Print

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

[eHalcyon]

Get off your high horse, I do understand you perfectly clear. I just disagree with you that you a) HAVE to use tokens or an abacus with Impeial Household (some people can do complex throning in their heads) and that b) using devices that help you tracking throning implies a bad design (as I already do that with TR and KC)

Your (a) and (b) are oversimplifications that miss the point.  Here's what I'm actually saying:

a) You are more likely to need external tracking aid for IH than KC, just as you are more likely to need it for KC than TR.

b) Requiring external tracking is something that real players have complained about with KC.  IH is worse.

About thow difficult Imperial Household is to track, of course it is slightly more complex than double Throne Room. Double Throne Room occurs often enough in the game so this doesn't constitute "too complex".

I'm stopping at 5.  Also note that it's easier to kick off an IH chain because you can an initial play on a draw card to find the next IH.  For TR, you need to connect three cards.

And despite your claims, your argument is not objective just because you use some (highly dubious) maths.

If you believe the math is highly dubious, please do provide some math of your own to counter.

[GendoIkari]

Get off your high horse, I do understand you perfectly clear. I just disagree with you that you a) HAVE to use tokens or an abacus with Impeial Household (some people can do complex throning in their heads) and that b) using devices that help you tracking throning implies a bad design (as I already do that with TR and KC)

Your (a) and (b) are oversimplifications that miss the point.  Here's what I'm actually saying:

a) You are more likely to need external tracking aid for IH than KC, just as you are more likely to need it for KC than TR.

b) Requiring external tracking is something that real players have complained about with KC.  IH is worse.

About thow difficult Imperial Household is to track, of course it is slightly more complex than double Throne Room. Double Throne Room occurs often enough in the game so this doesn't constitute "too complex".

I'm stopping at 5.  Also note that it's easier to kick off an IH chain because you can an initial play on a draw card to find the next IH.  For TR, you need to connect three cards.

And despite your claims, your argument is not objective just because you use some (highly dubious) maths.

If you believe the math is highly dubious, please do provide some math of your own to counter.

To be fair, this diagram seems to be more of a comparison of TR to IH, not of double-TR to IH. Because you have a total of 5 TR and 5 IH. To compare IH to double-TR, you would need to compare 1 IH to 2 TR.

[eHalcyon]

To be fair, this diagram seems to be more of a comparison of TR to IH, not of double-TR to IH. Because you have a total of 5 TR and 5 IH. To compare IH to double-TR, you would need to compare 1 IH to 2 TR.

That's not a fair comparison though, because 2 TR is two cards.  The point is that IH chains get big much more quickly than TR chains.

[GendoIkari]

To be fair, this diagram seems to be more of a comparison of TR to IH, not of double-TR to IH. Because you have a total of 5 TR and 5 IH. To compare IH to double-TR, you would need to compare 1 IH to 2 TR.

That's not a fair comparison though, because 2 TR is two cards.  The point is that IH chains get big much more quickly than TR chains.

True. But it's the comparison he was making. I think a clearer response would have basically been pointing out that while IH isn't much more complex than double-TR; double-IH is way more complex, and will happen as often as double-TR does now.

[tristan]

I'm stopping at 5.  Also note that it's easier to kick off an IH chain because you can an initial play on a draw card to find the next IH.

Wouldn't hurt to read the actual card before writing such nonsense: "Choose 2 Actions in your hand."

You cannot play Imperial Household on a card that draws in order to draw a card which you can then use IH on.
As an example, IH-Smithy-wait for the third card is not possible as the second card is lacking, you gotta choose both action card immediately.
With TR-TR-Smithy on the other hand you draw 6 card and then you can throne one of the drawn cards.

[eHalcyon]

I'm stopping at 5.  Also note that it's easier to kick off an IH chain because you can an initial play on a draw card to find the next IH.

Wouldn't hurt to read the actual card before writing such nonsense: "Choose 2 Actions in your hand."

You cannot play Imperial Household on a card that draws in order to draw a card which you can then use IH on.
As an example, IH-Smithy-wait for the third card is not possible as the second card is lacking, you gotta choose both action card immediately.
With TR-TR-Smithy on the other hand you draw 6 card and then you can throne one of the drawn cards.

Whoops, touche. Have a +1.  The conversation got long enough that I forgot that, but the diagram stands.

