Print

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

[Donald X.]

I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!

They are not the same at all.

Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.

Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.

When N is bigger than 1, N squared is bigger than N. Consider the case where a typical card in your deck is a treasure worth $100.

[werothegreat]

I hope it's elaborated upon. Intuitively "spend" would have been clearer than "pay" in my mind, but I'm guessing there's a reason it's "pay" we just don't know it yet.

"Pay" lines up with "overpay" from Guilds.

[Geronimoo]

Wow, this is one expensive Warehouse...

[Arctic Penguin]

Does Storyteller + Philosopher's Stone work or is it too hard to line them up early enough in your turn? Normally, Philosopher's Stone gets you a decent amount of money but you can't do much with it because you can't draw your deck without making the Stones useless when you enter the buy phase. With Storyteller, you can play those Stones early when they are still worth something, and use that extra money to draw your deck.

If you have a sifter like Cellar or Warehouse, you can line up your Stones with Storyteller hopefully before you play or draw too many cards. If you have a Vault, Secret Chamber or Storeroom, and enough villages, then you can use them with Storyteller to line up Storytellers and Stones while still leaving plenty of cards in your deck and discard pile to power up the Stones. Then, once you've drawn most of your deck with Storyteller/Stone, you can use Vault/Secret Chamber/Storeroom to discard all the junk you drew for some economy as you enter the buy phase.

If you can line up a hand with Storyteller + 3 Philosopher's Stones, then you can draw 3/5 of your remaining cards without really wasting any money (the Stones will be useless once you've drawn your deck anyway). Even if you only get one Stone with the Storyteller the first time around, you can still draw more than 1/5 of your deck, which may be enough to line up a second Storyteller with some remaining Stones or else get you some other drawing cards. In a game with lots of junking and/or large decks (perhaps Vineyards, since you've already got a Potion lying around), maybe that could make some nice engine-like turns from what might otherwise be a slog?

[Gherald]

I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!

They are not the same at all.

Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.

Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.

When N is bigger than 1, N squared is bigger than N. Consider the case where a typical card in your deck is a treasure worth $100.

I don't know what your math is about, but it's still a 1-card sifting difference, treating the next card as if it were already available to use with Storyteller's effect (should the player wish to use the treasure that way). A plus, but most of the time it won't make any difference.

[werothegreat]

I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!

They are not the same at all.

Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.

Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.

When N is bigger than 1, N squared is bigger than N. Consider the case where a typical card in your deck is a treasure worth $100.

I don't know what your math is about, but it's still a 1-card sifting difference, treating the next card as if it were already available to use with Storyteller's effect (should the player wish to use the treasure that way). A plus, but most of the time it won't make any difference.

You don't find it neat to have a card that gives a coin you can never use?

[jonts26]

Wow, this is one expensive Warehouse...

Is warehouse worse because storyteller exists?

[eHalcyon]

I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!

They are not the same at all.

Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.

Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.

When N is bigger than 1, N squared is bigger than N. Consider the case where a typical card in your deck is a treasure worth $100.

I don't know what your math is about, but it's still a 1-card sifting difference, treating the next card as if it were already available to use with Storyteller's effect (should the player wish to use the treasure that way). A plus, but most of the time it won't make any difference.

It could be a much bigger difference than 1 card because you would be able to draw a treasure that you feed to Storyteller.  It would also give you more information before the decision of what treasures to give Storyteller (if any), thus making the card more powerful.  The difference is not trivial.

[Gherald]

It is precisely a 1-card sifting difference. Whether this is "trivial" or not is something I'll let you and other people discuss.

It's a plus, and it's a plus that most of the time won't make a difference.

[Awaclus]

Wow, this is one expensive Warehouse...

But it's better than Cellar.

[Witherweaver]

I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!

They are not the same at all.

Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.

Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.

When N is bigger than 1, N squared is bigger than N. Consider the case where a typical card in your deck is a treasure worth $100.

