Print

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

[WanderingWinder]

Young witch is one of the very few crds whose value is most variable from game to game. it really really depends on that bane card. We've had games where you get a fishing village bane, and the card is basically garbage. And we've had games where herbalist is the bane and...

Well, I actually think the first place you want to go here is, how strong is Young Witch if you ignore the bane. So, if there were no bane. Which will be the same thing you get if the bane isn't bought. Young witch is VERY strong here. Hands-down better than sea hag. In fact, if there were no bane, it would undoubtedly be the strongest $4, and actually pretty squarely the best card in the game, to my mind. Yeah, it's that good.
Now, even in those situations, it's sometimes skippable. Number one is the other card that would have a really strong case for best card in the game, ambassador. But also, decent trashing and a good engine, you can maybe skip it there, too. But very little else.
Why is it so good? Well, look at witch. Witch is super super powerful. I think it's the best curser in the game, and as cursers are in general like the best class of card, it's quite near the top of all cards in the game (yes, yes, you can make a reasonable case that mountebank is better - it's board-dependant). Anyway, baneless young witch has some pros and cons compared to witch. You have to discard 2 cards. Now, this makes it weaker, but... well, early, this doesn't really hurt all that much, and later, you have so much curse slog, it still doesn't hurt THAT much. And the big difference is that it is 1 coin cheaper. And the most important 1 coin. That's huge! You can just get to the YW faster, meaning play it more, meaning win that curse war pretty convincingly, and the game follows, in the heads-up, and really any matchup.

So, I think there's this notion that very often YW is ignorable, and this is just, well, virtually never the case.

But we have to look at the bane cards, now don't we? If we look at the other extreme for a moment, if the YW is always blocked, it's a pretty lousy card. Not totally worthless, but... well it's a terminal mini-sifter. You'd definitely do better with warehouse. Or about a billion other cards. Of course, even in situations where the bane is good, you generally can't rely on 100% blanket blocking. So YW has some utility even here. Not necessarily enough to get, but some utility.
And now we get to the heart of things. Middling Banes. Let's pick on woodcutter here as an example. What are your options on a 4/3 split? YW/Silver, YW/Woodcutter, Woodcutter/Silver, Woodcutter/Woodcutter. You can play Silver/Silver but I would not suggest it. Of course, there might be some other important cards, so go ahead and open amb, and maybe chapel. But let's assume there's no ambassador or other important cheap cards, for the opening anyway, at the moment.
Things get extraordinarily complicated here. Thing is, we know that W/W is a bad opening against, say, BM. So if you do that, can't they just react by playing more of a BM thing? Sure. If you open YW, can they get an advantage by going W/W? It depends on how well the draws go, probably. If their Woodcutters avoid collision, then it's probably pretty good for them, because not only are they not colliding, but they're also pretty protected. But this is pretty unlikely to hold up for so so long. Which leaves us with YW/W vs YW/S. Well, how often do you want a moat with witch?
Probably I think you should get the bane pretty often - you get crushed without it, if not mirroring anyway. But even more often, you want the Young Witch. So I think pretty often you end up going for more actions than you're probably normally comfortable with. Of course, lots depends on the specific banes, and on what's on the rest of the board. But winning the curse split is MASSIVE.

Okay, one more hypothetical case study I want to look at. Sea Hag with YW/Mediocre to bad bane. Well, thing is, people will say Hag is better. But the only way this is true is if there's an appreciable chance at a bane block. So what do you do? Well, I would probably open with the hag. I'm not sure whether it's right to get the bane or not (say it's a woodcutter again). Probably I wouldn't, because I want a second curser. If THEY go for the banes, follow up with second hag. If not, go for the YW as second curser.
Here's where the intricacies come in. If they play straight hag, you're better off going with YW. If they play YW, you're better off with Bane/Hag. But you're better off with just Hag than Bane/Hag, if they don't get YW. So it's all about timing, and when is it too late for that bane to do you enough good, and when is it enough of a problem for them to have to get the bane to make YW-Hag worth it.