[GeneralRamos]

I'm stopping at 5.  Also note that it's easier to kick off an IH chain because you can an initial play on a draw card to find the next IH.

Wouldn't hurt to read the actual card before writing such nonsense: "Choose 2 Actions in your hand."

You cannot play Imperial Household on a card that draws in order to draw a card which you can then use IH on.
As an example, IH-Smithy-wait for the third card is not possible as the second card is lacking, you gotta choose both action card immediately.
With TR-TR-Smithy on the other hand you draw 6 card and then you can throne one of the drawn cards.

Whoops, touche. Have a +1.  The conversation got long enough that I forgot that, but the diagram stands.

 If you start with a hand full of 5 IHs. But what's the point of that, since there's no "real" action to pair up with any of them! You'd need at least another draw action or two in hand to chance making the other IHs useful. And better to have a good number more in hand.

[GendoIkari]

I'm stopping at 5.  Also note that it's easier to kick off an IH chain because you can an initial play on a draw card to find the next IH.

Wouldn't hurt to read the actual card before writing such nonsense: "Choose 2 Actions in your hand."

You cannot play Imperial Household on a card that draws in order to draw a card which you can then use IH on.
As an example, IH-Smithy-wait for the third card is not possible as the second card is lacking, you gotta choose both action card immediately.
With TR-TR-Smithy on the other hand you draw 6 card and then you can throne one of the drawn cards.

Whoops, touche. Have a +1.  The conversation got long enough that I forgot that, but the diagram stands.

 If you start with a hand full of 5 IHs. But what's the point of that, since there's no "real" action to pair up with any of them! You'd need at least another draw action or two in hand to chance making the other IHs useful. And better to have a good number more in hand.

You can still draw into stuff to chain. Think about a hand of IH(1)-IH(2)-Smithy(1). You play IH(1), choosing IH(2) and Smithy(1). Then you play Smithy(1) twice, drawing another IH(3) and another Smithy(2). You player IH(2) twice. The first time, you choose IH(3) and Smithy(2). Play Smithy(2) first. Draw more actions. You still have IH(3) to play twice, plus IH(2) to play another time. So choosing the 2 cards at the front doesn't actually help that much. (Though it does still limit it's power some).

[eHalcyon]

If you start with a hand full of 5 IHs. But what's the point of that, since there's no "real" action to pair up with any of them! You'd need at least another draw action or two in hand to chance making the other IHs useful. And better to have a good number more in hand.

You only need to start with 2, just like Throne Room.  And then it grows much faster, as per the diagram.  As already mentioned, comparing the single card IH against two cards TR-TR is not fair.  You need to compare it to IH-IH.

[GeneralRamos]

I suppose to kick off a chain you need a starting hand of at least IH-IH-Smithy (or another draw card) and then need to subsequently draw more IH and draw cards.

Anyhow, I agree IH as originally posted can be a bit too complex to keep track of. I think the difficulty is less in the number of branches than in its ability to alternate back and forth between cards played twice from it. If a simpler AABB is maintained (my suggestion above), it is not any harder to keep track of than doubled TR.

The other way to rein it in would be to simply have it say "Choose two Action cards other than Imperial Household. Play each of them twice, in any order." This could still get pretty complex for tracking, depending on the cards doubled, but might be suitable.

[tristan]

As already mentioned, comparing the single card IH against two cards TR-TR is not fair.  You need to compare it to IH-IH.

It depends. As the card is closest to Double Throne Room (and as the simplified variants are nothing but Double Throne Room) you naturally gotta compare it to Double Throne Room. One Imperial household is simpler than Double Throne Room (I was right about that).
But of course one can end up with several IHs. Double KC occurs often enough and as IH is cheaper double or even triple IH will occur more frequently. Double IHs are more complex than double TR and double KC (you were right about that).

In the end the decision concerning a fixed order (IH=double TR) or flexible playing order is highly individual: it depends on how much difficulties one has with tracking in practice and how one judges the increase of complexity vs. the more interesting play. I have a hard time to judge that in advance but I would first play with the more complex variant before I would just make it a double TR. More so because I judge a fan card which is nothing but the double of an already existing card to be fairly boring and less so because I have an easy time with TR and TR variants tracking.

