Print

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

[Deadlock39]

I think a card that just gives +1 card/+1 action on the next turn could give a good action reliability boost to the right type of engine and would be worth getting two of in a lot of cases. With one of these in play each turn, you don't need to draw a Village in your starting hand, and can have better reliability in a deck that doesn't have a ton of excess actions.  Since you are playing this "Village" on the previous turn, it doesn't matter if your other one is the last card in your deck.

But it does matter if it isn't the last card in your deck because it's a stop card. The +1 Card and +1 Action you gain, you also lose when you have to play it.

[At the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action] is Ruins-bad. I mean it might be the strongest Ruins, but it's still in that ballpark.

but I get an extra card at the start of my turn, so I am no more likely to dud than I was without this card.  If I have a deck that needs to over-buy draw to have reliability, this card potentially reduces the need to over-buy Villages also.

[LastFootnote]

I think a card that just gives +1 card/+1 action on the next turn could give a good action reliability boost to the right type of engine and would be worth getting two of in a lot of cases. With one of these in play each turn, you don't need to draw a Village in your starting hand, and can have better reliability in a deck that doesn't have a ton of excess actions.  Since you are playing this "Village" on the previous turn, it doesn't matter if your other one is the last card in your deck.

But it does matter if it isn't the last card in your deck because it's a stop card. The +1 Card and +1 Action you gain, you also lose when you have to play it.

[At the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action] is Ruins-bad. I mean it might be the strongest Ruins, but it's still in that ballpark.

but I get an extra card at the start of my turn, so I am no more likely to dud than I was without this card.  If I have a deck that needs to over-buy draw to have reliability, this card potentially reduces the need to over-buy Villages also.

Yes, you are more likely to dud. And no, it doesn't reduce the need to overbuy Villages. This card (which I will call Layabout for convenience) makes your deck less reliable, not more.

You seem to be sort of tacitly assuming that you will always find Layabout at the bottom of your deck. But that's false, and it will be an anchor around your neck whenever you draw it earlier. Every time you draw a Layabout, you could have drawn something else, like a Village or Smithy variant. And that's not all: thanks to Layabout being a stop card, you will have lots of hands where you have the option between playing a Layabout and playing something better. If you play the better card, your Layabout was dead this shuffle, no better than a Ruined Village. If you play the Layabout, it only breaks even (about as good as a cantrip) but your other, better card is dead this shuffle.

I could maybe see a card that gave you an option. "Choose one: +1 Card and +1 Action; or at the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action." That might be worth $2. Layabout is garbage that clogs your deck only slightly less than a Ruins.

[Limetime]

Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.

By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.

This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.

FV is better than bazaar in many cases especially if you don't ignore costs.
Having the three coins happen tommorow makes this better at hitting high price points.

[LastFootnote]

FV is better than bazaar in many cases especially if you don't ignore costs.

Agreed.

Having the three coins happen tommorow makes this better at hitting high price points.

But this is misleading. Rare is the deck that you need to spike price points. Much more common is the deck that you build up in order to semi-reliably hit that price point. The two situations I can think of that you want to spike high price points are:

• You want to hit a high price point quickly in order to buy a strong Action, Treasure, or Event very early in the game (Forge, Prince, etc.).
• The game is sloggy enough that you can't reliably build up to a high price point that you eventually want to hit (Colony, etc.).

[tristan]

Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.

By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.

This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.

FV is better than bazaar in many cases especially if you don't ignore costs.

As it is a "double village" of which you need fewer than "ordinary" villages, no doubt. I only tried to argue against the notion that a Fishing Village version which would do nothing on the current turn, i.e. a hyperdelayed Bazaar, is better than a Bazaar.

[Deadlock39]

I think a card that just gives +1 card/+1 action on the next turn could give a good action reliability boost to the right type of engine and would be worth getting two of in a lot of cases. With one of these in play each turn, you don't need to draw a Village in your starting hand, and can have better reliability in a deck that doesn't have a ton of excess actions.  Since you are playing this "Village" on the previous turn, it doesn't matter if your other one is the last card in your deck.

But it does matter if it isn't the last card in your deck because it's a stop card. The +1 Card and +1 Action you gain, you also lose when you have to play it.

[At the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action] is Ruins-bad. I mean it might be the strongest Ruins, but it's still in that ballpark.

but I get an extra card at the start of my turn, so I am no more likely to dud than I was without this card.  If I have a deck that needs to over-buy draw to have reliability, this card potentially reduces the need to over-buy Villages also.

Yes, you are more likely to dud. And no, it doesn't reduce the need to overbuy Villages. This card (which I will call Layabout for convenience) makes your deck less reliable, not more.