If you were expecting some kind of fully comprehensive strategy, well, you're gonna be disappointed. Because the card's just too complicated. For me anyway. I hope this helps though.


Works with:
Tunnel
Weak banes

Doesn't work with:
Ambassador
Good trashing with a good engine
Strong banes

[Robz888]

Good article.

Most people are aware of this, but in case anyone isn't, there are two specific Bane cards worth mentioning. Scheme is actually the perfect Bane, since it can be returned to your hand every turn. And Embargo is the very worst Bane card, since you would have to never play it or keep buying more of them to actually be defended.

[chwhite]

My opinion on Young Witch is that Level 20s should buy it more often, and Level 40s should buy it less often.  "Decent trashing and a good engine" is not exactly uncommon.  At a minimum, Chapel and Remake (ed: and Masq) ought to be added in with Ambassador as trashing sufficient to ignore the YW, and I think Steward and Lookout are often good enough, too.

And Woodcutter is not a middling bane, it's one of the worst banes there is.

Also, the Sea Hag vs. Young Witch comparison ignores two pretty important points in Hag's favor: a) the top-decking of the curse, and b) the fact that Hag doesn't draw means it's safer to add another terminal or two- often an important consideration (especially if that terminal is the bane!).

[theory]

Is terminal-ness the dividing line between bad banes and good banes?  Accounting for cards like Ambassador and Chapel, of course.

[Taco Lobster]

I agree with Robz888 regarding mentioning those two specific banes.  Scheme is a brutal bane for YW.

[chwhite]

Is terminal-ness the dividing line between bad banes and good banes?

It's the most important factor: basically all non-terminal banes are at least decent banes.  There are *also* good terminal banes, though: trashers, Swindler (which I may take over YW anyway), Watchtower, Courtyard.  Also Ambasador and Masquerade, but those two go without saying.

[Galzria]

I'm terrible with YW. I'm not great at sifting strategies (need to improve), and I can never get a good read on the power of middling banes. So I generally ignore it unless there is an obvious reason for me to go for it.

[WanderingWinder]

Banes, in rough order from worst to best:
Tunnel
Embargo
Herbalist
Workshop
Secret Chamber
Moat
Develop
Smugglers
Duchess
Black Market
Chancellor
Woodcutter
Fortune Teller
Shanty Town
Oracle
Trade Route
Watchtower
Haven (this fails to moat so effectively b/c of duration-ness)
Crossroads
Pearl Diver
Cellar
Warehouse
Native Village
Loan
Menagerie
Village
Pawn
Great Hall
Lookout
Courtyard
Steward
Hamlet
Swindler
Wishing Well
Fool's Gold
Fishing Village
Scheme
Lighthouse
Chapel
Masquerade
Ambassador

Obviously it's somewhat board-dependent. Anything above lighthouse, it doesn't matter all that much that it's the bane. Probably fool's gold is borderline and above make it pretty pointless to go YW. Many of the others, also, depending on the board somewhat. Probably pawn is about the borderline of where I am usually not getting YW when these cards are bane. And trade route or there about on down, I'm seriously considering skipping banes altogether. Tunnel is of course amazing with YW itself, but if for some reason, you're trying to go for a YW-less strategy, it's not a great bane.

Galzria, it's probably closer to being a card you should get if unless there's an obvious reason NOT to go for it. Try it out some more.

chwhite has some good points, though watchtower as a bane... I don't know, I'm probably not using it to bane, I want to take and then trash the curses usually. Unless somehow there's another way of me giving them out. Masq is enough to ignore it I would GUESS, but I'm not sure, actually. As for the trashing point: well, maybe, but I actually think it is sorta rare. I don't think remake or steward are sufficient by themselves. Totally by itself, not chapel either. I mean, how often do you ignore sea hag? You should ignore this less, if by ignore, we also mean ignore the bane. Either you want this, or its bane, significantly more often than sea hag.