[eHalcyon]

As already mentioned, comparing the single card IH against two cards TR-TR is not fair.  You need to compare it to IH-IH.

It depends. As the card is closest to Double Throne Room (and as the simplified variants are nothing but Double Throne Room) you naturally gotta compare it to Double Throne Room.

Sure, you can start with that, but a single IH is trivial to track.  Chaining is where complexity comes in.  There's no point talking about how complex it is if you're not considering chains.

One Imperial household is simpler than Double Throne Room (I was right about that).

Uh, how do you figure that?  At best, one IH is about equivalent to two TRs.  The only differences between them are that IH requires that both actions are chosen up front, and the actions can be interweaved.  This makes it more complicated to track.  How much more is subjective and you can argue that it's negligible (though I think most would agree it isn't; GeneralRamos actually just said that he thinks it's the most difficult part of it, which I don't agree with but hey - subjective), but even then it only becomes on par.  What does IH do different that you think makes it simpler?

But of course one can end up with several IHs. Double KC occurs often enough and as IH is cheaper double or even triple IH will occur more frequently. Double IHs are more complex than double TR and double KC (you were right about that).

Maybe you haven't experienced it, but this is a huge understatement.  When KC appears on a board, you can pretty much count on a KC chain being a big part of the winning strategy -- and by chain, I mean much more than double.

In the end the decision concerning a fixed order (IH=double TR) or flexible playing order is highly individual: it depends on how much difficulties one has with tracking in practice and how one judges the increase of complexity vs. the more interesting play. I have a hard time to judge that in advance but I would first play with the more complex variant before I would just make it a double TR.

Sure, that's all I've been saying.  IH is more complicated to track than TR or KC.  Whether the added difficulty is worth the novelty is totally subjective.  I agree!

More so because I judge a fan card which is nothing but the double of an already existing card to be fairly boring and less so because I have an easy time with TR and TR variants tracking.

A small change can make a big difference.  King's Court plays differently from Throne Room.  Expand plays very differently from Remodel.  Bazaar plays differently from Village.

To me, a fixed-order IH is already super interesting.  You could make it a true copy of double TR (only revealing each chosen card one at a time) and then it's interesting because the card will be more efficient to buy and much easier to kick-off than double TR.  Or you could keep the requirement of choosing both cards in advance, which gives the player a different challenge of connecting cards to maximize benefit.

That it would be "boring" is not at all a concern, IMO.  It looks like double TR on the surface, but putting it on a single card changes its use significantly.  My concern is that it may still be too complicated to track when you chain it, because of how quickly the tree branches.

Similarly, I think the action weaving is a minor thing compared to the above.  There are some interesting synergies, pointed out in the OP (though one of them is not special to IH - Scavenger-Cantrip doesn't need to be woven because the second Scavenger can top deck without discarding) but I think they'd be rare to come up.

So I think a fixed order would be a minor loss of novelty/power for a moderate gain in simplicity.  But that's subjective and untested anyway.

[enfynet]

I'm trying to wrap my head around an IH chain that starts with the hand:

IH, IH, Golem, KC, Smithy

[tristan]

One Imperial household is simpler than Double Throne Room (I was right about that).

Uh, how do you figure that?  At best, one IH is about equivalent to two TRs.  The only differences between them are that IH requires that both actions are chosen up front, and the actions can be interweaved.  This makes it more complicated to track.  How much more is subjective and you can argue that it's negligible (though I think most would agree it isn't; GeneralRamos actually just said that he thinks it's the most difficult part of it, which I don't agree with but hey - subjective), but even then it only becomes on par.  What does IH do different that you think makes it simpler?

You gotta choose both actions immediately from our hand so you cannot draw into cards which you then throne, especially not other IHs. You still seem to miss that you can only chain IHs if you have two of them in your hand which makes the likelihood that you chain them much smaller (as I said, I totally agree that if you chain them they become more complex to track than TR or KC) than with TR or KC.
I also might have to add that, all other things equal, the optimal amount of IHs is a bit smaller than the optimal amount of TRs (or even KCs) as the card chooses TWO action cards FROM YOUR HAND. With TR the only risk of over-densification is that you draw TR without any other action card whereas with IH the risk is that you draw IH with no or only one action card. As a hand of 2 IHs and 3 actions cards only leads to a throning of these three action cards there is another reason you have to avoid over-densification. And last but not least this shows that the massive chains you imagine are technically simply not feasible (unless there is Tactician, Caravan or whatever else increases your starting hand above 5).

