Print

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

[Voltaire]

I'm just curious what you have at stake in this argument. It seems sillier than most that I read about on these forums.

"very, very big" seemed hilarious to me so I've mentioned that a couple times, but that was just me being amused. I don't have a stake in people's subjective assessments.

I only have a stake in them calling my 1-card sifting description wrong when it's entirely correct, with the reasonable assumption that you have at least 1 non-treasure in your hand to do the sifting with.

I mean, sure, "+1 Card" isn't a big difference in the sense that "1" isn't that big a number, but it makes sense that in game terms it can have a huge difference. Like the difference that the "small" bonus of +$1 gives to change Village (3) to Bazaar (5).

[tastor]

Even ignoring the differences with numbers, breaking up the draw into 2 separate segments would be inelegant and take more time. If you draw first you now have a different hand configuration to consider when using Storyteller's effect.

With the way the card works now, everything is streamlined to a single draw and you don't automatically have a 2 step process to decide what to use with the effect (this can be introduced if you have another action card with + actions and card drawing but it is not built into the card by default).

[ghostofmars]

Solitaire speed emptying Supply currently depends on connecting Procession-Procession-Fortress-Watchtower. Improving on existing methods is really just about getting there faster, either with cards that do more on the first two turns or that will help you assemble what you're missing on Turn 3.

Nonsense. Colliding those four cards is the ideal case, but there are many ways to get there, most of which don't include starting with those 4 cards in your deck. It's certainly possible that there is a card in adventures that could replace one of those cards too (as long as it isn't watchtower). Things with other TfB instead of procession are possible too. But yes, it is about speed to get cards that let you gain cards that let you gain cards that gain cards with increasing power. Magpie actually could help with that, except that it doesn't increase in power ever; you just gain more magpies until there are no more magpies and then you are done.

Actually, Storyteller + Royal Seal provides a possible alternative to Watchtower. It is likely to slow for the empty the supply in x turns puzzles, but might be useful for other puzzles.

[eHalcyon]

I'm just curious what you have at stake in this argument. It seems sillier than most that I read about on these forums.

"very, very big" seemed hilarious to me so I've mentioned that a couple times, but that was just me being amused. I don't have a stake in people's subjective assessments.

I only have a stake in them calling my 1-card sifting description wrong when it's entirely correct, with the reasonable assumption that you have at least 1 non-treasure in your hand to do the sifting with.

So you don't think the situation described by Donald counts as a significant difference?

[tailred]

The difference being 1 card's worth of sifting is entirely correct, yet misconstrusive in this context; having the sift be right before the draw has much more of and impact than a 1-card sift in a vacuum.

[jamfamsam]

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.

I think we should defer to DXV if not that he designed the card, but for the reason he stated above.

[jaketheyak]

The difference being 1 card's worth of sifting is entirely correct, yet misconstrusive in this context; having the sift be right before the draw has much more of and impact than a 1-card sift in a vacuum.

Also, it's not just that it's not in a vacuum, it's also the fact that it's an extra one card's worth of sifting every time you play the card.
Hey maybe that doesn't add an extra gold to your hand every time you play Storyteller, but over the course of a game it does it often enough to considerably change the card's power level.

And that's the ultimate point.
Donald does a lot of work getting the power levels of different cards right and I believe him when he says that it makes a big difference.
 

[eHalcyon]

The difference being 1 card's worth of sifting is entirely correct, yet misconstrusive in this context; having the sift be right before the draw has much more of and impact than a 1-card sift in a vacuum.

Right.  The point was not that it's not a 1 card sift, but that +1 card and +$1 here does not "amount to the same effect".  That is what multiple people have been saying, including those who have actually played with this card through various iterations.

[Mic Qsenoch]

Donald does a lot of work getting the power levels of different cards right and I believe him when he says that it makes a big difference.

That's what you think! Roughly 90% of playtesting/development goes to card names.

