Print

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

[popsofctown]

I put Cache out the other day, my girlfriend said it looked worthless.  I was like, yeah.... it kind of is worthless.

I like cards positioned on a humble part of the power curve, but I struggle to find redeeming features to Cache.  When I play it in a slog it often feels like a mistake, usually there is some other 5$ card that is motivating the slog, like a Garden's Market or a Duke's Duchy.  Watchtower and Trader both make Cache useable, but they both do so in a way that's like, "ignore the inherent qualities of Cache because of this combo", it hardly makes the card feel well designed. 

It's not to say I've never bought it, but I usually regret it. 

When I try to think of things to try to do with it, the best idea I can come up with is Ambassadoring it in a Goons game where the treasure is like curses.  But coming up with a way to make someone gain it as an attack doesn't make me feel like it's a well designed card.

What's good about Cache?

[KingZog3]

I totally buy it with most Alt VP strategies. Duke/Ducky, Gardens, Silk Road. It gives  the Gold you need and Coppers aren't bad in those deck. Otherwise it's not that useful a card.

[silverspawn]

i find cache good whenever
-> copper is a good card (gardens, really awful slogs)
-> 5$ in 3 cards is good enough; in this case you buy it when you would also buy masterpiece for 5$
-> you have trader in hand
-> you have watchtower in hand

overall, I think dominion would be a better game without cache. it had it's role, but now we got masterpiece, which just does it better. the trader/watchtower thing is cute, but eh.

[JW]

It can be useful when there is an engine with trash for benefit as the only +buy. Spice merchant might be the only +buy and you're out of treasure, for example.

[HiveMindEmulator]

I don't think you ever want a lot of Caches, but there are good times to buy them. In Duke games you still get at least 1, maybe 2 Caches before diving into Duchies. In big money games that depend heavily on Gold and don't mind Copper, it's good to buy with $5 if you can't stand another terminal. And if you need trash targets for Trade Route/Forager/Spice Merchant, it gets 2 in 1 buy.

[soulnet]

Apothecary does not mind the extra Coppers, and $5 for $5 is a decent economy boost. Almost like a cheaper Platinum.

Also, add Moneylender and especially Mercenary to the list of things that require fodder.

[DG]

In design terms, treasures don't need to be strong. They only have to be better than silver and they get bought. This is the case with stash, venture, and cache. As much as we'd like to fill our decks with exciting actions we know it doesn't always work.  Counterfeit, talisman, quarry, loan, and ill gotten gains can all in fact be worse than silver.

How interesting are the two coppers gained with cache? Not very exciting but players aren't very excited by actions like explorer that gain treasure either.

[silvern]

I'm rather surprised that people are hating on Cache of all things. I mean, yes, it's pretty weak the vast majority of the time, but there are FAR more pointless cards. (Pearl Diver, anyone?)

[Awaclus]

I'm rather surprised that people are hating on Cache of all things. I mean, yes, it's pretty weak the vast majority of the time, but there are FAR more pointless cards. (Pearl Diver, anyone?)

Pearl Diver is cool!

[prom_vrt]

i find cache good whenever
-> copper is a good card (gardens, really awful slogs)
-> 5$ in 3 cards is good enough; in this case you buy it when you would also buy masterpiece for 5$
-> you have trader in hand
-> you have watchtower in hand

overall, I think dominion would be a better game without cache. it had it's role, but now we got masterpiece, which just does it better. the trader/watchtower thing is cute, but eh.

Well for me in engine building there're almost always better 5$ and even with Watchtower orTrader in hand I tend to buy those 5$ instead of Cache to keep the engine going. For me the only time Cache is viable is for Garden...

I'm rather surprised that people are hating on Cache of all things. I mean, yes, it's pretty weak the vast majority of the time, but there are FAR more pointless cards. (Pearl Diver, anyone?)

Pearl Diver is cool!

Pearl Diver is not a great card but it's cantrip property allows it to be spammable if there're 2$ and some buys left since it still gives some advantage, but surely not dominant strategy.

[amalloy]

Cache can be a fun way to gain fuel for a Mercenary, when you're nice and trim but want to keep attacking, if there is a scarcity of +buy.