I don't know what your math is about, but it's still a 1-card sifting difference, treating the next card as if it were already available to use with Storyteller's effect (should the player wish to use the treasure that way). A plus, but most of the time it won't make any difference.

You don't find it neat to have a card that gives a coin you can never use?

You do use it.  Immediately and without discretion. 

[eHalcyon]

It is precisely a 1-card sifting difference. Whether this is "trivial" or not is something I'll let you and other people discuss.

It's a plus, and it's a plus that most of the time won't make a difference.

Where do you even get "1 card difference" from?  Whether it's +1 Card or +$1, Storyteller draws you one more card.  The difference is that the earlier +1 Card would let you draw a treasure and feed it to Storyteller whereas the +$1 would not.  Thus, the sifting difference depends on that treasure you may draw and play to Storyteller.  If you draw a Copper, sure, it gives you an extra card.  But if you draw a better treasure, the difference is much bigger.

Edit: Maybe you mean, it's 1 card sifting difference because you potentially play out 1 extra treasure and no more.  I guess you aren't considering the extra draw that comes out of that treasure play?  I suppose you may ignore that for discussion of "sifting", but the extra draw is an important consideration and it makes the +1 card vs. +$1 very, very different.

[liopoil]

This card too, has interesting interactions with watchtower. Unfortunatly it does not decrease handsize, but it does replace those coppers in you hand with something that hopefully can decreasure handsize for your watchtower. However the best combo involves three cards; storyteller, watchtower, and horn of plenty. When you play the horn of plenty with soothsayer, you actually do decrease handsize, and you get to topdeck the gained card with watchtower. Then you can play the watchtower and draw the gained card and more, and continue your turn.

I'll see you tomorrow for another explanations of how each and every card in Adventures combos with watchtower.

[Gherald]

It is precisely a 1-card sifting difference. Whether this is "trivial" or not is something I'll let you and other people discuss.

It's a plus, and it's a plus that most of the time won't make a difference.

Where do you even get "1 card difference" from?  Whether it's +1 Card or +$1, Storyteller draws you one more card.  The difference is that the earlier +1 Card would let you draw a treasure and feed it to Storyteller whereas the +$1 would not.  Thus, the sifting difference depends on that treasure you may draw and play to Storyteller.  If you draw a Copper, sure, it gives you an extra card.  But if you draw a better treasure, the difference is much bigger.

Edit: Maybe you mean, it's 1 card sifting difference because you potentially play out 1 extra treasure and no more.  I guess you aren't considering the extra draw that comes out of that treasure play?  I suppose you may ignore that for discussion of "sifting", but the extra draw is an important consideration and it makes the +1 card vs. +$1 very, very different.

Changing the +1$ of Storyteller to +1 Card gives you the opportunity to consider that 1 card as part of your hand before resolving the rest of Storyteller, rather than after.  That is effectively a 1-card sift, and all we need to say on the matter as far as describing the immediate functional difference.

Most of the time, you've already got some treasures in your hand and don't need the additional options of that +1 card sift.  So most of the time it doesn't make a difference.

Since most of the time it won't make a difference, I disagree that it is "very, very different."

It would be a small plus, that is all.

[Donald X.]

It is precisely a 1-card sifting difference. Whether this is "trivial" or not is something I'll let you and other people discuss.

It's a plus, and it's a plus that most of the time won't make a difference.

Where do you even get "1 card difference" from?  Whether it's +1 Card or +$1, Storyteller draws you one more card.  The difference is that the earlier +1 Card would let you draw a treasure and feed it to Storyteller whereas the +$1 would not.  Thus, the sifting difference depends on that treasure you may draw and play to Storyteller.  If you draw a Copper, sure, it gives you an extra card.  But if you draw a better treasure, the difference is much bigger.

