Print

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

[LastFootnote]

I don't know why my name is being invoked here. I mean I have opinions, but I'm not a top player. I haven't run any sims. I'd be interested to see how the sims play out.

I do think Caravan is probably stronger than a Den of Sin that isn't gained to hand. But I'm not 100% sure. And I'm less sure than ever now that people have been making such good points about Ghost Town's reliability boost.

[josh56]

You're acting like this is all obvious stuff that everyone agrees on when you recently participated in an argument where at least some people were disagreeing with you.  I may think Den of Sin's on-play effect is better than Caravan, but I'm not so condescending to act like this is obvious and everyone agrees with me.

Talking about nonsense, you wrote stuff like: "With Haunted Woods, you get +3 cards at the beginning of the turn, and then you later pay the cost of -1 card -1 action."

This isn't an argument I can agree with or not, it is merely factually false. So if you are confused about the order of play, what happens on the first and second turn, going over the basics of Durations might be helpful.

[trivialknot]

You're acting like this is all obvious stuff that everyone agrees on when you recently participated in an argument where at least some people were disagreeing with you.  I may think Den of Sin's on-play effect is better than Caravan, but I'm not so condescending to act like this is obvious and everyone agrees with me.

Talking about nonsense, you wrote stuff like: "With Haunted Woods, you get +3 cards at the beginning of the turn, and then you later pay the cost of -1 card -1 action."

This isn't an argument I can agree with or not, it is merely factually false. So if you are confused about the order of play, what happens on the first and second turn, going over the basics of Durations might be helpful.

I'm not going to reply to this I'm just going to highlight it as evidence that you are being condescending, and also believe you are correct to be condescending.

[josh56]

You're acting like this is all obvious stuff that everyone agrees on when you recently participated in an argument where at least some people were disagreeing with you.  I may think Den of Sin's on-play effect is better than Caravan, but I'm not so condescending to act like this is obvious and everyone agrees with me.

Talking about nonsense, you wrote stuff like: "With Haunted Woods, you get +3 cards at the beginning of the turn, and then you later pay the cost of -1 card -1 action."

This isn't an argument I can agree with or not, it is merely factually false. So if you are confused about the order of play, what happens on the first and second turn, going over the basics of Durations might be helpful.

I'm not going to reply to this I'm just going to highlight it evidence that you are being condescending, and also believe you are correct to be condescending.

Pot calling the kettle back. If you think that calling obvious falsehoods nonsense is condescending you might not wanna use that very word yourself.

[josh56]

I find it amusing to have people say that Den of Sin has a delayed effect compared to Lab. You get to play Den of Sin the very same turn you buy it, while you have to wait a full shuffle to play Lab.

Den of Sin is worse than Lab in the sense that you can't chain them, and that if you draw your deck you can only play them one turn out of two, but it's definitely "faster" than Lab.

It provides an early kick but is then a bit weaker whereas Lab is just an ordinary, linear "snowball" card.
One cool aspect of Nocturne are these changes to the early parts of the game. The Heirlooms, especially Goat and Cursed Gold are probably even more radical than these Night-Durations in terms of changing the opening.

[chipperMDW]

Talking about nonsense, you wrote stuff like: "With Haunted Woods, you get +3 cards at the beginning of the turn, and then you later pay the cost of -1 card -1 action."

I remember, when he said that, I thought it was really insightful and highlighted the distinction between Smithy and (the relevant parts of) Haunted Woods.

Having two Haunted Woodses and playing them on alternating turns is a lot like having one Smithy and playing it every turn. Either way, you pay -1 Card and -1 Action each turn, and you get +3 Cards per turn. But with the Smithy, you have to pay the cost before you get the benefit, and with the Haunted Woodses, you get the benefit upfront and get to pay the cost later on. You get to use the benefit to make sure you're able to pay the cost.

Sure, the cost on a turn is not actually connected to the benefit you got earlier that turn. And if you ever fail to play a Haunted Woods on a turn, the analogy falls apart. So it's not literally true. But it's a great way to describe what's happening, and I certainly wouldn't call it nonsense.

[Awaclus]

You are right. A Treasure that says At the start of the turn after the next one: +$3 would not be technically strictly weaker than Gold as there could be weird situations in which it is better. But common sense suffices to realize that such a card would be a sucker compared to Gold.

Cards are not coins. It doesn't matter whether you receive coins at the start of your turn or in your buy phase because you can't use them before your buy phase anyway.

I don't see how you can compare a Lab variant like Stables or Hunting Party that are situationally stronger or weaker than Lab with a definitely weaker duration Lab variant like Caravan or the hypothetical Action version of Den of Sin.

Because Den of Sin is not "definitely weaker". Caravan isn't comparable because it only gives you one card at the start of your next turn, making it only half as strong.