[pubby]

I don't really understand why everyone is so focused on the sifting aspect; this looks very much like a draw-your-deck style card. Also, trashing can only make this better.

[Arctic Penguin]

Would Storyteller + Masterpiece work as the foundation of a deck? As long as you have a Storyteller in hand, your Silvers become Labs. With a sufficient number of Storytellers in your deck, it's almost like getting a Lab for every coin you overpay when buying Masterpiece. Once you've drawn your deck, you should have roughly half your Silvers remaining for spending money.

Lining up 2 Storytellers with 6 Silvers is enough to draw a 19 card deck on its own, counting the 8 cards you have to spend before your buy phase. If your deck is already mostly Silver with a pinch of Masterpieces, +Buys, extra Storytellers, and other cards, the remaining 11 cards are likely enough to double Province. Lining up 3 Storytellers with 9 Silvers is enough to draw a 26 card deck on its own. If your deck is flooded with Silvers from Masterpiece, and has extra Storytellers, getting close to this doesn't seem too far fetched. As a bonus, your remaining 14 card hand is likely to have a lot of money in it from all those extra Silvers, money you can use to overpay for more Silvers from Masterpiece, buy more Storytellers, buy multiple Provinces, or three pile. Since your deck has so many cards, a few Provinces may not even get in the way all that much, and you can probably continue to double Province for a few turns.

You'll likely need extra Storytellers (i.e. more than you are actually going to use each turn) to maintain a reasonably high density of them and reduce the chance of drawing hands without one. If you have one Storyteller per 5 total cards, then you should have a ~67% chance of getting at least one with your first 5 cards, and with enough Silver in your deck a ~75% of hitting the second one in a row. Alternatively, it may help if there's a way to make sure you always start your hand with a Storyteller (Haven, Scheme, Cellar, Warehouse, Inn, Watchtower, etc).

Synergies:
Scheme guarantees you a storyteller to start your next turn, and with a few schemes storyteller becomes very reliable with even more Silver.
Haven saves those extra Storytellers you didn't use to kick-start your next hand.
Sifters like Cellar and Warehouse also seem great for sifting out your Storytellers from your Silvers to line up multiple Storytellers in a row.
Forager gets you the +Buy, helps trash your coppers and estates away, and even fuels the storyteller draw by quickly being worth $3 (Copper + Masterpiece + Silver).
Golem helps you skip over the silver and hit multiple Storytellers in a row.
Extra non-terminal draw cards, like Stables, can make dead turns even less likely.

[Gherald]

Right.  The point was not that it's not a 1 card sift, but that +1 card and +$1 here does not "amount to the same effect".  That is what multiple people have been saying, including those who have actually played with this card through various iterations.

Most of the time a 1-card sift does net out to the same effect, because you already have other treasures in hand to use and so sifting for 1 additional one does not make that much of a difference in what you can do.  Some of y'all are acting like that additional card is always going to be that bit of additional treasure you were just dying to play with Storyteller, and that's just not the case.  The sift doesn't always give you something you need or want -- in fact, I would wager that it does so less than 20% of the time.  Is it nice when it does? Sure, it's also nice when Pearl Diver gives you something nicer up front.  Most of the time it doesn't make a difference though and amounts to the same effect as if you didn't play that Pearl Diver.

[Mic Qsenoch]

I don't understand why this is such a great engine card.

Who said it was?

Mic did:

Storyteller isn't obsoleted by strong trashing, though strong trashing might enable a less finicky draw engine. But Storyteller improves with any sort of trashing, so that you have high value treasures in hand with it.

Depending on the board of course, strong trashing can allow you to build insane engines with Storyteller. Big, big stuff.

I don't read that as Mic saying it's "a great engine card". He's saying that, under the right circumstances, with a bunch of qualifiers, you can, potentially, build big, insane engines using this. Which will sometimes come up. You could say the same about lots of cards, though maybe not quite in the same way. In short, this has good upside, a high ceiling.