Edit: Maybe you mean, it's 1 card sifting difference because you potentially play out 1 extra treasure and no more.  I guess you aren't considering the extra draw that comes out of that treasure play?  I suppose you may ignore that for discussion of "sifting", but the extra draw is an important consideration and it makes the +1 card vs. +$1 very, very different.

Changing the +1$ of Storyteller to +1 Card gives you the opportunity to consider that 1 card as part of your hand before resolving the rest of Storyteller, rather than after.  That is effectively a 1-card sift, and all we need to say on the matter as far as describing the immediate functional difference.

Most of the time, you've already got some treasures in your hand and don't need the additional options of that +1 card sift.  So most of the time it doesn't make a difference.

Since most of the time it won't make a difference, I disagree that it is "very, very different."

It would be a small plus, that is all.

Speaking as someone who has played with both cards, I disagree.

[Asper]

I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!

They are not the same at all.

Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.

Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.

When N is bigger than 1, N squared is bigger than N. Consider the case where a typical card in your deck is a treasure worth $100.

I don't know what your math is about, but it's still a 1-card sifting difference, treating the next card as if it were already available to use with Storyteller's effect (should the player wish to use the treasure that way). A plus, but most of the time it won't make any difference.

You don't find it neat to have a card that gives a coin you can never use?

"Wow, +1 $? Cool, just what i need! What, why am i broke now?"
I guess that's why she's a storyteller. I really don't like it.

And hey, now we "pay" coins. We didn't need that before, but i guess if you allready play Treasures in your action phase (instead of, dunno, setting them aside, or making it a $4 dependant on virtual money) and have a cantrip disguise itself as a Copper, why stop?

I know you all love crazy. Dark Ages was the craziest expansion until now, and you guys love it. I'm just actually worried whether the (admittedly) few of us that actually prefer simple will have much to look forward to

And yes, i realize i'm pretty much alone on this.

Edit: I see why you would decide to not add the additional sifting. But i really feel it's counterintuitive.

[Gherald]

Speaking as someone who has played with both cards, I disagree.

Well it might be more of a plus than I imagine, but I cannot see it being "very, very different".

For a direct analog, imagine if Stables also gave you the option to look at the top card of your deck and if it is a treasure, discard it for +2 cards.  Stables would be a little bit better with that additional 1-card sift, but the difference would be small.

(Stables benefits a little more because it could be a dead card without that sift, whereas Storyteller is never dead)

[werothegreat]

I'm curious why it gives +1 action and +$1 instead of just saying +1 action +1 card, as these will amount to the same thing. Is there some interaction here that I'm missing? Overall a really cool card though!

They are not the same at all.

Having +1 Card instead of +$1 would make it *more* powerful, because you could draw your third Treasure to play, if you only had 2 in hand to begin with.

Sure, but it is a 1-card sifting difference. Most of the time +1 card or +1$ amounts to the same effect here.

When N is bigger than 1, N squared is bigger than N. Consider the case where a typical card in your deck is a treasure worth $100.

I don't know what your math is about, but it's still a 1-card sifting difference, treating the next card as if it were already available to use with Storyteller's effect (should the player wish to use the treasure that way). A plus, but most of the time it won't make any difference.

You don't find it neat to have a card that gives a coin you can never use?

"Wow, +1 $? Cool, just what i need! What, why am i broke now?"
I guess that's why she's a storyteller. I really don't like it.

And hey, now we "pay" coins. We didn't need that before, but i guess if you allready play Treasures in your action phase (instead of, dunno, setting them aside, or making it a $4 dependant on virtual money) and have a cantrip disguise itself as a Copper, why stop?

I know you all love crazy. Dark Ages was the craziest expansion until now, and you guys love it. I'm just actually worried whether the (admittedly) few of us that actually prefer simple will have much to look forward to

And yes, i realize i'm pretty much alone on this.

Don't worry, there are some cards in the set I think will be to your liking.    Can't really specify, though, sorry.

[SCSN]

Most of the time, you've already got some treasures in your hand and don't need the additional options of that +1 card sift.  So most of the time it doesn't make a difference.