[AJD]

It's the most important factor: basically all non-terminal banes are at least decent banes.  There are *also* good terminal banes, though: trashers, Swindler (which I may take over YW anyway), Watchtower, Courtyard.  Also Ambasador and Masquerade, but those two go without saying.

Does Watchtower count as a "good bane"? It seems to me it's roughly equivalent to having (an eleven-card kingdom with) no bane at all. I mean, Watchtower will protect you from Young Witch whether it's the bane or not; in many Young Witch kingdoms you'd buy Watchtower instead of the bane. I guess there are cases where it might be useful to be able to choose whether to block or trash the curse, but it doesn't seem like a major consideration.

I think Lighthouse deserves a shoutout as an excellent bane, though.

[Taco Lobster]

WW - great list, but I don't quite understand how it works.  When you say "worst to best" do you mean "the bane that is least effective against YW to the bane that is most effective against YW"?  Also, when you say "anything above lighthouse" do you mean "anything below lighthouse in the list"?  Does it not matter that those cards are the bane because they're generally good enough to take by themselves?

[WanderingWinder]

WW - great list, but I don't quite understand how it works.  When you say "worst to best" do you mean "the bane that is least effective against YW to the bane that is most effective against YW"?  Also, when you say "anything above lighthouse" do you mean "anything below lighthouse in the list"?  Does it not matter that those cards are the bane because they're generally good enough to take by themselves?

The cards at the top of the list are least effective as banes and/or when they're the bane, I will take them least. Which isn't I guess exactly right, because I'm playing YW/Tunnel virtually every time, but basically the ones at the top of the list are less effective banes, the ones at the bottom are more effective banes. "Above lighthouse" means lighthouse or better. Which, given that I said it, probably means I should have put the list in the opposite order.
Man, how do you think that's a great list if you don't understand it? (Not that I blame you for not understanding it - crikey, that's confusing, isn't it?)

[ehunt]

I think chancellor, while still not a very good bane, is a bit better than you give it credit for in the list (e.g. better than woodcutter) because its ability makes it more likely to show up in your hand.

[Taco Lobster]

Thanks.  I got the general gist, but I had to read it several times and think about it.  Tunnel at the top (bottom?) was one of the things I found most confusing, but that's because there are a number of assumptions built into the list and wanted to make sure I understood what those were.

[HiveMindEmulator]

A while back, I was thinking about writing this same article, but I opted not to because it is really complicated. It's almost impossible to write something even remotely comprehensive on Young Witch. It's really a brilliant game-twisting card.

I think you did a good job with the article. It's a bit confusing, but that's more the Young Witch's fault than yours . You hit the main point that with no bane Young Witch is basically Witch. And you kind of got into the weird RPS/second-player advantage situation with middling banes (I think this situation also comes up with stuff like Jack+bad bane too).

One thing I think you should mention is how important the cards at the $5 price point are when dealing with choosing terminal bane vs Silver. YW/Silver is really good at getting to $5, since basically you need the Silver to either show up with 3 Coppers, or among the 6 cards you see with Young Witch (as long as you don't get all 3 Estates in the other 5). YW/bane is not nearly as good at getting $5. Since YW draws, you have a >50% chance of collision, and if you collide, you probably don't hit $5 on turn 3 or 4. If there is literally nothing at $5, you may be willing to accept the collision chances, because winning the Curse split is a big deal, but if there is something that's going to be useful to get early at $5, you're probably going to want the Silver.

The other subject that deserves some treatment is deciding what to look for when considering skipping Young Witch. Non-terminal bane is not enough. You can get non-terminal bane + Young Witch. But then if you add in trashing you're starting to look a lot better...

The problem with your list is that there are really 2 quite non-equivalent definitions of "good".
1. Bane cards you are more likely to get
2. Bane cards that are more likely to make you want to skip Young Witch.

