Print

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

[The_Tricksta]

I have a hard time finding the cards that use the Journey tokens to be useful at all. Obviously the journey token mechanic exists to slow down the effects of the cards that use it.

So why use the journey token cards at all? Their main appeal to me was that their effects are actually pretty strong, but after looking closely at them, if you only ever buy one of the cards there wasn't enough of a benefit in order to justify using these cards at all.

Just to let you know, obviously these cards become way better if you TR/KC these cards, or if you activate the token by using another card first (especially Pilgrimage), but I am going to ignore these cards in my critique of them, since you can't expect these cards to be on the same board. Let's take a look at these:

• Ranger:
  This is actually the card I find the most useful out of all of these, since it gives a +Buy which could be useful on a board where this is the only source of that. But other than that this card isn't really useful on a board where you can already build an engine with other cards. If you don't have another source of draw, you still need to play two of these in one turn in order to draw any cards at all. Compared to playing 2 Smithies it isn't really good since you draw a card less. Drawing 5 cards in one turn is nothing to sneeze at obviously, but the fact that you don't gain anything the first time you play it really hurts the card.
• Giant:
  I don't really get this card. It does a knight attack and potentially, can occasionally hand out curses and gives you +$5 on the turn where it does something. The attack of the knights can be ignored even with the actual knights unless you throne KC them. The junking becomes more and more unreliable the more the game goes on. The money part is nice, but why shouldn't I just buy any other card that gives money? It's a card that costs $5, that I'd only buy in order to gain the +5$ every second time I play it. Again it almost does nothing every uneven time you play it, which really hurts the card. In an engine this card could actually be used as a payload, since you get quite a bit of money, but if there is any other card that gives virtual coin, this card quickly becomes outclassed.
• Pilgrimage:
  By itself it means that early and midgame you basically have to skip a buying phase and without a +Buy on the board you'd also have to skip a buy lategame. If you're building an engine it might be useful since you can expand on engine parts easily, but you'd pretty much have to have your engine running in order to guarantee that you're going to draw the cards that you want to duplicate. In that scenario Pilgrimage actually seems good, but in any other scenario like BM or a slog this card seems bad, since you're gambling for another turn to have one of 3 differently named cards in order to get the actual benefit of this card. You can still benefit from it if you only choose 2 or even 1 card if these cards cost more than 4, yet again you have to draw the cards you want to duplicate.

I'd be interested in your thoughts and experiences with these cards since I might just play these cards the wrong way or haven't considered something yet.

[drsteelhammer]

I think it is a misconception that the Journey token cards get better with Throne room variants. Of course they are are ok with them but so are all the other cards in the game.

The distinct advantage of Ranger is that you get all your draw with the first Ranger every turn if you manage to play two. This is a huge boost in reliability compared to playing two cards with half the draw each. I think Ranger is the only card that can use the token to their advantage, though.

The other two use the token as punishment because their plays are indeed very strong. Personally, I don't like Giant much either but the attack is pretty strong nonetheless. If you get to play two per turn you already get $3 per play which is not great, but not that bad. I also think this card is not great most of the time, but we can only see how it will be doing online.

Pilgrimage is another card that uses the token as punishment, because the gain is so strong. I have no idea how this will play out, but gaining three key components can be a lot better than getting two four costs over two turns aswell.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I recently played a 3-player game where one of my friends got pretty much knocked out by turn 7 or so when my Giant destroyed his Giant. However, King's Court AND Royal Carriage on the board were what made Giant viable in the first place. I indeed think Giant benefits a lot from those cards. Looking at the average money output of Giant is misleading. What really matters is you get $5 every other play and that extremely helps spiking Provinces and Colonies. Royal Carriage has probably the best interaction because you are pretty much guaranteed to get $5 each time you play Giant and thus to be able to buy a Province. And the attack does matter as well, especially when it trashes other players' cards as this usually means you trash either their Giant or some other key card while spiking a key card for yourself. It's not very likely in the beginning of the game but when it happens they might as well give up.

That aside, I'm not sure I wouldn't have bought Giant had it not been for KC or RC. Whenever I played a game with Giant I usually have been rewarded for gaining it.

[The_Tricksta]

As Co0kieL0rd has pointed out, I am fairly confident, that especially Royal Carriage improves Ranger and Giant a lot. The problem I have with all of these is that by themselves they aren't really worth it. When there are no villages on the board even Ranger might not be worth it at all. I haven't tried Ranger/BM yet, but my guess is that it probably isn't as good as Council Room/BM or Smithy/BM.

Pilgrimage has been more useful if you use Ranger in order to flip the token to prepare yourself to buy it, but in that game where I did that I also hadn't been able to build an engine, so I was stuck waiting for the 3 cards that I wanted to duplicate. I have to admit that I did forget about Pilgrimage eventually since I started to green before I probably did get the cards I wanted to duplicate.

[drsteelhammer]

As Co0kieL0rd has pointed out, I am fairly confident, that especially Royal Carriage improves Ranger and Giant a lot. The problem I have with all of these is that by themselves they aren't really worth it. When there are no villages on the board even Ranger might not be worth it at all. I haven't tried Ranger/BM yet, but my guess is that it probably isn't as good as Council Room/BM or Smithy/BM.

Pilgrimage has been more useful if you use Ranger in order to flip the token to prepare yourself to buy it, but in that game where I did that I also hadn't been able to build an engine, so I was stuck waiting for the 3 cards that I wanted to duplicate. I have to admit that I did forget about Pilgrimage eventually since I started to green before I probably did get the cards I wanted to duplicate.

I agree that if there is no way to play two rangers a turn, it's not great. I'm not arguing otherwise.