Since most of the time it won't make a difference, I disagree that it is "very, very different."

Consider Russian roulette with a single bullet inserted into a 6-chamber revolver, and the same game but now with no bullet at all. Most of the rounds of both games play out exactly the same regardless of whether there is a bullet in the revolver or not.

Since most of the time it won't make a difference, the version with the bullet is not "very, very different" at all.

[jonts26]

And there are some which he reaaaaly won't like. But I get where hes coming from. At some point dominon cards will cross some sort of complexity line. And the more sets we get the more people will feel like that due to the inevitable complexity creep.

For me personally, I really like the new set but I have a pretty high tolerance for wackiness

[LastFootnote]

Edit: I see why you would decide to not add the additional sifting. But i really feel it's counterintuitive.

I like that it's a small reminder that all your Coins get converted into +Cards, not just the ones from the Treasures you played.

[Gherald]

Most of the time, you've already got some treasures in your hand and don't need the additional options of that +1 card sift.  So most of the time it doesn't make a difference.

Since most of the time it won't make a difference, I disagree that it is "very, very different."

Consider Russian roulette with a single bullet inserted into a 6-chamber revolver, and the same game but now with no bullet at all. Most of the rounds of both games play out exactly the same regardless of whether there is a bullet in the revolver or not.

Since most of the time it won't make a difference, the version with the bullet is not "very, very different" at all.

Funny, but no.  The analog would be playing Russian roulette with either a 6-chamber revolver or a 7-chamber revolver.  The same number of loaded bullets exists in either case.

[Asper]

Edit: I see why you would decide to not add the additional sifting. But i really feel it's counterintuitive.

I like that it's a small reminder that all your Coins get converted into +Cards, not just the ones from the Treasures you played.

It might be a reminder, but it's also misleading. Which weights more?

Also, for those arguing the $1 was needed to avoid sifting, you could have the card draw after playing Treasures, similar to how Oracle does it.

[werothegreat]

Most of the time, you've already got some treasures in your hand and don't need the additional options of that +1 card sift.  So most of the time it doesn't make a difference.

Since most of the time it won't make a difference, I disagree that it is "very, very different."

Consider Russian roulette with a single bullet inserted into a 6-chamber revolver, and the same game but now with no bullet at all. Most of the rounds of both games play out exactly the same regardless of whether there is a bullet in the revolver or not.

Since most of the time it won't make a difference, the version with the bullet is not "very, very different" at all.

Funny, but no.  The analog would be playing Russian roulette with either a 6-chamber revolver or a 7-chamber revolver.  The same number of loaded bullets exists in either case.

Actually, the correct analog would be a revolver with chambers equal to the size of your deck, bullets equal to the number of Treasures in it; you put the bullets in randomly, and only spin it once.  With the official Storyteller, you fire the gun four times; with your suggestion, you fire five times.  This assumes firing just moves to the next chamber, and doesn't spin everything around again.

Also, for those arguing the $1 was needed to avoid sifting, you could have the card draw after playing Treasures, similar to how Oracle does it.

That would look weird.  I mean, weirder than Storyteller already does.

+ Bonus

TEXT TEXT TEXT
TEXT TEXT TEXT
TEXT TEXT TEXT

+Bonus

[eHalcyon]

Speaking as someone who has played with both cards, I disagree.

Well it might be more of a plus than I imagine, but I cannot see it being "very, very different".

For a direct analog, imagine if Stables also gave you the option to look at the top card of your deck and if it is a treasure, discard it for +2 cards.  Stables would be a little bit better with that additional 1-card sift, but the difference would be small.

(Stables benefits a little more because it could be a dead card without that sift, whereas Storyteller is never dead)

That is not a good analogy.  For Stables vs. your variant, you ultimately draw 3 cards in total either way.  With Storyteller, the +1 Card version can draw more than the +$1 version.