WW is closer to what I meant (in that sentence) than liopoil, but I can maybe explain a little more what I think of the card.

Storyteller is definitely an engine card. It's cycling/draw. People seem worried about losing their money, but remember that often the thing you want to do during your turn is play some key cards: a Butcher or a Goons or something. And don't worry, your deck will still have more money in it, you'll still be able to buy something nice as well. Trading $ for cards is a sweet deal in most engines.

I have opened Storyteller/Page|Peasant to go a travellin' faster. Similarly, have gotten early Storytellers to cycle around to opening trashers. It starts as an expensive pseudo-Cellar, but improves as the quality of your deck goes up.

1-2 copies of Storyteller can be used as a supplement in an already functioning draw engine to improve both power and sometimes consistency.

Remember those Silvers you had to open with? Now we can put them to good use after we've already bought some of the expensive cards we needed.

If you only ever play Coppers with Storyteller, it probably wasn't the right choice for your deck. Which is why it works well with trashing and also Gold gainers (or say Haggler on a Colony board!).

And what Stef described for the overdrawing deck is the kind of crazy stuff I meant in my original post.

[eHalcyon]

Right.  The point was not that it's not a 1 card sift, but that +1 card and +$1 here does not "amount to the same effect".  That is what multiple people have been saying, including those who have actually played with this card through various iterations.

Most of the time a 1-card sift does net out to the same effect, because you already have other treasures in hand to use and so sifting for 1 additional one does not make that much of a difference in what you can do.  Some of y'all are acting like that additional card is always going to be that bit of additional treasure you were just dying to play with Storyteller, and that's just not the case.  The sift doesn't always give you something you need or want -- in fact, I would wager that it does so less than 20% of the time.  Is it nice when it does? Sure, it's also nice when Pearl Diver gives you something nicer up front.  Most of the time it doesn't make a difference though and amounts to the same effect as if you didn't play that Pearl Diver.

Not always, but not an insignificant amount of the time.  The potential benefit is much higher than what you could do with Pearl Diver.  And "some of y'all" includes multiple people who have been playtesting this card in multiple forms and already know the difference that it makes.

[LastFootnote]

Donald does a lot of work getting the power levels of different cards right and I believe him when he says that it makes a big difference.

That's what you think! Roughly 90% of playtesting/development goes to card names.

Indeed! Storyteller itself went through at least 12 names before Donald settled on this one.

[Jimmmmm]

Donald does a lot of work getting the power levels of different cards right and I believe him when he says that it makes a big difference.

That's what you think! Roughly 90% of playtesting/development goes to card names.

Indeed! Storyteller itself went through at least 12 names before Donald settled on this one.

Cool story. Needs more dragons.

[Gherald]

The difference being 1 card's worth of sifting is entirely correct, yet misconstrusive in this context; having the sift be right before the draw has much more of and impact than a 1-card sift in a vacuum.

This is wrong, if you already have enough to treasures to feed to Storyteller (or don't necessarily want more to feed to it), then that sifting might be more useful to you /after/ the draw, because then you would be sifting among more things.  We have no way of knowing whether your particular deck's shuffle luck leads to the sifting being more useful before or later, so it's fine to abstractly look at it as a +1 sifter effect in general, albeit one with the benefit of being built into one already nice card.

+1 card's worth of in-situ deck sifting doesn't give you a net increase in anything, not even a net increase in cycling; it is the equivalent of having slightly better shuffle luck ala Pearl Diver.  Which is nice, but not as amazing as some people continue to make it out to be

Not always, but not an insignificant amount of the time.

Maybe that's interesting to whichever person thinks it's "an insignificant amount of the time".  Which by the way isn't me -- I've only noted that most of the time it won't make a difference, and ventured a quick guess at less than 20% of the time.