You seem to be sort of tacitly assuming that you will always find Layabout at the bottom of your deck. But that's false, and it will be an anchor around your neck whenever you draw it earlier. Every time you draw a Layabout, you could have drawn something else, like a Village or Smithy variant. And that's not all: thanks to Layabout being a stop card, you will have lots of hands where you have the option between playing a Layabout and playing something better. If you play the better card, your Layabout was dead this shuffle, no better than a Ruined Village. If you play the Layabout, it only breaks even (about as good as a cantrip) but your other, better card is dead this shuffle.

I could maybe see a card that gave you an option. "Choose one: +1 Card and +1 Action; or at the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action." That might be worth $2. Layabout is garbage that clogs your deck only slightly less than a Ruins.

That is not at all what I am assuming. I am assuming I played one on the previous turn. I'm not convinced this card has no usefulness, but I unfortunately got into something I don't have time to explore, so I won't keep attempting to argue for its usefulness. It is a card that ultimately does nothing, so the usefulness cannot be very significant if it exists.

While I'm spending time I shouldn't thinking about this, one example did come to mind.

If you consider a draw engine using a strong draw card (e.g. Hunting Grounds) and Scenic Village (+10 Actions card from the Civilization thread). I am confident adding Layabout to that draw engine would reduce the number of Scenic Villages needed to support it. This allows you to "preload" some of your Scenic Village Actions to the start of your turns.

[tristan]

If you consider a draw engine using a strong draw card (e.g. Hunting Grounds) and Scenic Village (+10 Actions card from the Civilization thread). I am confident adding Layabout to that draw engine would reduce the number of Scenic Villages needed to support it. This allows you to "preload" some of your Scenic Village Actions to the start of your turns.

I agree with your example but it is also pretty extreme due to the weird nature of Scenic Village.

Don't forget that even the presence of an expensive village like City doesn't make Layabout good. You can only transfer an action and a card into the next turn, you don't "generate" an extra action like a village does.
Now there are some +3 Action cards (and Tribute can generate 4 Actions but it is obviously not realiable enough) and here one or two Layabouts could do the trick of action transfer into the next turn.

But in all other cases it is worse than a cantrip.

[Deadlock39]

If you consider a draw engine using a strong draw card (e.g. Hunting Grounds) and Scenic Village (+10 Actions card from the Civilization thread). I am confident adding Layabout to that draw engine would reduce the number of Scenic Villages needed to support it. This allows you to "preload" some of your Scenic Village Actions to the start of your turns.

I agree with your example but it is also pretty extreme due to the weird nature of Scenic Village.

Don't forget that even the presence of an expensive village like City doesn't make Layabout good. You can only transfer an action and a card into the next turn, you don't "generate" an extra action like a village does.
Now there are some +3 Action cards (and Tribute can generate 4 Actions but it is obviously not realiable enough) and here one or two Layabouts could do the trick of action transfer into the next turn.

But in all other cases it is worse than a cantrip.

Absolutely I don't really disagree with this. Perhaps I didn't frame my assertion properly, but all I am saying is that there could be situations where transferring a card and action to the start of your next turn could be worth doing.

The more important thing I guess I wanted to say is that (IMHO) the delay of getting your card back is a more significant part of why a duration effect (e.g. Caravan vs Lab) is worth less. It is obvious in the case of a deck that draws every turn where I need 2 Caravans to equal what I would get from one Lab.  In this situation, the most recent version of Dinghy is only half a Peddler, so a cost of $2 or $3 might be appropriate. Its usage is also made much more awkward due to everything coming on the second turn instead of being card/action now, coin next turn. In general I think that is less of an issue (regarding wanting to buy it) than the card just being super weak.

[tristan]

Totally agree. You can always chain your Caravan Guards but the last Dinghy, the hyperdelayed Peddler, requires you to chain over turns Dinghies (you need the Action that the Dinghy in play provides in order to play the new, dead-terminal Dinghy).
And as we established, the cases in which the resource transfer supermini-Tactician part of a hyperdelayed card is good are extremely rare.

[Deadlock39]

Totally agree. You can always chain your Caravan Guards but the last Dinghy, the hyperdelayed Peddler, requires you to chain over turns Dinghies (you need the Action that the Dinghy in play provides in order to play the new, dead-terminal Dinghy).
And as we established, the cases in which the resource transfer supermini-Tactician part of a hyperdelayed card is good are extremely rare.

Sure, I think the rareness of that situation is related to the effect being weak. Haunted Woods is a "hyperdelayed" Smithy, but it is good because Smithy is good.  Peddler is kind of meh, so the situation where it is worth getting in "hyperdelayed" form is going to be a stretch. Tactician delays your whole turn, and that is good because it gives you more control over your buying options. $0 and then $8 and 2 buys is better than $4 then $4 most of the time, but delaying a turn has a cost, which matters too. If you are drawing your deck every turn, then missing one turn is a really big deal. We see this with dud turns in engine games. If you aren't, the effect is much less significant.