If you nearly draw your deck you play those durations a little more frequently than every 2nd turn whereas a Lab could be played every turn.

You can't play Durations more frequently than every 2nd turn, but that's not the point. The point is that you are guaranteed to get the cards at the start of your turn, which probably means you are drawing your entire deck for sure, whereas a Lab could be the bottom card of your deck and do nothing at all.

[aku_chi]

Caravan isn't comparable because it only gives you one card at the start of your next turn, making it only half as strong.

Caravan is directly comparable to Den of Sin's on-play.  Caravan provides a non-terminal one card now (replacing itself) and one card next turn.  Den of Sin is a non-terminal stop card that provides two cards next turn.  Den of Sin is a Caravan variant.  If Den of Sin cost $4 and didn't have its on-gain ability, I think it would have a similar power level as Caravan.  Of course, Den of Sin's on-gain ability makes it very attractive, even at $5.

[Awaclus]

Caravan isn't comparable because it only gives you one card at the start of your next turn, making it only half as strong.

Caravan is directly comparable to Den of Sin's on-play.  Caravan provides a non-terminal one card now (replacing itself) and one card next turn.  Den of Sin is a non-terminal stop card that provides two cards next turn.  Den of Sin is a Caravan variant.  If Den of Sin cost $4 and didn't have its on-gain ability, I think it would have a similar power level as Caravan.  Of course, Den of Sin's on-gain ability makes it very attractive, even at $5.

Den of Sin is as good as two Caravans for your next turn.

[Seprix]

You're acting like this is all obvious stuff that everyone agrees on when you recently participated in an argument where at least some people were disagreeing with you.  I may think Den of Sin's on-play effect is better than Caravan, but I'm not so condescending to act like this is obvious and everyone agrees with me.

Talking about nonsense, you wrote stuff like: "With Haunted Woods, you get +3 cards at the beginning of the turn, and then you later pay the cost of -1 card -1 action."

This isn't an argument I can agree with or not, it is merely factually false. So if you are confused about the order of play, what happens on the first and second turn, going over the basics of Durations might be helpful.

I'm not going to reply to this I'm just going to highlight it evidence that you are being condescending, and also believe you are correct to be condescending.

Pot calling the kettle back. If you think that calling obvious falsehoods nonsense is condescending you might not wanna use that very word yourself.

Welcome back, Tristan! Can we all please keep it civil down here? I really don't want this thread to be locked.  Ignore insults and rude behavior if you have to man, don't even engage. Don't give it the time of day.

[aku_chi]

Caravan isn't comparable because it only gives you one card at the start of your next turn, making it only half as strong.

Caravan is directly comparable to Den of Sin's on-play.  Caravan provides a non-terminal one card now (replacing itself) and one card next turn.  Den of Sin is a non-terminal stop card that provides two cards next turn.  Den of Sin is a Caravan variant.  If Den of Sin cost $4 and didn't have its on-gain ability, I think it would have a similar power level as Caravan.  Of course, Den of Sin's on-gain ability makes it very attractive, even at $5.

Den of Sin is as good as two Caravans for your next turn.

Oh.  Are we taking turns saying obvious things?  If you play N copies of Caravan or Den of Sin each turn, you increase your hand size by N.

[theory]

tristan 4.0 is banned.

[Jeebus]

Ok, people are saying Bard is bad, and that might be true, but it costs $4, so it might be that it could be useful sometimes when you don't mind a terminal.

But I don't see how Sacred Grove isn't the worst card of the set. Unless it's the only +Buy and you really need a +Buy, why would you pick it up over other $5 cost cards? It's a terminal Gold that has no other benefit (apart from the +Buy), because the Boon can be optionally received by the other players 10 out of 12 times. That might even be a boon (pun) for them, because they can actually refuse that Silver from the Mountain.

I agree that Tragic Hero seems pretty weak. Compare it to Margrave for instance. I you want it for building an engine, it will pretty soon trash itself for a Treasure you often don't want. In a big money terminal deck, where you could use the Treasure, it never trashes itself.

[Jeebus]

Not about strategy, but still one of my initial impressions:

Tormentor should be called Demon. First of all, Tormentor is too similar to Torturer, there is no card called Demon and it fits the theme. Second, it gives you imps, which are little devils. Why would a tormentor give you imps?

It also deals out hexes, which is something magical. Skulk is also a bad name in that regard. All other Doom cards work very well in terms of their name. (I know, curses are also magical and not all Curse givers fit with that.)

[aku_chi]

But I don't see how Sacred Grove isn't the worst card of the set. Unless it's the only +Buy and you really need a +Buy, why would you pick it up over other $5 cost cards? It's a terminal Gold that has no other benefit (apart from the +Buy), because the Boon can be optionally received by the other players 10 out of 12 times. That might even be a boon (pun) for them, because they can actually refuse that Silver from the Mountain.