The potential benefit is much higher than what you could do with Pearl Diver

Let's say you're about to draw 1 card with a cantrip and then play Storyteller; it'll be normal to want to play the cantrip first. Let's further assume that this next card won't be a treasure.  If you first play a Pearl Diver to move a treasure from the bottom of your deck to the top to draw with the cantrip, and then play Storyteller, you've achieved the same level of in-situ deck shifting as the Storyteller-shifter variant would offer you in a situation where that treasure was already on top of your deck but you didn't have a way to get it into your Storyteller hand.

So I don't see how the potential difference is much higher than what a Pearl Diver does.  The difference is where that treasure you wanted happens to be relative to the rest of your deck and hand, which is all more a matter of shuffle luck than anything.

It's nice when you get a +1 sift effect falling within the chain of whatever you're doing to improve your shuffle luck. There is potential benefit to be had! But it's situational to the shuffle you got, and in most cases won't make a difference.

[Beyond Awesome]

I wonder if Storyteller and Poor House can be a thing. Anyway, this is a fun card. Seems to be at the right power level.

Now, Magpie on the other hand seems OP. We seem to have a lot of powerful $4 lab cards with Ironmonger, Herlad and now this. And, to think there was once a time when Caravan was considered super good.

[tailred]

I wonder if Storyteller and Poor House can be a thing. Anyway, this is a fun card. Seems to be at the right power level.

Now, Magpie on the other hand seems OP. We seem to have a lot of powerful $4 lab cards with Ironmonger, Herlad and now this. And, to think there was once a time when Caravan was considered super good.

This is a 5-cost, though.

[werothegreat]

I wonder if Storyteller and Poor House can be a thing. Anyway, this is a fun card. Seems to be at the right power level.

Now, Magpie on the other hand seems OP. We seem to have a lot of powerful $4 lab cards with Ironmonger, Herlad and now this. And, to think there was once a time when Caravan was considered super good.

I think ST/PH will be quite awesome if you can get a village involved.  Maybe a Treasure village? 

[Beyond Awesome]

I wonder if Storyteller and Poor House can be a thing. Anyway, this is a fun card. Seems to be at the right power level.

Now, Magpie on the other hand seems OP. We seem to have a lot of powerful $4 lab cards with Ironmonger, Herlad and now this. And, to think there was once a time when Caravan was considered super good.

This is a 5-cost, though.

I know. I was also talking about Magpie which is a 4-cost

[Arctic Penguin]

You are rich with life experiences, but have had trouble trading them for goods and services.

I suppose this line in the Flavor Text refers to Storyteller. She's sharing all her life experiences but never making any money to spend on goods and services. 

She does know how to draw a crowd though.

[werothegreat]

You are rich with life experiences, but have had trouble trading them for goods and services.

I suppose this line in the Flavor Text refers to Storyteller. She's sharing all her life experiences but never making any money to spend on goods and services. 

She does know how to draw a crowd though.

Nah, you're paying her to draw some cards *ahem* I mean, tell a tale for you.

[A Drowned Kernel]

Donald does a lot of work getting the power levels of different cards right and I believe him when he says that it makes a big difference.

That's what you think! Roughly 90% of playtesting/development goes to card names.

Indeed! Storyteller itself went through at least 12 names before Donald settled on this one.

Cool story. Needs more dragons.

Once upon a time, some playtesters were trying to decide on the name of a card. It was an awesome card, and deserved an awesome name.

"We shall call it Fafnir!"

"No, it should be Smaug!"

"I think it should be Puff."

"You're all idiots. Clearly it should be called Viserion."

"No one's going to suggest Ladon?"

"The coolest name is obviously Trogdor!"

"I'm a fan of Volvagia."

"I choose you, Dragonite!"

"Why don't we go with Mushu?"

"My vote is for Seiryu!"

"How about Albi?"

"Why not Spyro?""

The playtesters began to fight and squabble among themselves, until a voice of clarity and wisdom rose above the din.