[NoMoreFun]

Cache doesn't need to be a stack of 10; it would have been slightly different, but a single card saying "When you would gain this, instead gain a Gold and 2 Coppers" as a "supply pile" would have largely had the same effect, and left enough room for another card.

Masterpiece could also have been like that.

[NoMoreFun]

Cache would have been amazing to confuse newbies - "wait, I get a Gold AND 2 Coppers for less than a Gold?"
Hinterlands came too late though.

[Awaclus]

Cache doesn't need to be a stack of 10; it would have been slightly different, but a single card saying "When you would gain this, instead gain a Gold and 2 Coppers" as a "supply pile" would have largely had the same effect, and left enough room for another card.

Masterpiece could also have been like that.

I have piled out Masterpiece, though.

[NoMoreFun]

Cache doesn't need to be a stack of 10; it would have been slightly different, but a single card saying "When you would gain this, instead gain a Gold and 2 Coppers" as a "supply pile" would have largely had the same effect, and left enough room for another card.

Masterpiece could also have been like that.

I have piled out Masterpiece, though.

I've piled out Cache; it's still a shame that the space wasn't used more economically so we could have more cards.

[silverspawn]

I'm rather surprised that people are hating on Cache of all things. I mean, yes, it's pretty weak the vast majority of the time, but there are FAR more pointless cards. (Pearl Diver, anyone?)

I'm not hating... and yea there are more pointless cards. I'd also say dominion would be a better game without pearl driver, or duchess. But none of them is a big deal, they're just kind of there doing nothing...

[brokoli]

I'm rather surprised that people are hating on Cache of all things. I mean, yes, it's pretty weak the vast majority of the time, but there are FAR more pointless cards. (Pearl Diver, anyone?)

I'm not hating... and yea there are more pointless cards. I'd also say dominion would be a better game without pearl driver, or duchess. But none of them is a big deal, they're just kind of there doing nothing...

I don't think so. Pearl diver or Duchess doesn't add many things to the game or doesn't make your kingdom analysis different than it would be without them. But it doesn't matter if all 10 kingdom cards don't play a role. I like the subtleties of these cards, and I'm glad they exist because they increase the proportion of slog cards (Cache, Duchess) or cantrips (Pearl diver) and they decrease the number of insane engine-combo kingdoms.

[pacovf]

I'd also say dominion would be a better game without pearl driver

Luckily, Donald X. is of the same opinion as you!

....I'll see myself to the corner.

[silverspawn]

I don't think so. Pearl diver or Duchess doesn't add many things to the game or doesn't make your kingdom analysis different than it would be without them. But it doesn't matter if all 10 kingdom cards don't play a role. I like the subtleties of these cards, and I'm glad they exist because they increase the proportion of slog cards (Cache, Duchess) or cantrips (Pearl diver) and they decrease the number of insane engine-combo kingdoms.

sure but you should never think of it like cards just disappear. there were always some cards who worked okay, but had to make room for better cards. for example, I recall a card that said "+1 action, discard 2 cards, name 2 cards, dig for 2 cards that arent the named cards, putting them into your hand." That worked fine, it just wasn't exciting enough. If you remove a card like pearl driver, it would be replaced by one of those (in case of pearl driver probably by another cantrip, but you get my point)

[pacovf]

+1 Card
+1 Action

Look at the bottom card of your deck. You may put it on top of a tee and hit long.

[Holger]

In design terms, treasures don't need to be strong. They only have to be better than silver and they get bought. This is the case with stash, venture, and cache. As much as we'd like to fill our decks with exciting actions we know it doesn't always work.  Counterfeit, talisman, quarry, loan, and ill gotten gains can all in fact be worse than silver.

But Cache usually isn't better than Silver either. In BM games, buying Cache instead of Silver makes it harder to get the $1.6 per card that you need for Provinces (let alone Colonies); and in engines, you usually don't want that many Treasure cards either.
The only kingdom Treasure that's "strictly better"* than Silver is Stash, I think (Venture might not find a Treasure card in the deck).

*ignoring Feodum, of course

[amalloy]

In design terms, treasures don't need to be strong. They only have to be better than silver and they get bought. This is the case with stash, venture, and cache. As much as we'd like to fill our decks with exciting actions we know it doesn't always work.  Counterfeit, talisman, quarry, loan, and ill gotten gains can all in fact be worse than silver.

