds in a row. But how strong can a card that relies on other cards be? Ambassador, Masquerade, Tournament, etc. are good just by themselves.
I just played a game where Explorer/Bureaucrat/Masterpiece big money handily beat a deck that had 8 Heralds, 5 Highways, and like 6 Market Squares. [sidenote: can we get logs for games w/ the new client???]
A card shouldn't be upper-tier if it depends on other cards. My 2 cents.
Herald pretty much needs thinning -- thinning of both the starting 10 cards plus any additional junk. Yes, it's awesome when you have 80% action cards and can reliably chain 7 Heralds in a row. But how strong can a card that relies on other cards be? Ambassador, Masquerade, Tournament, etc. are good just by themselves.
I just played a game where Explorer/Bureaucrat/Masterpiece big money handily beat a deck that had 8 Heralds, 5 Highways, and like 6 Market Squares. [sidenote: can we get logs for games w/ the new client???]
A card shouldn't be upper-tier if it depends on other cards. My 2 cents.
For that matter, King's Court is also useless by itself, but it's still one of the strongest cards in the game.Herald is good but it is not as super powerful as it is often made out to be. It is a Lost City with forced Action play which is probably similar in strength to a double Peddler aka triggered Conspirator. Conspirator also hits more often that Herald but when it misses it is a terminal Silver instead of a cantrip, i.e. the risk is larger. This is IMO the actual strength of Herald: it plays smoothly with low risk.
The thing that makes Herald so strong is that it can function as both a Village and draw in an engine, so with Herald present, you have 2 of the most important elements for an engine already. Basically, you only need some kind of payload and preferably some modest (non-forced) trashing, and your engine will flow smoothly. Ironmonger can do that too in theory, but it's not quite as reliable, unless you have a ton of Nobles/Mills.
Feodum should have been seen by now.
I respectfully disagree. Feodum can be a game-winning card if it appears with a good silver-gainer or with trash-for benefit.
Are any of these cards in the bottom rank ever game-winners? Counting House if combined with Travelling Fair, sure, but that's a very specific circumstance. I guess Pirate Ship in 3-4 player, but who plays 3-4 player?
Lots of people play 3-4 player, they just don't come here to talk about it.
A card shouldn't be upper-tier if it depends on other cards. My 2 cents.