"It is clear that all dragons are awesome, and that we therefore cannot single out one dragon to be honored by this awesome card. Therefore, we will name the card 'storyteller', and it will depict the essence of all dragons, in puppet form, and thus all dragons will be honored equally."

And the playtesters cried out in joy, for the awesome card had been given an awesome name.

[eHalcyon]

Not always, but not an insignificant amount of the time.

Maybe that's interesting to whichever person thinks it's "an insignificant amount of the time".  Which by the way isn't me -- I've only noted that most of the time it won't make a difference, and ventured a quick guess at less than 20% of the time.

I was pointing out that nobody is saying that the "additional card is always going to be that bit of additional treasure you were just dying to play with Storyteller", as you stated.  In fact, I specifically said that it's not always going to happen:

Sure, the card isn't going to draw you more if you already had 3 copies of the highest treasure in hand.  It also isn't going to draw you more if that +1 card doesn't draw you another treasure.  The point is that it could draw you more, potentially a lot more.  And it's never going to draw you less.

Also, 20% is a pretty big deal in the long run.

The potential benefit is much higher than what you could do with Pearl Diver

Let's say you're about to draw 1 card with a cantrip and then play Storyteller; it'll be normal to want to play the cantrip first. Let's further assume that this next card won't be a treasure.  If you first play a Pearl Diver to move a treasure from the bottom of your deck to the top to draw with the cantrip, and then play Storyteller, you've achieved the same level of in-situ deck shifting as the Storyteller-shifter variant would offer you in a situation where that treasure was already on top of your deck but you didn't have a way to get it into your Storyteller hand.

So I don't see how the potential difference is much higher than what a Pearl Diver does.  The difference is where that treasure you wanted happens to be relative to the rest of your deck and hand, which is all more a matter of shuffle luck than anything.

It's nice when you get a +1 sift effect falling within the chain of whatever you're doing to improve your shuffle luck. There is potential benefit to be had! But it's situational to the shuffle you got, and in most cases won't make a difference.

The difference is that all the benefit you are describing for Pearl Diver is not coming from Pearl Diver itself, but rather two other cards aside from Pearl Diver.  You are repeating that mistake that Witherweaver already pointed out.


Maybe you're using the word "sift" differently than how the rest of us use it.  When I think of sifting, I am thinking about cards that let you cycle through junk.  Some examples include Cartographer, Warehouse, Cellar, Catacombs, Oracle. 

With this in mind, Storyteller certainly isn't a traditional sifter.  The way I see it, its sifting comes from when it plays a treasure card.  A Copper is converted into a new card.  In a sense, you have just sifted that Copper for a (hopefully) better card.  If you play something bigger, you get more cards.  Hopefully the 5 cards you draw is better for you than that Platinum would have been

So let's consider a case where it makes no difference -- when the top card of the deck is, say, an Estate.

Storyteller gives you +$1.  You play 0-3 treasures, then you draw.  The +$1 from Storyteller translates directly into +1 Card, which draws that Estate.

The Storyteller variant gives you +1 Card immediately.  We draw that Estate, just like the regular Storyteller.  You play 0-3 treasures, then you draw.  The effect is essentially the same.  Where is the 1 card difference of sifting?

I don't think there is a difference in sifting unless you actually find a treasure that you want to play with Storyteller.  Let's consider a case where it makes a small difference -- when you have no treasures in hand and the top card of the deck is a Copper.

Storyteller gives you +$1.  You then draw a Copper.  That is all.

The Storyteller variant draws you a Copper.  You play that Copper, you draw again.  You just sifted and cycled to 1 more card that you otherwise would not have drawn.  The difference is even bigger when you find cards that are better than Copper.

You've been saying that the variant gives you a 1-card sifting difference and that it usually doesn't make a difference.  Well, I'm saying here that either the two cards have 0 difference in sifting OR it actually does make a difference.

I've tried to be as clear as possible here about what I consider "sifting".  Maybe if you give us your definition and explain how it applies to Storyteller, it will help us understand what you mean.