But Cache usually isn't better than Silver either. In BM games, buying Cache instead of Silver makes it harder to get the $1.6 per card that you need for Provinces (let alone Colonies); and in engines, you usually don't want that many Treasure cards either.
The only kingdom Treasure that's "strictly better"* than Silver is Stash, I think (Venture might not find a Treasure card in the deck).

*ignoring Feodum, of course

Ignoring Feodum isn't enough, even if you ignore all cards that care about the names and costs of cards (Menagerie, Forge, etc). Stash also has a different back, meaning your opponent can tell when you have one in hand, or on top of your deck, which can enable him to make better decisions: for example, what to discard for your Advisor, when to play his Swindler, and so on.

[LastFootnote]

In design terms, treasures don't need to be strong. They only have to be better than silver and they get bought. This is the case with stash, venture, and cache. As much as we'd like to fill our decks with exciting actions we know it doesn't always work.  Counterfeit, talisman, quarry, loan, and ill gotten gains can all in fact be worse than silver.

But Cache usually isn't better than Silver either. In BM games, buying Cache instead of Silver makes it harder to get the $1.6 per card that you need for Provinces (let alone Colonies); and in engines, you usually don't want that many Treasure cards either.
The only kingdom Treasure that's "strictly better"* than Silver is Stash, I think (Venture might not find a Treasure card in the deck).

*ignoring Feodum, of course

This isn't actually true, though. In general, buying Cache in a BM deck will help you buy Provinces and—importantly—Duchies. Cache combos with sifters, which Hinterlands is chock full of. In this regard, it is better than Masterpiece.

Also, Royal Seal is strictly better than Silver, barring cost and name-specific stuff. So is Harem.

[Dsell]

I read the first several posts conflating Cache and Stash. Very, very confused for a bit there.

[amalloy]

In design terms, treasures don't need to be strong. They only have to be better than silver and they get bought. This is the case with stash, venture, and cache. As much as we'd like to fill our decks with exciting actions we know it doesn't always work.  Counterfeit, talisman, quarry, loan, and ill gotten gains can all in fact be worse than silver.

But Cache usually isn't better than Silver either. In BM games, buying Cache instead of Silver makes it harder to get the $1.6 per card that you need for Provinces (let alone Colonies); and in engines, you usually don't want that many Treasure cards either.
The only kingdom Treasure that's "strictly better"* than Silver is Stash, I think (Venture might not find a Treasure card in the deck).

*ignoring Feodum, of course

This isn't actually true, though. In general, buying Cache in a BM deck will help you buy Provinces and—importantly—Duchies. Cache combos with sifters, which Hinterlands is chock full of. In this regard, it is better than Masterpiece.

Also, Royal Seal is strictly better than Silver, barring cost and name-specific stuff. So is Harem.

I play Bureaucrat.

[silverspawn]

In design terms, treasures don't need to be strong. They only have to be better than silver and they get bought. This is the case with stash, venture, and cache. As much as we'd like to fill our decks with exciting actions we know it doesn't always work.  Counterfeit, talisman, quarry, loan, and ill gotten gains can all in fact be worse than silver.

But Cache usually isn't better than Silver either. In BM games, buying Cache instead of Silver makes it harder to get the $1.6 per card that you need for Provinces (let alone Colonies); and in engines, you usually don't want that many Treasure cards either.
The only kingdom Treasure that's "strictly better"* than Silver is Stash, I think (Venture might not find a Treasure card in the deck).

*ignoring Feodum, of course

This isn't actually true, though. In general, buying Cache in a BM deck will help you buy Provinces and—importantly—Duchies. Cache combos with sifters, which Hinterlands is chock full of. In this regard, it is better than Masterpiece.

Also, Royal Seal is strictly better than Silver, barring cost and name-specific stuff. So is Harem.

I play Bureaucrat.

[popsofctown]

I'm curious about Cache vs. Duke.  I would figure that the player who bought Cache could get countered by the heavy commitment to the Duke stategy, and lose to Provinces/3 Duchies from the flexible opponent with the thinner deck, assuming any 5$ BM card (or, of course even better, engine card) was available.
But I definitely could be wrong (and am outranked etc).