Tunnel is "good" in the first sense, and much worse in the second. In general, terminals are going to rank lower with the first criteria than with the second, because you can get non-terminals in addition to Young Witch.

[timchen]

Is it a good day for lousy articles? I actually got more information out from chwhite's reply than reading through the article...

The middle big paragraph is very uninformative. Is it trying to say that one should get both YW and bane to win the curse split at all costs? I really don't like the way you just throwing out "winning the curse split is massive" without any supporting arguments. Say without trashers. Do I automatically lose the game with a 6-4 curse split rather than 5-5? It's not obvious for me. In hagging games I am always the guy who tries to avoid the second hag if possible, despite that almost always guarantee myself to lose the curse split. With trashers it's even less obvious. I have won games with a 10-0 curse split in hag and familiar games. It seems to me that risking your own economy in order to win the curse split is obviously not always a good idea. 

[WanderingWinder]

Is it a good day for lousy articles?

I'm sorry - what's the point of this? I don't mind you pointing out problems where you see problems. But just saying "it's lousy" doesn't help anyone.

I actually got more information out from chwhite's reply than reading through the article...

Now see, this is something useful to say.

The middle big paragraph is very uninformative. Is it trying to say that one should get both YW and bane to win the curse split at all costs?

No. Maybe you should read it...
It says that you should consider buying both, and that sometimes you should buy both, because winning the curse split is really important. Not 'all costs'. I don't know where you get all costs. But I also point out that if the bane is bad enough, then you aren't helping yourself anyway. But mostly I'm trying to tell you to look at all your options. You want to minimize the number of dead cards in your deck, generally, in order to maximize your economy.

I really don't like the way you just throwing out "winning the curse split is massive" without any supporting arguments.

I don't think that it really needs much support. Having more curses than them hurts your bottom line score-wise, and it hurts you in terms of deck construction too, because you have extra cards taht do nothing with you.

Say without trashers. Do I automatically lose the game with a 6-4 curse split rather than 5-5? It's not obvious for me.

I'm not really sure what 'say without trashers' means here. But of course you don't automatically lose the game if you lose the split. But it really hurts you, if you don't have a specific and strong plan to overcome that. You'll have to get pretty lucky to get around that.

In hagging games I am always the guy who tries to avoid the second hag if possible, despite that almost always guarantee myself to lose the curse split.

Okay? First of all, YW is a lot better than Sea Hag for your post-curse-giving phase economy, which is the point I'm trying to make at the beginning. And just that you're that guy, doesn't mean that being that guy is good strategy.

With trashers it's even less obvious. I have won games with a 10-0 curse split in hag and familiar games. It seems to me that risking your own economy in order to win the curse split is obviously not always a good idea. 

Where am I telling you to 'risk your own economy' here? I'm not doing this at all. I've won games losing the split 10-0 too - but these are few and far between. At least playing quality opposition. I leave allowances for this in all those places where I mention trashing and a good engine as ways around it. In general though, trashing to try to get around curses from a young witch is a losing proposition. Not always, but most often.

[WanderingWinder]

I mean, an opening chapel will go a long way. But lesser trashing, or if you don't have anything to go into and don't go chapel AND the curser, I just don't see it.

[timchen]

I'm sorry - what's the point of this? I don't mind you pointing out problems where you see problems. But just saying "it's lousy" doesn't help anyone.

Sorry if putting this comment out front annoys you, but as you've seen my reasons are provided in the following.

No. Maybe you should read it...
It says that you should consider buying both, and that sometimes you should buy both, because winning the curse split is really important. Not 'all costs'. I don't know where you get all costs. But I also point out that if the bane is bad enough, then you aren't helping yourself anyway. But mostly I'm trying to tell you to look at all your options. You want to minimize the number of dead cards in your deck, generally, in order to maximize your economy.