Sacred Grove is non-attack payload.  It's usually going to be stronger than Wine Merchant and Merchant Ship.  It's probably a little weaker than Courtier and Merchant Guild.  It's not the most exciting card in the world, but it seems like a fine card to me...

[Jeebus]

Sacred Grove is non-attack payload.  It's usually going to be stronger than Wine Merchant and Merchant Ship.  It's probably a little weaker than Courtier and Merchant Guild.  It's not the most exciting card in the world, but it seems like a fine card to me...

I don't know what you're trying to say with "non-attack payload". So is Mandarin, but so what? I think Merchant Ship is usually pretty weak, but it does give +$4 (more than Sacred Grove) and it let's you start a turn with $, so yeah, better than Sacred Grove. Wine Merchant is good when you can play several, which is often what you try going for. I don't see any use for Sacred Grove except if it's the only +1 Buy.

[FemurLemur]

tristan 4.0 is banned.

I'm like 99% sure you're joking, but, you are joking, right? That would be the quickest witch hunt ever if not.

More on topic: I don't know that I think Josh was being condescending until after he was first accused of being condescending, although I should admit I haven't read those other two threads Trivialknot linked to. I agree with Seprix though, deescalation would be good, because this has been a very enjoyable thread so far, and it'd be cool to keep it like that

[markusin]

Sacred Grove is non-attack payload.  It's usually going to be stronger than Wine Merchant and Merchant Ship.  It's probably a little weaker than Courtier and Merchant Guild.  It's not the most exciting card in the world, but it seems like a fine card to me...

I don't know what you're trying to say with "non-attack payload". So is Mandarin, but so what? I think Merchant Ship is usually pretty weak, but it does give +$4 (more than Sacred Grove) and it let's you start a turn with $, so yeah, better than Sacred Grove. Wine Merchant is good when you can play several, which is often what you try going for. I don't see any use for Sacred Grove except if it's the only +1 Buy.

Merchant Ship is $4 over two turns, so is less spiky than Sacred Grove. You know you are in dire straights when you start getting compared to Merchant Ship.

Sacred Grove is terminal Gold with a buy, which is okay, but has some other benefits with the Boons, and some Boons are easier to make use of in the middle of your turn than at the start (for example the trashing Boon, the discard treasure for a $4 Boon, and the discard 3 for Gold boon). And then you can get the +$1 Boons sometimes to get a non-symmetrical bonus.

The +card and Wisp Boons probably help your opponent more than they help you though.

[gloures]

tristan 4.0 is banned.

I'm like 99% sure you're joking, but, you are joking, right? That would be the quickest witch hunt ever if not.

More on topic: I don't know that I think Josh was being condescending until after he was first accused of being condescending, although I should admit I haven't read those other two threads Trivialknot linked to. I agree with Seprix though, deescalation would be good, because this has been a very enjoyable thread so far, and it'd be cool to keep it like that

While I don't think he really did anything too bad here, he definitely showed behavior similar enough to Tristan's to get me to suspect him. If he was really banned I'm pretty sure it would be due to his past accounts behavior than whatever he did now. And while there's no way for me to be sure he's actually tristan, I guess Theory might have some way to find out.

[jonaskoelker]

Sacred Grove is non-attack payload.

Synergies, conditional on village support:

• Tactician, and other cards that make you discard your pre-buy-phase payload, e.g. Minion.
• Draw-to-x and Menagerie decks that benefit from getting payload out of your hand mid-turn.
• City Quarter, and other decks that prefer actions to treasures. Throne variants skew in this direction, with Crown as an exception. So does Vineyard, though maybe not by enough to make Sacred Grove pass the Gold test.

Where virtual money is valued, only a few cards can compete with Sacred Grove's $3—Courtier has been mentioned. Miser can provide a big payload but is slow and lacks +buy. 2xGiant provides $6, or $3 each on average, same as 2xWine Merchant when subtracting the release cost (and with attack and +buy, respectively). Count, man, you really have to want to topdeck a card; Mandarin likewise. Mass Soldier has the quadratic mass-Bank thing going on, but does anyone actually do that? Death cart, Vault, eh?

As a virtual money payload, Sacred Grove doesn't look half bad to me. Virtual money just isn't the awesomest thing ever on a lot of boards, where you're happy to take Gold over Sacred Grove once you have enough +buy.

[crj]

some Boons are easier to make use of in the middle of your turn than at the start (for example the trashing Boon, the discard treasure for a $4 Boon, and the discard 3 for Gold boon). And then you can get the +$1 Boons sometimes to get a non-symmetrical bonus.

I'm not convinced many of the Boons are especially worse to play between your turns than in the middle of your turn. It feels to me that could go either way, depending on how you're playing your turn. Maybe once you have an engine running you go out of your way to try to have lots of cards in hand when you play Sacred Grove, but that won't always be possible.

