Print

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

[Witherweaver]

Every time I open this thread, I expect to see this:

[Awaclus]

Every time I open this thread, I expect to see this:

Now, every time you open this thread, you will see it.

So, my opinion is: Given the 10/6 example, Chancellor (-->0/16) is better than randomly cycling 16 cards (--> 10/6). Is there anything wrong about that?

What I mean is: This neutral cycling is good in the beginning, but it can become bad if you have to create a new draw pile before the end of the turn.

Yes, Chancellor > randomly cycling 16 cards. But also, randomly cycling 16 cards > nothing.

[c4master]

Every time I open this thread, I expect to see this:

Now, every time you open this thread, you will see it.

So, my opinion is: Given the 10/6 example, Chancellor (-->0/16) is better than randomly cycling 16 cards (--> 10/6). Is there anything wrong about that?

What I mean is: This neutral cycling is good in the beginning, but it can become bad if you have to create a new draw pile before the end of the turn.

Yes, Chancellor > randomly cycling 16 cards. But also, randomly cycling 16 cards > nothing.

Is randomly cycling less than your whole deck, but more than the amount of cards in your draw pile still better than nothing?

That's my point. If you can cycle just enough to reach the shuffle AFTER your turn, that's usually good. If you can cycle more than one shuffle, but less then the amount of cards in your deck + draw pile - hand, that's a little worse, because you delay your hand and your gained cards for a long time. Thus, cycling more than your draw pile and less than your "shuffle" is a bad idea. You'd better cycle only a few cards (less than draw pile) because you do not want to self-deny good cards.

To be more concrete:
draw pile: 10 cards; discard pile: 6 cards
Average card in your discard is better than the average card in your draw pile
(and you are interested in average value, which is not always the case)

Chancellor > randomly cycling 16-26 cards > cycling 1-9 cards > nothing > cycling 11-15 cards.

And of course, you can add any multiples of 16 to the first two without changing anything (because you have already forced a shuffle).

------

In genral, the advantages and disadvantages of cycling are small compared to the possibility to play a good card one turn earlier due to Warehouse/Cellar cycling, even compared to the coins from Harvest.

[Katie]

I am always a victim of the fat non-culled deck.

[flies]

It's dead horse time.

I would define cycling as any effect that takes cards out of your draw pile (without trashing them - i think that's an edge case that basically won't happen tho?  dare I taunt the gods?).  This includes chancellor, smithy, Fortune teller, rebuild, HP, etc.  This article seems to be about sifting and not cycling.  Chancellor and smithy both fall outside the "two meanings of cycling" described in the OP, so we know that something important has been left out. 

(The main problem with my definition is that when you try to take cards out of an empty draw pile, then you trigger a reshuffle, so the net effect is to put cards into your draw pile.  I don't think this is a fatal flaw.)

The salient differences between good and bad "cycling", as described in the OP, are to do with the effects of sifting, not cycling.  As an article on sifting, it's fine, but it's confused because sometimes it really is talking about cycling.

The major mistake in the article is found in the statement that neutral cycling doesn't help you.  Silverspawn identified the problem with here: it ignores the primary effect of cycling, which is to make the cards in the discard appear sooner. 

Now, if we want to talk about how to tell whether cycling is good or bad for you, I think these are the essentials:

The value of cycling is determined by the relative quality of the cards in your discard pile vs the cards in the draw pile.  If you're triggering a reshuffle, then you also have to consider the cards in hand and in play.  So if you're building, then the cards in the draw pile are likely to be good, while the opposite is true for greening.  Tracking what's in your draw pile will of course add information about what's in the draw pile and change the value of the cycling. 

When cycling effects cause reshuffles, then the question of whether this is something you want is really more about reshuffling per se rather than cycling, but the same basic considerations apply: do I want these cards (draw pile + hand + in play) to miss the reshuffle or not?  That is, are they relatively better or worse than the cards in the discard?

(PS: do not do a google image search for "picking at scabs")

[eHalcyon]

Actually only Harvest and maybe Minion are really neutral. I forgot this, Harvest is neutral (meaning: fully random) cycling in Dominion.

Tribute, Jester, Swindler, Rogue, Knights, Sea Hag.  Also most draw cards.

[c4master]

Actually only Harvest and maybe Minion are really neutral. I forgot this, Harvest is neutral (meaning: fully random) cycling in Dominion.

Tribute, Jester, Swindler, Rogue, Knights, Sea Hag.  Also most draw cards.

...which are all cards, that my opponent plays on me and thus cannot be considered a decision I am making.

Draw cards also cycle, ok, but their main purpose is really the drawing part to increase the amount of cards in your actual hand.

[eHalcyon]

Actually only Harvest and maybe Minion are really neutral. I forgot this, Harvest is neutral (meaning: fully random) cycling in Dominion.

Tribute, Jester, Swindler, Rogue, Knights, Sea Hag.  Also most draw cards.

...which are all cards, that my opponent plays on me and thus cannot be considered a decision I am making.

Draw cards also cycle, ok, but their main purpose is really the drawing part to increase the amount of cards in your actual hand.

It's a decision you can make concerning your opponent though. Am I OK with giving them this neutral cycling?

[Awaclus]

Actually only Harvest and maybe Minion are really neutral. I forgot this, Harvest is neutral (meaning: fully random) cycling in Dominion.

Tribute, Jester, Swindler, Rogue, Knights, Sea Hag.  Also most draw cards.

...which are all cards, that my opponent plays on me and thus cannot be considered a decision I am making.

Draw cards also cycle, ok, but their main purpose is really the drawing part to increase the amount of cards in your actual hand.

Sometimes you don't need the draw, though (for example, there is no +buy and you already have $8), and are just playing it for the cycling.

[flies]

mandarin/count produce anti-cycling, which is again covered by my definition but not the OP.