I did read it. And that is the summary I get from the paragraph (maybe I've put it a bit more to the extreme), provided that the bane is Wood Cutter anyway. If that is not your conclusion then I dunno what is. A lengthy way to say "it depends"? Anyway putting "winning the curse split is MASSIVE" at the end of the paragraph does not help.

And where did you say "you want to minimize the number of dead cards in your deck, generally, in order to maximize your economy" in the original article, and what does that mean in practice anyway? At first glance getting more terminals than usual increases the number of dead cards in your deck. How well does blocking incoming curses compensate that?

I don't think that it really needs much support. Having more curses than them hurts your bottom line score-wise, and it hurts you in terms of deck construction too, because you have extra cards taht do nothing with you.

Thanks for telling me. Before you tell me this I have entirely no idea why curse is so bad. This really opens up a whole new strategic consideration for me.

But no, this line does need support. And I am providing reasons below why it needs support. Winning the curse split just isn't everything.

Okay? First of all, YW is a lot better than Sea Hag for your post-curse-giving phase economy, which is the point I'm trying to make at the beginning. And just that you're that guy, doesn't mean that being that guy is good strategy.

Sure, but this is something you should elaborate in the article. And for your own economy, it is actually not that much better, if you have strong cards to get at $5. But anyway, my point is that there is no definite priorities between giving out curses and building your own economy. Especially when we are talking about differences between 5-5, 6-4, or 7-3 curse splits, which is pretty much the difference between getting the bane or not.

I am also not claiming one should not get the second sea hag, but I am saying getting only one sea hag is not clearly worse in lots of situations, despite that it will probably lose you the curse split.

Where am I telling you to 'risk your own economy' here? I'm not doing this at all. I've won games losing the split 10-0 too - but these are few and far between. At least playing quality opposition. I leave allowances for this in all those places where I mention trashing and a good engine as ways around it. In general though, trashing to try to get around curses from a young witch is a losing proposition. Not always, but most often.

My mention of 10-0 curse split games was meant to be an extreme example. I agree it is usually hard to get around curses without your own curser. But the discussion here is whether to get a bane or not, provided that you have gotten the young witch yourself. This is a more subtle question, and the answer you provided, as far as I can read, is to get the bane (if it is at least as good as wood cutter), and to win the curse split. That advice is something I am not convinced of. I mean, well, at least you won't buy wood cutter at every possible chance just in order to win the curse split...

[WanderingWinder]

