Print

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

[schadd]

"i'm totally gonna do it! wooooah this is so cool"

  it can be a bad moneylender, or a bad great hall, or a bad village. but it can also be a better version of those three things if you want it to. probably, a more accurate description is copper and estate trashing that gives money early and can also sort of do alt-vp (imaginably with on-gain type victory points like triumph) and can also be a contingency village. i can't really imagine it being strategy-defining for any of those thing (maybe excepting ruins) so it looks like sacrifice joins count and steward in the category, trashers that accidentally continue to do stuff. sacrifice is pretty much entirely an engine card, like those two (usually).


-other than ruins, what boards make sacrifice a super important thing? will there ever be a time where it's the only village and it works out? (imaginably, something like ironworks and hunting grounds could make that happen)
-do you trash coppers first or estates first? it's a p hard decision, similarly to catapult
-is this the most unsettling item of art yet?

[JThorne]

It's a darned slow trasher. A guaranteed trash-one terminal that you normally can't open Sacrifice/Sacrifice, so it'll be a while before you can reliably buy and play two of them per shuffle to get thin. I've played a few games with it and boy, are trash-ones just not what you want when you're engine-building, and this is a card you really want in an engine. As a trasher, Temple's way better. Also, the elite trasher Steward is insulted that you mentioned it in the same sentence with this pretender.

The bonuses are ok. The net +1 coin and VP buildup can be significant enough not to ignore. You just have to plan extra turns to overcome that slow start.

[Deadlock39]

This is like taking +$1 away from Bishop and Moneylender, and smashing them into the same card. Maybe with some late game tricks thrown in with trashing actions.

[Seprix]

Sacrifice can do some interesting late game tactics. In addition, Sacrifice can trash Estates and just go ham and keep the VP. But really, I don't like this card much.

Is Sacrifice better or worse in Shelters versus Estates?

[Beyond Awesome]

Strong trasher is strong

[Seprix]

Strong trasher is strong

You think this is a strong trasher? I think it is consistent, but it is also pretty slow. You would want two of these for sure, and then you could trash one later for benefit.

[jonts26]

Strong trasher is strong

You think this is a strong trasher? I think it is consistent, but it is also pretty slow. You would want two of these for sure, and then you could trash one later for benefit.

Slow trasher isn't the opposite of strong trasher.

[Jimmmmm]

I've only played a couple of games with this, but I've found it's often an interesting decision between trashing a Copper or an Estate - do you want to get rid of your Estates ASAP or improve your current turn by $1? I can't think of another trasher which asks you this kind of question - normally you either trash as quickly as you can get away with or it's just straight up better to trash Estates first.

[faust]

One would think that sacrificing little Rats would make the gods angry. BUt it turns out they really like Rats.

[AdrianHealey]

Estates-inherited as foretress and sacrifice together seems like a funny and good idea.

[drsteelhammer]

Estates-inherited as foretress and sacrifice together seems like a funny and good idea.

Doesnt the estate forget that it is a fortress when it visits the trash?

[AdrianHealey]

Estates-inherited as foretress and sacrifice together seems like a funny and good idea.

Doesnt the estate forget that it is a fortress when it visits the trash?

I was under the impression that the effect is on trash, not on visiting the trash. But now I am doubting.

[mustang255]

Estates-inherited as foretress and sacrifice together seems like a funny and good idea.

Doesnt the estate forget that it is a fortress when it visits the trash?

I was under the impression that the effect is on trash, not on visiting the trash. But now I am doubting.

From the Wiki:

If an Estate comes into your possession via a means not explicitly described in the Official FAQ, such as being put in your hand after being trashed as a Fortress, it is still "yours", and still has its Inherited properties.

It sounds like it would work.

[drsteelhammer]

Estates-inherited as foretress and sacrifice together seems like a funny and good idea.

Doesnt the estate forget that it is a fortress when it visits the trash?

I was under the impression that the effect is on trash, not on visiting the trash. But now I am doubting.

From the Wiki:

If an Estate comes into your possession via a means not explicitly described in the Official FAQ, such as being put in your hand after being trashed as a Fortress, it is still "yours", and still has its Inherited properties.

It sounds like it would work.

To be honest it wouldn't be the first time the wiki was wrong, especially because the list in the FAQ was meant to be exhaustive. I'm pretty sure the Estate ceases to be yours for the Planck second it is in the trash and therefore can not be returned. MF agrees with me by the way, but that's not saying much either so I guess we have to wait until a rules expert comes along.

[AdrianHealey]

Fortress (apparently) visits the trash, so at that point, an estate is just an estate.

[singletee]

So to clarify: If I transmute Estate-Scout do I gain Gold+Transmute? I suppose not, because the card is already in the trash when the second part of Transmute is resolved. However when I trash Estate-Fortress, it goes back to my hand, doesn't it?

If you Inheritance Scouts and then Transmute an Estate, it was an Action-Victory card, so you gain a Duchy and a Gold.

The rules for Band of Misfits say when you use Procession on it and play it as, e.g., Fortress, you "gain an Action card costing exactly $6 ($1 more than Band of Misfits, which has left play and so is no longer copying Fortress)." So there, you don't care about what a thing was at the time it was trashed, but what it is at the time you're evaluating the instruction.

But here, you say you do care about what a thing was when it was trashed.

What's the difference? Do you check costs at the time of evaluation, but types at the time of trashing?

The key difference is how much time I have spent on these questions and what materials I had access to at the time.

I don't see a conversation with Doug about it, so possibly it just randomly ended up that way on isotropic.

Let's say that Transmute is referring to the state of the card at the moment it checks (like Procession); thus it will no longer be your Estate with all that means.

When-trashed things however trigger when trashed and so will happen even if the card loses that ability then.

Trashed Estates Inheriting Fortress will return to your hand.

Also see:
Exact timing of "when you trash"
Edge-case puzzle: exceptions to Inheritance rules

[ackmondual]

This feels like this is what Transmute should've been.  Granted, that card usually replaces a Trashed card with something else, but it's more so the "trash stuff and do X depending on what you trashed" part, and without the Potion cost.

One would think that sacrificing little Rats would make the gods angry. BUt it turns out they really like Rats.

Them Dominion gods ain't picky.  That's good to know!