Set against that, it's already been pointed out that you gaining a mandatory Silver while your opponents have the option of gaining one is asymmetric against you.

Then again, does the Boon stuff need to be a net benefit to the current player? I'm staring at Contraband, Courtier, Mandarin, Count, Legionary, Swamp Hag, all priced at $5, all giving you the potential for +$3. Are any actually as good as a flat +$3,+1Buy? Maybe Sacred Grove would have to cost more without the Boons?

[FemurLemur]

some Boons are easier to make use of in the middle of your turn than at the start (for example the trashing Boon, the discard treasure for a $4 Boon, and the discard 3 for Gold boon). And then you can get the +$1 Boons sometimes to get a non-symmetrical bonus.

Then again, does the Boon stuff need to be a net benefit to the current player? I'm staring at Contraband, Courtier, Mandarin, Count, Legionary, Swamp Hag, all priced at $5, all giving you the potential for +$3. Are any actually as good as a flat +$3,+1Buy? Maybe Sacred Grove would have to cost more without the Boons?

I think sometimes I'd rather have Count than a flat +$3 +1 Buy. But I think I agree with your reasoning that Sacred Grove may have to cost more if it didn't give other players the Boons.

Set against that, it's already been pointed out that you gaining a mandatory Silver while your opponents have the option of gaining one is asymmetric against you.

It's a good point, though hopefully people realize that if they're running a deck that absolutely doesn't want Silvers, then Fates are probably not a good choice.

[Jeebus]

some Boons are easier to make use of in the middle of your turn than at the start (for example the trashing Boon, the discard treasure for a $4 Boon, and the discard 3 for Gold boon). And then you can get the +$1 Boons sometimes to get a non-symmetrical bonus.

I'm not convinced many of the Boons are especially worse to play between your turns than in the middle of your turn. It feels to me that could go either way, depending on how you're playing your turn. Maybe once you have an engine running you go out of your way to try to have lots of cards in hand when you play Sacred Grove, but that won't always be possible.

Set against that, it's already been pointed out that you gaining a mandatory Silver while your opponents have the option of gaining one is asymmetric against you.

You write "set against that", but aren't both of your points saying the same thing, that Sacred Grove is not good? Markusin was making an argument for Sacred Grove, saying that some Boons are not such a benefit to the other players since they get them between turns, and you're saying that's not necessarily true.

[markusin]

some Boons are easier to make use of in the middle of your turn than at the start (for example the trashing Boon, the discard treasure for a $4 Boon, and the discard 3 for Gold boon). And then you can get the +$1 Boons sometimes to get a non-symmetrical bonus.

I'm not convinced many of the Boons are especially worse to play between your turns than in the middle of your turn. It feels to me that could go either way, depending on how you're playing your turn. Maybe once you have an engine running you go out of your way to try to have lots of cards in hand when you play Sacred Grove, but that won't always be possible.

Set against that, it's already been pointed out that you gaining a mandatory Silver while your opponents have the option of gaining one is asymmetric against you.

You write "set against that", but aren't both of your points saying the same thing, that Sacred Grove is not good? Markusin was making an argument for Sacred Grove, saying that some Boons are not such a benefit to the other players since they get them between turns, and you're saying that's not necessarily true.

I actually don't know how "set against that" is supposed to be used in conversation. It's not something I hear very often, and I interpreted it as a generic framing device rather than implying a contradiction like "on the other hand" does.

Now, it won't always be possible to play Sacred Grove with a big hand, but maybe Sacred Grove doesn't always have to be a good card. I'd say specifically look for the cases where you can play several with larger hand, and it could do good work for you.

[FemurLemur]

some Boons are easier to make use of in the middle of your turn than at the start (for example the trashing Boon, the discard treasure for a $4 Boon, and the discard 3 for Gold boon). And then you can get the +$1 Boons sometimes to get a non-symmetrical bonus.

I'm not convinced many of the Boons are especially worse to play between your turns than in the middle of your turn. It feels to me that could go either way, depending on how you're playing your turn. Maybe once you have an engine running you go out of your way to try to have lots of cards in hand when you play Sacred Grove, but that won't always be possible.

Set against that, it's already been pointed out that you gaining a mandatory Silver while your opponents have the option of gaining one is asymmetric against you.

You write "set against that", but aren't both of your points saying the same thing, that Sacred Grove is not good? Markusin was making an argument for Sacred Grove, saying that some Boons are not such a benefit to the other players since they get them between turns, and you're saying that's not necessarily true.

I actually don't know how "set against that" is supposed to be used in conversation. It's not something I hear very often, and I interpreted it as a generic framing device rather than implying a contradiction like "on the other hand" does.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't imply contradiction or agreement, just a comparison of some sort.