Yes, it's a long way of saying 'it depends'. As I say at the beginning, it's hugely varying. I'm not trying to tell you a quick way of figuring out exactly how many YWs and banes to get, because there isn't a quick way of figuring it out. The card is too complex. As I say.
Also, I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that I need to explain to you why cursing attacks are good. In any event, that's not something that I really need to explain here, because it's more general, not so much this-card specific. Now maybe you think it needs it, but man, I haven't seen you writing extensive articles to have your own organization system.
Saying that winning the curse split is massive is, well maybe it's obvious, but it's true moreso than false. There are exceptions, of course. There are always exceptions. I don't feel like I need to say there are exceptions, because there are always exceptions. It's not a very fun article to read when every other line is 'there are exceptions'.
Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying that winning the curse split is everything. I'm saying it's massive. Massive != everything. Massive is, I don't know, 70% to me? Obviously here, depends on how much you win the split by. You win a curse split 7-3, that is a HUGE advantage. It really is. There are exceptions of course, where it doesn't matter much. Does that make you happy? There are exceptions. Your economy with young witches really is pretty significantly better than your economy with sea hags. There are exceptions. Giving out curses and building your own economy aren't really distinct. There are exceptions. I mean, it's a zero-sum game, so what matters is the relative economies. There are exceptions. You claim that the discussion here is about whether to get the bane, given that you have a Young Witch already. But that's not what the discussion is; that's only PART of the discussion here. The discussion is whether to get the YW, the bane, both, neither... If you read that the answer I give is to get the bane if it's as good as woodcutter, then you're reading it wrong. Here's the relevant paragraph:
"Probably I think you should get the bane pretty often - you get crushed without it, if not mirroring anyway. But even more often, you want the Young Witch. So I think pretty often you end up going for more actions than you're probably normally comfortable with. Of course, lots depends on the specific banes, and on what's on the rest of the board. But winning the curse split is MASSIVE."
Okay, I'm saying to get the bane pretty often. Which is a LOT different from 'get the bane'. I say you get crushed without it IF NOT MIRRORING (obviously, again, there are exceptions), meaning NOT what you say, but rather the case where you DON'T get a YW. And then I say that more often, you want to get the Young Witch. Now these things aren't mutually exclusive, but I'm saying that more often than getting a bane, you want to get Young Witch. And I stand by that. But then, I say, I DO say, that it is really really varying based on the board.
Going back a bit, increasing the number of terminals does NOT necessarily increase the number of dead cards in your deck. I'm not saying anything anywhere about getting more than a couple of these banes, at least very early on. You do, of course, increase your risk of collision, buying more terminals. But this is a risk that I'm saying you very often have to take. Opening double terminal, if they're non-drawing, is fairly unlikely to collide, anyway. But curses are CERTAINLY dead cards. I mean, if all the bane did was moat for you, with no effect for playing it, then yeah, there's not really any point in getting them. But that's not what's going on - these cards still have some value for you.  In no way am I trying to imply that you should buy woodcutter at every opportunity (there are exceptions; well, maybe), and it would take a pretty dumb reading of the article to think that. And I don't think much anyone else is getting that out of this article except you (there are probably a couple of exceptions).

[Jfrisch]

@WW, why is tunnel a bad bane? It's not going to discourage your opponent from going yw, but that's different than being a bad bane.

[WanderingWinder]

@WW, why is tunnel a bad bane? It's not going to discourage your opponent from going yw, but that's different than being a bad bane.

Well I don't know. It's very hard to say - I could very easily put it #1 without any squabbles. But its power isn't really form its baney-ness. I don't know - mean, if it's bane, I'm going to tell you to grab it hard-core. I don't mean to say it's not a card you want when it's bane. So maybe I shouldn't rank it where I do. But at the same time, it's not like 'aww yeah, great bane!' because it's more like 'hey, YW-tunnel!' - the bane-ness doesn't have much to do with it. Though I guess it plays a bit different, 'cause you don't have so many curses. So maybe, yes, I should rank it as a good one.

If anyone's reading the listing, please don't take it to mean that I think you shouldn't get tunnel when it's bane.

I mean my explanation is right there:

Tunnel is of course amazing with YW itself, but if for some reason, you're trying to go for a YW-less strategy, it's not a great bane.

But yeah, maybe not the right way of going about things, I grant.

[Robz888]

@WW, why is tunnel a bad bane? It's not going to discourage your opponent from going yw, but that's different than being a bad bane.

Well I don't know. It's very hard to say - I could very easily put it #1 without any squabbles. But its power isn't really form its baney-ness. I don't know - mean, if it's bane, I'm going to tell you to grab it hard-core. I don't mean to say it's not a card you want when it's bane. So maybe I shouldn't rank it where I do. But at the same time, it's not like 'aww yeah, great bane!' because it's more like 'hey, YW-tunnel!' - the bane-ness doesn't have much to do with it. Though I guess it plays a bit different, 'cause you don't have so many curses. So maybe, yes, I should rank it as a good one.

If anyone's reading the listing, please don't take it to mean that I think you shouldn't get tunnel when it's bane.

I mean my explanation is right there:

Tunnel is of course amazing with YW itself, but if for some reason, you're trying to go for a YW-less strategy, it's not a great bane.

But yeah, maybe not the right way of going about things, I grant.

