Print

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

[silverspawn]

I don't think I would bother with cultist in a mount/cultist kingdom. Just double mount (maybe triple) and BM.

[Asper]

I don't think I would bother with cultist in a mount/cultist kingdom. Just double mount (maybe triple) and BM.

Not that i particularly care whether Superman or Batman Mountebank or Cultist is better, but that's like saying Counting House was better than Mountebank because it defends against it when both are in the same kingdom.

Edit: I see Awaclus does the same thing. Oh my.

[Awaclus]

I don't think I would bother with cultist in a mount/cultist kingdom. Just double mount (maybe triple) and BM.

Not that i particularly care whether Superman or Batman Mountebank or Cultist is better, but that's like saying Counting House was better than Mountebank because it defends against it when both are in the same kingdom.

Edit: I see Awaclus does the same thing. Oh my.

They don't really counter each other in any way. You go for Cultist not because Cultist works particularly well against Mountebank, you go for Cultist because it's stronger than Mountebank.

[Asper]

I don't think I would bother with cultist in a mount/cultist kingdom. Just double mount (maybe triple) and BM.

Not that i particularly care whether Superman or Batman Mountebank or Cultist is better, but that's like saying Counting House was better than Mountebank because it defends against it when both are in the same kingdom.

Edit: I see Awaclus does the same thing. Oh my.

They don't really counter each other in any way. You go for Cultist not because Cultist works particularly well against Mountebank, you go for Cultist because it's stronger than Mountebank.

Mountebank's junk makes Cultists harder to line up, which most definitely counters the card. With a lot of Junk in your deck, Cultist is just a Witch without the VP advantage.

[Awaclus]

I don't think I would bother with cultist in a mount/cultist kingdom. Just double mount (maybe triple) and BM.

Not that i particularly care whether Superman or Batman Mountebank or Cultist is better, but that's like saying Counting House was better than Mountebank because it defends against it when both are in the same kingdom.

Edit: I see Awaclus does the same thing. Oh my.

They don't really counter each other in any way. You go for Cultist not because Cultist works particularly well against Mountebank, you go for Cultist because it's stronger than Mountebank.

Mountebank's junk makes Cultists harder to line up, which most definitely counters the card. With a lot of Junk in your deck, Cultist is just a Witch without the VP advantage.

If only you could play enough Mountebanks to make a difference before you already have all of the Ruins, and before the Cultist player also buys a Mountebank and empties the rest of the Curse pile in your deck as well.

[popsofctown]

I don't think I would bother with cultist in a mount/cultist kingdom. Just double mount (maybe triple) and BM.

Not that i particularly care whether Superman or Batman Mountebank or Cultist is better, but that's like saying Counting House was better than Mountebank because it defends against it when both are in the same kingdom.

Edit: I see Awaclus does the same thing. Oh my.

They don't really counter each other in any way. You go for Cultist not because Cultist works particularly well against Mountebank, you go for Cultist because it's stronger than Mountebank.

Mountebank's junk makes Cultists harder to line up, which most definitely counters the card. With a lot of Junk in your deck, Cultist is just a Witch without the VP advantage.

If only you could play enough Mountebanks to make a difference before you already have all of the Ruins, and before the Cultist player also buys a Mountebank and empties the rest of the Curse pile in your deck as well.

Someone plug this into a simulator.
I definitely am team Mountebank, you're junking twice as many cards per play.  Cultist would need +5 cards to keep up with that.

[soulnet]

Someone plug this into a simulator.
I definitely am team Mountebank, you're junking twice as many cards per play.  Cultist would need +5 cards to keep up with that.

I already tried, but neither Dominiate nor Geronimoo's have Cultist implemented.

[liopoil]

I'd definitely go for cultist most of the time in a kingdom with mountebank and cultist in it. I always feel like mountebank is overrated, in general. Mountebank can only junk two cards in a turn and can be blocked. Cultist will empty the ruins pile ridiculously fast. Plus, draw > money. That's why mountebank also gives copper to make it balanced with witch.

(okay, mountebank is better than witch, but not by much)

[silverspawn]

I'd definitely go for cultist most of the time in a kingdom with mountebank and cultist in it. I always feel like mountebank is overrated, in general. Mountebank can only junk two cards in a turn and can be blocked. Cultist will empty the ruins pile ridiculously fast. Plus, draw > money. That's why mountebank also gives copper to make it balanced with witch.

(okay, mountebank is better than witch, but not by much)

money > draw

mountebank vanilla bonus > witch bonus
mountebank attack > witch attack
mount >>> witch

[liopoil]

money > draw

You're planning on having a money density of less than 1 coin per card? And also aren't interested in the power of the slog engine on some kingdoms? Also, cycling so that you see your witch(es) more often just about offsets the increased chance of terminal collision for me.

[silverspawn]

money > draw

You're planning on having a money density of less than 1 coin per card?

in a witch/mount slog? yes. I think you'll be happy with 5$/hand for the majority of the game. and +2$ also makes picking up a second mount more likely.

[Awaclus]

The funny thing is, +2 cards is better for the Cultist player because his deck will be better, +2 coins is better for the Mountebank player because his deck will be worse.

[popsofctown]

money > draw

You're planning on having a money density of less than 1 coin per card? And also aren't interested in the power of the slog engine on some kingdoms? Also, cycling so that you see your witch(es) more often just about offsets the increased chance of terminal collision for me.

Doesn't this hypathetical game end on duchy piles? 5$ a hand is outstanding..

[Awaclus]

Actually now I think buying exactly one Mountebank first improves the Cultist strategy, as long as there are villages (other than Ruined ones). But you certainly can't ignore Cultist.

[silverspawn]

Cultist is like an annoying fly. Mountebank is like a mighty hammer.

[Awaclus]

Cultist is like an annoying fly. Mountebank is like a mighty hammer.

A big enough swarm of annoying flies hurts a kingdom a lot more than one mighty hammer.

[silverspawn]

Cultist is like an annoying fly. Mountebank is like a mighty hammer.

A big enough swarm of annoying flies hurts a kingdom a lot more than one mighty hammer.

Thor disagrees.

[Awaclus]

Cultist is like an annoying fly. Mountebank is like a mighty hammer.

A big enough swarm of annoying flies hurts a kingdom a lot more than one mighty hammer.

Thor disagrees.

You're not Thor. You are a pony.

[Asper]

Fight!

[JacquesTheBard]

As a pony, you ought to remember how dangerous the little insects can be. You can't stop Parasprites with a big hammer.

[GendoIkari]

Dunno if this was mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but in your text file that rewords existing cards with "dig", you mentioned Scheme when you meant Sage.

[silverspawn]

Dunno if this was mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but in your text file that rewords existing cards with "dig", you mentioned Scheme when you meant Sage.

these are so similar! thanks though.

[GendoIkari]

inquisition sounds way worse than mountebank to me.

it is, and so are 204 of the official cards.

But those 204 official cards aren't almost exactly like Mountebank while costing the same and weaker. Though of course there's edge cases, this comes darn close to "strictly worse" than Mountebank.

[silverspawn]

inquisition sounds way worse than mountebank to me.

it is, and so are 204 of the official cards.

But those 204 official cards aren't almost exactly like Mountebank while costing the same and weaker. Though of course there's edge cases, this comes darn close to "strictly worse" than Mountebank.

I think I already addressed this. Mount's attack is conditional; if you don't care about coppers, inquisition is better. You can call that edge cases, but buying Inquisition over Mount is really not much more of an edge case than buying stuff like Jester over mount, or Soothsayer, even if the effects of those are less similar.