I can more easily accept Cache/Duke beats BM Duke.

[silverspawn]

you definitely want cache over silver in a duke game. you probably want cache over gold in a duke game.

[KingZog3]

I'm curious about Cache vs. Duke.  I would figure that the player who bought Cache could get countered by the heavy commitment to the Duke stategy, and lose to Provinces/3 Duchies from the flexible opponent with the thinner deck, assuming any 5$ BM card (or, of course even better, engine card) was available.
But I definitely could be wrong (and am outranked etc).

I can more easily accept Cache/Duke beats BM Duke.

No, I agree that if there's a possibility of a good engine, you should go for the engine and only go Duke/Duchy in response to what your opponent does. But with no engine, Cache is quite good for Duke games, Gardens BM too.

[enfynet]

+1 Card
+1 Action

Look at the bottom card of your deck. You may put it on top of a tee and hit long.

I had to look this up. With a different shaft installed, this club could work for most golfers with a swing speed under 90mph.
http://www.benrossgolf.com/products/product/pearl-speed-driver

A driver designed to specifically benefit the slower swing of a Lady Golfer.

The PEARL’s Dual Crown maximizes the Lady Golfer’s ability to launch high-flighted, long carrying, accurate drives. A “No Glare” Crown and Black PVD head create a stunning looking driver, which helps frame the ball at address aiding alignment.

A 460cc wide body head and large “Sole Tuning Cartridge” mean the PEARL SPEED is extremely forgiving whilst benefiting from improved acoustics. A high MOI rating increases stability on off centre hits.

With the centre of gravity positioned low and deep, and by combining a new Aldila Ladies PEARL SPEED shaft, specifically designed to maximize the swing characteristics of the Lady Golfer, Benross believe Lady Golfers can expect to hit higher, straighter and further more consistently.

[popsofctown]

you definitely want cache over silver in a duke game. you probably want cache over gold in a duke game.

I was more interested in Cache vs. Margrave BM in a Duke game, as an example. 5$ vs. 5$ not 5$ vs. 3$

[Holger]

In design terms, treasures don't need to be strong. They only have to be better than silver and they get bought. This is the case with stash, venture, and cache. As much as we'd like to fill our decks with exciting actions we know it doesn't always work.  Counterfeit, talisman, quarry, loan, and ill gotten gains can all in fact be worse than silver.

But Cache usually isn't better than Silver either. In BM games, buying Cache instead of Silver makes it harder to get the $1.6 per card that you need for Provinces (let alone Colonies); and in engines, you usually don't want that many Treasure cards either.
The only kingdom Treasure that's "strictly better"* than Silver is Stash, I think (Venture might not find a Treasure card in the deck).

*ignoring Feodum, of course

This isn't actually true, though. In general, buying Cache in a BM deck will help you buy Provinces and—importantly—Duchies. Cache combos with sifters, which Hinterlands is chock full of. In this regard, it is better than Masterpiece.

Yes, but sifters are abundant only in Hinterlands, not in full random games. Why do you think Cache makes it easier to buy Provinces than Silver in BM? It's another $3 spread over another two cards, corresponding to an average $1.5 per card only. Does the increased variance make up for this shortcoming?

Also, Royal Seal is strictly better than Silver, barring cost and name-specific stuff. So is Harem.

Right, I almost expected I had forgotten some; I had only considered those Treasures that DG listed. Still, Royal Seal proves that a $5 card that's strictly better than Silver needn't be any good.

you definitely want cache over silver in a duke game. you probably want cache over gold in a duke game.

Agreed. You also want Cache over Gold whenever you like to get extra Coppers, but that doesn't happen too often either. Most of the time, it's clearly worse than Gold, which isn't such a good design for a $5 card IMO.

[DG]

Yes the simulator shows cache giving an advantage in big money games.

[silverspawn]

I was more interested in Cache vs. Margrave BM in a Duke game, as an example. 5$ vs. 5$ not 5$ vs. 3$

margrave wins here. your opponent isn't getting to 5$ with a 3 card hand all that often, even if it's the best 3 cards out of 6. but if it's another terminal draw, you might want to have cache instead.