I think what you said makes fine sense. Tunnel is a terrible Bane. It's not a card that you want to have in hand. It doesn't do anything for you. A hand of Copper-Copper-Etate-Estate-Woodcutter is at least useable. A hand of Copper-Copper-Estate-Estate-Tunnel is going nowhere.

However, it also happens that Tunnel is a great combo with Young Witch. But not because it blocks the Curse. So, I think what you said makes sense.

[timchen]

Yes, it's a long way of saying 'it depends'. As I say at the beginning, it's hugely varying. I'm not trying to tell you a quick way of figuring out exactly how many YWs and banes to get, because there isn't a quick way of figuring it out. The card is too complex. As I say.

Yeah. The problem I am complaining about isn't that you are giving wrong advises. The problem is that you are giving vague advises, but without specifics those advises are uninformative. Both a lv 15 player and a lv 40 player can say yes I get it, but then play wildly different.

Also, I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that I need to explain to you why cursing attacks are good.

No, you don't have to explain this. But I would prefer a more informative statement, say, how many terminal banes and how many young witches you'd like to get in order to get the curse split from 5-5 to 3-7. Something like that. Otherwise it pretty much says nothing, at least to a lv 15+ player I think.

The discussion is whether to get the YW, the bane, both, neither... If you read that the answer I give is to get the bane if it's as good as woodcutter, then you're reading it wrong. Here's the relevant paragraph:
"Probably I think you should get the bane pretty often - you get crushed without it, if not mirroring anyway. But even more often, you want the Young Witch. So I think pretty often you end up going for more actions than you're probably normally comfortable with. Of course, lots depends on the specific banes, and on what's on the rest of the board. But winning the curse split is MASSIVE."
Okay, I'm saying to get the bane pretty often. Which is a LOT different from 'get the bane'. I say you get crushed without it IF NOT MIRRORING (obviously, again, there are exceptions), meaning NOT what you say, but rather the case where you DON'T get a YW. And then I say that more often, you want to get the Young Witch. Now these things aren't mutually exclusive, but I'm saying that more often than getting a bane, you want to get Young Witch. And I stand by that. But then, I say, I DO say, that it is really really varying based on the board.

I admit I misread. I don't feel it's all my fault though... But again if your point is that you want to get Young Witch, there is not that much information...

it would take a pretty dumb reading of the article to think that. And I don't think much anyone else is getting that out of this article except you

This is just an extreme counter example to "to get the bane (if it is at least as good as wood cutter), and to win the curse split", which is what I can read from the article, if I were to get any semi-solid advice on how many banes I should get. But again I have misread, as you are not even talking about the number of bane cards you should get. I am not complaining about you giving ridiculous advises, but the lack of useful advises. It seems to me that both a lv 15 and a lv 40 can read through and say they didn't get anything new (provided they read correctly.)

[Geronimoo]

Some simulator data should prove helpful here to make things less abstract:

Simple Big Money
Let's take a simple Young Witch Big Money bot which buys 2 YW and money. Let it play against a bot that opens YW/Herbalist (one of the worst banes). The YW+Herbalist beats YW-no bane 58-40.

Now replace Herbalist with Wishing Well (top of the bane list) and the YW+bane beats YW-no bane 80-17 (it buys up to 4 Wishing Wells before Silvers).

Big Money + important $5
Now, if there's a Wharf we really want:
YW+Herbalist (into Wharf) is on par with YW-no bane (into Wharf).

YW+Wishing Well (into Wharf) beats YW-no bane (into Wharf) 72-26


So at least for Big Money games it's probably a safe bet to always open YW/bane instead of YW/Silver.

[WanderingWinder]

It seems to me that both a lv 15 and a lv 40 can read through and say they didn't get anything new (provided they read correctly.)

If you would have just posted this, I wouldn't have had any problem. I disagree, but that's fine. I mean, I try to say something to the extent that it's not a full, comprehensive article to tell you exactly what to do by with my last paragraph before the 'Works with' and 'Works without'.