Print

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

[segura]

One thing I'm never sure of in Castles games is whether to trash my Estates. On a lot of boards, trashing my estates early is a very high priority, since it improves my buying power a lot. In a game with, say, Crossroads, the estates are not so bad to have in my deck, so I probably won't trash them. In a Castles game, if I knew that I will be buying Opulent Castle, I wouldn't trash my Estates. But if I keep my Estates, and my opponent ends up getting the Opulent Castle, I've been playing with an unnecessarily weak deck for a long time for no benefit except the 3VP, which is a big mistake. How do you decide whether to trash your Estates?

You always do. All that Opulent Castle does is to convert some Estates into Silvers which is not impressive.

If Baron is the only source of extra Buys, you might want to keep one Estate.

The only (Kingdom) reasons to keep all Estates is Shepherd. Only if they are worth an additional VP and become something between cantrip and Labs (that can sometimes be used several times per turn) does keeping Estates become worthwile. All the stuff that Shepherd and Pasture do to buff Estates, i.e. add extra VP and draw power, and thus make them worthwhile basically shows how bad they are normally.

[alion8me]

One thing I'm never sure of in Castles games is whether to trash my Estates. On a lot of boards, trashing my estates early is a very high priority, since it improves my buying power a lot. In a game with, say, Crossroads, the estates are not so bad to have in my deck, so I probably won't trash them. In a Castles game, if I knew that I will be buying Opulent Castle, I wouldn't trash my Estates. But if I keep my Estates, and my opponent ends up getting the Opulent Castle, I've been playing with an unnecessarily weak deck for a long time for no benefit except the 3VP, which is a big mistake. How do you decide whether to trash your Estates?

You always do. All that Opulent Castle does is to convert some Estates into Silvers which is not impressive.

If Baron is the only source of extra Buys, you might want to keep one Estate.

The only (Kingdom) reasons to keep all Estates is Shepherd. Only if they are worth an additional VP and become something between cantrip and Labs (that can sometimes be used several times per turn) does keeping Estates become worthwile. All the stuff that Shepherd and Pasture do to buff Estates, i.e. add extra VP and draw power, and thus make them worthwhile basically shows how bad they are normally.

I would add that Inheritance is another (perhaps the only other) card-shaped thing that often makes keeping all of your Estates desirable.

[crj]

Baron can justify hanging onto at least one.

[LastFootnote]

Trashing an Estate is actually even better for your deck's reliability than gaining a Lab. If your deck is just 5 Coppers, you're buying a $5 card. If it's 5 Coppers, 5 Estates, and 5 Labs, you can still dud your turn incredibly easily with a bad shuffle.

[spineflu]

One thing I'm never sure of in Castles games is whether to trash my Estates. On a lot of boards, trashing my estates early is a very high priority, since it improves my buying power a lot. In a game with, say, Crossroads, the estates are not so bad to have in my deck, so I probably won't trash them. In a Castles game, if I knew that I will be buying Opulent Castle, I wouldn't trash my Estates. But if I keep my Estates, and my opponent ends up getting the Opulent Castle, I've been playing with an unnecessarily weak deck for a long time for no benefit except the 3VP, which is a big mistake. How do you decide whether to trash your Estates?

You always do. All that Opulent Castle does is to convert some Estates into Silvers which is not impressive.

If Baron is the only source of extra Buys, you might want to keep one Estate.

The only (Kingdom) reasons to keep all Estates is Shepherd. Only if they are worth an additional VP and become something between cantrip and Labs (that can sometimes be used several times per turn) does keeping Estates become worthwile. All the stuff that Shepherd and Pasture do to buff Estates, i.e. add extra VP and draw power, and thus make them worthwhile basically shows how bad they are normally.

I would add that Inheritance is another (perhaps the only other) card-shaped thing that often makes keeping all of your Estates desirable.

a single Crossroads will usually be fine w your estates sticking around as well; likewise they aren't the worst to stick around with one of the money-basements like Vault or Storeroom - those can turn them into coppers, which while not great, is still better than nothing.

[segura]

Estates have the nasty habit of not lining up with your Crossroads.

Your general point that sifters substitute trashers is only partially correct. In the absence of trashers, sifters are the only way to deal with junk. But in the presence of trashers, they are only second-best.

[silverspawn]

Estates have the nasty habit of not lining up with your Crossroads.

Your general point that sifters substitute trashers is only partially correct. In the absence of trashers, sifters are the only way to deal with junk. But in the presence of trashers, they are only second-best.

This is true on average but not in principle. It depends on how good the sifters and trashers are.

[segura]

Estates have the nasty habit of not lining up with your Crossroads.

Your general point that sifters substitute trashers is only partially correct. In the absence of trashers, sifters are the only way to deal with junk. But in the presence of trashers, they are only second-best.

This is true on average but not in principle. It depends on how good the sifters and trashers are.

Which Estate trasher do you consider so weak that you would prefer Crossroads to deal with the Estates?

[silverspawn]

I'm not sure I would prefer Crossroads to any trasher, but I would often prefer Forum to Trade Route. Probably to Forager, too.