But I am not convinced at all that Royal Carriage makes Ranger better, at all. If you line up Village and Ranger you're almost forced to call Carriage on Ranger no matter what just to get the token right. If the Ranger was a Smithy, you are a lot more flexible about calling the Carriage while drawing more cards. Of course Ranger is good with Royal Carriage but which drawing card isn't? I don't see the combo. You should really give it a try in an engine, I've grown to love that card after initially not liking it so much.

If there is Pilgrimage and Ranger on the board, I would never use Ranger to set up Pilgrimage if you're playing an engine. Maybe the other way around, one good turn should be much more worth than $4. The way you proposed let's you gain three cards at the cost of a good turn, which doesn't seem right.

I recently played a 3-player game where one of my friends got pretty much knocked out by turn 7 or so when my Giant destroyed his Giant. However, King's Court AND Royal Carriage on the board were what made Giant viable in the first place. I indeed think Giant benefits a lot from those cards. Looking at the average money output of Giant is misleading. What really matters is you get $5 every other play and that extremely helps spiking Provinces and Colonies. Royal Carriage has probably the best interaction because you are pretty much guaranteed to get $5 each time you play Giant and thus to be able to buy a Province. And the attack does matter as well, especially when it trashes other players' cards as this usually means you trash either their Giant or some other key card while spiking a key card for yourself. It's not very likely in the beginning of the game but when it happens they might as well give up.

That aside, I'm not sure I wouldn't have bought Giant had it not been for KC or RC. Whenever I played a game with Giant I usually have been rewarded for gaining it.

Average amout of money is misleading yet you want to play two of them every turn? That's confusing. But still, I don't see why KC makes this great. I can also KC a knight and hit them three times and even mess up an even knight split, still nobody talks about this being a combo since it is usually not more than the sum of its parts. Using it on Giant seems like exactly the sum of its parts, actually.

[The_Tricksta]

I agree that if there is no way to play two rangers a turn, it's not great. I'm not arguing otherwise.

I didn't mean to argue against you or anything here. I just put out that thought of mine, since it just jumped into my mind. I wanted to generally talk about my thought that I'm not totally convinced of the ranger.

But I am not convinced at all that Royal Carriage makes Ranger better, at all. If you line up Village and Ranger you're almost forced to call Carriage on Ranger no matter what just to get the token right. If the Ranger was a Smithy, you are a lot more flexible about calling the Carriage while drawing more cards. Of course Ranger is good with Royal Carriage but which drawing card isn't? I don't see the combo. You should really give it a try in an engine, I've grown to love that card after initially not liking it so much.

Well, I am not so sure anymore. My thought process was basically that with Royal Carriage you always get an effect which is almost the effect of two cards combined. If Smithy, Royal Carriage and Ranger were on the board I would go for Smithy and Royal Carriage without a second thought. I haven't played with Ranger in an engine yet, but I can now see that it can have its uses there.

If there is Pilgrimage and Ranger on the board, I would never use Ranger to set up Pilgrimage if you're playing an engine. Maybe the other way around, one good turn should be much more worth than $4. The way you proposed let's you gain three cards at the cost of a good turn, which doesn't seem right.

It probably is better to ignore Pilgrimage in a lot of cases and I just didn't see that while I was trying to make Ranger/Pilgrimage happen. It did work out once but I did have about two bad turns in order to get there, since I decided to not play the Ranger the next time I got it. I am not sure whether using Ranger in order to set up Pilgrimage is worth it at all.

Average amout of money is misleading yet you want to play two of them every turn? That's confusing. But still, I don't see why KC makes this great. I can also KC a knight and hit them three times and even mess up an even knight split, still nobody talks about this being a combo since it is usually not more than the sum of its parts. Using it on Giant seems like exactly the sum of its parts, actually.

I don't really understand your argument for KC and the Knights only being as much as the sum of their parts. Isn't any card that you combo basically a sum of its parts?

[Drab Emordnilap]

Duke and Duchy are more than the sum of their parts. A deck with just 5 Duchies is worth 15 points. A deck with just 5 Dukes is worth 0 points. A deck with 5 of each is worth 40 points.

15 + 0 < 40. The deck is more than the sum of its parts.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Average amout of money is misleading yet you want to play two of them every turn? That's confusing. But still, I don't see why KC makes this great. I can also KC a knight and hit them three times and even mess up an even knight split, still nobody talks about this being a combo since it is usually not more than the sum of its parts. Using it on Giant seems like exactly the sum of its parts, actually.

I was talking about spiking Provinces. So yes, I want to play my Giant twice with RC to spike a Province each time I play it.

[drsteelhammer]

Average amout of money is misleading yet you want to play two of them every turn? That's confusing. But still, I don't see why KC makes this great. I can also KC a knight and hit them three times and even mess up an even knight split, still nobody talks about this being a combo since it is usually not more than the sum of its parts. Using it on Giant seems like exactly the sum of its parts, actually.

I don't really understand your argument for KC and the Knights only being as much as the sum of their parts. Isn't any card that you combo basically a sum of its parts?

Drap gave you an example, here is another simple one: Hamlet/Library. Hamlet gives you two different bonuses at the cost of a card. With Libraby in hand, the handsize does not only get restored, you can also sift two cards (the ones you discarded) and possibly get better ones. There are lots of examples like this, and this is usually referred to when someone uses the term "combo" on here.

My knight example is similar: A kc'ed knight can possibly trash three other knights while obviously only being trashed once.

The ranger in an engine concept is about the same. Playing two rangers cost two actions and give you five cards. It is a lot better to draw five cards with the first one and zero with the second one instead of (hypothetically) drawing 2,5 cards each, since the former makes it more likely that you draw another village and the other ranger.