[theblankman]

I was more interested in Cache vs. Margrave BM in a Duke game, as an example. 5$ vs. 5$ not 5$ vs. 3$

margrave wins here. your opponent isn't getting to 5$ with a 3 card hand all that often, even if it's the best 3 cards out of 6. but if it's another terminal draw, you might want to have cache instead.

I suspect many of the $5-cost terminal-draw attacks win... Witch, Ghost Ship, Torturer, Cultist, maybe Rabble... which ones am I missing? 

[silverspawn]

I was more interested in Cache vs. Margrave BM in a Duke game, as an example. 5$ vs. 5$ not 5$ vs. 3$

margrave wins here. your opponent isn't getting to 5$ with a 3 card hand all that often, even if it's the best 3 cards out of 6. but if it's another terminal draw, you might want to have cache instead.

I suspect many of the $5-cost terminal-draw attacks win... Witch, Ghost Ship, Torturer, Cultist, maybe Rabble... which ones am I missing?

well if there are no villages, you definitely want at least a ghost ship/torturer/witch before you go into dukes, and if there's cultist you're probably going to play a cultist slog.  but you can still buy a cache after that, especially in case of witch/cultist you're going to need more economy than just a bunch of silvers

[theblankman]

I guess in a Witch or Cultist game, the coppers from the first Cache or two might even bring up your average card value by offsetting worse junk.  But you'll also have an empty Curse or Ruin pile hastening the endgame, so I suspect the window in which Cache > Duchy/Duke is fairly short. 

The handsize attacks combined with Cache and Duke are more interesting (I count Torturer with no villages as a handisze attack because I usually see people discard rather than take the Curse when they know they won't get tortured again).  How many attacks to buy before Cache, and how many Caches before green (if any), are both tough calls. 

Rabble without villages... probably not great, but in an alt-VP game it does have more green to hit.  I think I'd buy it over Cache in a Duke game but I'm not sure that's right. 

[soulnet]

Rabble without villages... probably not great, but in an alt-VP game it does have more green to hit.  I think I'd buy it over Cache in a Duke game but I'm not sure that's right.

I am pretty sure that, in the absence of other actions, even a Smithy is better than Cache (at least the first one, and probably the second one too).

[serakfalcon]

For me, the issue is none of these cards happen in a vacuum. In a slog game (say, margrave and no villages) You're only going to be able to sustain 2 terminals early, and 3-4 terminals late in the game. Of course you pick up margrave or smithy or whatever hand size increaser at first, but cache becomes useful if you couldn't hit 6 and you don't care about the extra copper so much since it's a slog game. I love cache with trader or watchtower, it works well enough with horn of plenty and fairgrounds while still providing buying power, it can be a great buy with gardens.

I feel that a lot of analyses miss two things, first that a card isn't useless even if you can't build a whole strategy around it, but some cards in dominion are just generally helpful: at the right time in the game, a smart buy will make the difference between winning and losing, but because the effects of other cards are stronger the subtle effects get ignored. In the case of cache, if your deck can consistently hit 5 but not 6 and you already have enough terminals in a slog game, you could consider cache. I'd consider it to be about even with silver, except that it increases the variance of your deck, which can be a good thing.

Which brings me to my second point: Averages are nice but you can't spend too much time looking at averages, because in Dominion a single lucky turn can make or break the game. So, while you can't rely on a lucky turn to happen, you can build your deck to increase the chances, or at least make it possible. I think it's a mistake to assume that when someone 'gets lucky' and pulls off an amazing turn, that skill had nothing to do with it- they had to build their deck in such a way to allow that turn to happen, gambling that the game would last long enough for them to get lucky eventually. Cache is a card that can help with that- sure the coppers aren't great, but if you couldn't hit 6 that +$3 may come in handy when you need it. If you didn't buy the card you wouldn't have the opportunity. Granted I rarely buy cache but I don't buy explorer much either, but both cards have won games for me, and I've lost games to cache strategies, I definitely think there is strategic space for it.

on another note, it's not correct to assume that if cache, or any other card was not in dominion, that the replacement for it would have been any better. Both better and worse (and better but more evil (rebuild)) cards have made it into dominion, odds are cache would be replaced by a card with a similar level of strength.