But of course one can end up with several IHs. Double KC occurs often enough and as IH is cheaper double or even triple IH will occur more frequently. Double IHs are more complex than double TR and double KC (you were right about that).

Maybe you haven't experienced it, but this is a huge understatement.  When KC appears on a board, you can pretty much count on a KC chain being a big part of the winning strategy -- and by chain, I mean much more than double.

"Much more than double" is obvious nonsense. The opportunity costs of 7$ cards are high, especially when you hit them with 8. As usual such a generalizing statement is wrong as the evaluation of any card epends upon the deck. When you play with a lot of Prosperity cards that Grand Market obviously wants ample of KCs, both piles might be (nearly) depleted and the game will end with some pretty massive turns.
But when there is nothing special in the Kingdom the optimal amount of KCs might be one or two and not "much more than double".

[LastFootnote]

Hey guys I've got an idea let's argue pointlessly over subjective nonsense like how much more tracking one card takes than another sound good???????

[enfynet]

Can you Counterfeit a Counterfeit into a Venture and a Bank? Do those work with IH?

[eHalcyon]

You gotta choose both actions immediately from our hand so you cannot draw into cards which you then throne, especially not other IHs. You still seem to miss that you can only chain IHs if you have two of them in your hand which makes the likelihood that you chain them much smaller (as I said, I totally agree that if you chain them they become more complex to track than TR or KC) than with TR or KC.

That's exactly what I said.  I didn't miss it.  Having to set the two action cards up front means that there is more to track, not less.  With double TR, you don't have to remember what the second card is because it doesn't matter until you actually play it from your hand.

The likelihood of chaining IH is the same as TR.  TR needs TR-TR-X.  IH needs IH-IH-X (playing X first for sure, and again most likely).  In both cases, X can draw more cards that are then played with the second TR/IH.  IH has more action plays though.  In the worst case, you only play one action card with the IH instead of two and then it's just a regular TR.

And last but not least this shows that the massive chains you imagine are technically simply not feasible (unless there is Tactician, Caravan or whatever else increases your starting hand above 5).

"Much more than double" is obvious nonsense. The opportunity costs of 7$ cards are high, especially when you hit them with 8. As usual such a generalizing statement is wrong as the evaluation of any card epends upon the deck. When you play with a lot of Prosperity cards that Grand Market obviously wants ample of KCs, both piles might be (nearly) depleted and the game will end with some pretty massive turns.
But when there is nothing special in the Kingdom the optimal amount of KCs might be one or two and not "much more than double".

Watch some high level matches, or review their logs.  You're underestimating KC and even TR.  TR alone can be enough of a village and payload multiplier to run full-fledged engines.  KC is enough to do it with otherwise weak engine components.  Strong engine components may actually decrease the importance of KC, since the opportunity cost then is relatively bigger -- if the engine is already amazing with cheap cards, there's no need to pick up a bunch of KCs and the game will end really quickly anyway.

(Edit: just pulled up the first log I found in a quick search.  Chains like this aren't uncommon.)

Hey guys I've got an idea let's argue pointlessly over subjective nonsense like how much more tracking one card takes than another sound good???????

I acknowledge that I am super easy to bait.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[tristan]

That's exactly what I said.  I didn't miss it.  Having to set the two action cards up front means that there is more to track, not less.  With double TR, you don't have to remember what the second card is because it doesn't matter until you actually play it from your hand.

The likelihood of chaining IH is the same as TR.  TR needs TR-TR-X.  IH needs IH-IH-X (playing X first for sure, and again most likely).  In both cases, X can draw more cards that are then played with the second TR/IH.  IH has more action plays though.  In the worst case, you only play one action card with the IH instead of two and then it's just a regular TR.

You are right, I missed that you can first play the throned X and then the throned IH so if you drew enough cards with X you got some fodder for the second IH.
IH is still a card which includes the risk of overdensification as it plays two action cards so in nearly all cirumstances you want less of them than of TR and KC.

About the tracking difficulties, you can simply use a token to signify which card you have already played. Definitely far easier than tracking all the buys, virtual coins and actions from something like a bunch of KCed Grand Markets and other cards in the mix. ^^