Print

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

[Beyond Awesome]

I actually played a game where I bought Market Square solely for the +Buy. So, I would have to say it superior to Tunnel. I wouldn't buy a Tunnel solely for the VP unless it was mighty close to the end game.

[eHalcyon]

Maybe it's slightly weaker in shelter games since you can't get those turns where you return 2 Estates,

You can't even get those turns where you return ONE Estate(or Shelter), because you can't return them at all. I think the plus from Necropolis is outweighed by being stuck with the other two.

Oh I thought you just can't give them out. If you reveal a non-supply card, what happens to it? Anyway, even so, you still have the sustained attack portion of the card, which is really the strong part, moreso than the pseudo-trashing really, imo.

If you reveal a Shelter, it stays in your hand because it has no supply pile to return to. So, Necropolis does not help Ambassador since being able to return estates is much more potent than being able to return coppers.

Is this the right interpretation? It makes sense, since there is no "shelters" pile to return things to, but who is to say that there isn't an ever-present, non-supply, perpetually-empty pile of shelters waiting for yours to be returned?
What is the verdict on Ambassadoring other non-supply cards, which do have piles? Prizes, Spoils, Madmen (Madmans?), Mercenaries, etc?

This is an official ruling from Donald X.  I think it was first given during DA previews.  It's probably also in the rule book.

[LastFootnote]

I actually played a game where I bought Market Square solely for the +Buy. So, I would have to say it superior to Tunnel. I wouldn't buy a Tunnel solely for the VP unless it was mighty close to the end game.

Well, keep in mind that while you don't need the additional buys in every game, every game does have a period that's "mighty close to the end game".

[HiveMindEmulator]

I actually played a game where I bought Market Square solely for the +Buy. So, I would have to say it superior to Tunnel. I wouldn't buy a Tunnel solely for the VP unless it was mighty close to the end game.

Well, keep in mind that while you don't need the additional buys in every game, every game does have a period that's "mighty close to the end game".

I'd be willing to bet that if you removed the reactions from the cards, Market Square would be useful much more often than Tunnel. Even though you don't need the +buy every game, in the games where you get it, it will make a big difference. For non-reaction Tunnel to actually make a difference, you need to be have a spare $3 in the late game AND be in a game where the difference between winning and losing is 1VP.

[chwhite]

The top of this list seems good.  No idea on the Dark Ages cards, I might put them ahead of Scheme and Watchtower actually, and I might even consider Lookout up in this echelon.  But the top seven are obviously exactly right, and probably in that order too.

[Tables]

Give me some examples of kingdoms where you'd rather open Lookout than Ambassador, and I'll give you a hundred for each one where I'd rather open Ambassador than Lookout*.

Lookout is somewhat random, which makes it get progressively worse beyond the earlygame, as it becomes harder to hit your bad cards with it, and more risky as you might hit only good cards. On top of that, trashing one card is not that huge. Trashing is nice, but not amazing, and the fact it trashes from deck (allowing you to continue buying cards) is marred by how slow it is at trashing. On the other hand Ambassador thins you deck notably faster than Lookout does (typically 2 cards at a time at first, and you often won't buy cards at the same time which while being somewhat of a disadvantage, does mean your deck thins faster), and simultaneously junking your opponent. It takes only a few turns to have a very lean deck while your opponents is full of bloat. On top of that, Ambassador continues to be useful, being usable as a psuedo-curser, throwing out coppers, estates or of course, even curses, right through the mid and often late game, and offers other interesting pile-depletion options and other things right up to endgame, while Lookout becomes a completely dead card.

Finally, Doctor > Lookout for deck thinning, I'd say, in my limited experience. And you can open with two of ANY $3 card, so that's not really a point worth noting...

*Examples may be provided in the form of "Go to goko and hit random 100 times"

[jonts26]

i... don't get it. lookout is hands down the best 3-4$ trasher. you can trash a card with only 1 card disadvantage in the current turn and it even improves your next turn. i'd rank it in top 3, maybe at #1. it totally beats ambassador.

you can even open with 2 lookouts.

how is it so low?

The biggest problem with lookout is in it's unpredictability. You get to trash one of three random cards from your deck, and you can't trash from your hand so you never have a good chance to trash those last pesky coppers except in a few cases. It gets harder and harder to actually trash what you want. And trashing only one card at a time is sort of slow anyway. So yeah, lookout has only one thing it does sort of well. But it's not the best trasher at its cost. And all it does is trash.

Compare some of the other $3 trashers -

Masquerade also trashes one card, but it draws 2 cards so after you trash you still have 5 cards to work with. Also you can pick any one out of 6 cards to trash (and even more if you can draw more cards first). So masq trashes sort of slow, but it does so very efficiently. Also it has some other tricks with discard attacks and whatnot.

Ambassador not only 'trashes' but also junks. And junking cards are really powerful. So yeah, the deck thinning from amb isnt great, but it junks at the same time, which is super great. Overall making it quite strong.

Steward trashes 2 cards, which is quite a bit better than 1 card. Obviously your current hand is usually dead unless there are some $2 cards you want, so it's not nearly as good as a trasher as chapel or something, but after youre done trashing, it does other very useful things as well.

[SCSN]

i... don't get it. lookout is hands down the best 3-4$ trasher. you can trash a card with only 1 card disadvantage in the current turn and it even improves your next turn. i'd rank it in top 3, maybe at #1. it totally beats ambassador.

you can even open with 2 lookouts.

how is it so low?

Come to Outpost and we'll play a bunch of games where you open double Lookout and I open double Amb. I'd be surprised if it would take more than two games to convince you that Amb is vastly superior.

[silverspawn]

Give me some examples of kingdoms where you'd rather open Lookout than Ambassador, and I'll give you a hundred for each one where I'd rather open Ambassador than Lookout*.

i don't think i'd buy ambassador ever if there was a lookout. lookout is just so much better, because if you play ambassador, your turn is usually useless. you have a 3 card disadvantage, which means that  you only have 2 left and mostly you dont care about getting $2 cards. lookout hurts much less and the fact that your next turn gets better almost makes up for it.

Lookout is somewhat random, which makes it get progressively worse beyond the earlygame, as it becomes harder to hit your bad cards with it, and more risky as you might hit only good cards.

sometimes, yes. but more often, you can play it risk free. because if your deck is shitty there is almost guaranteed at least one bad card within 3 random ones. and if your deck is good it mostly means that you have a nice engine and then you can play it really late when you know which cards are left to draw. and if there's a laboratory within the last 3 cards you can even prepare for the next turn and make it less likely that your engine falls flat

.  On top of that, trashing one card is not that huge. Trashing is nice, but not amazing, and the fact it trashes from deck (allowing you to continue buying cards) is marred by how slow it is at trashing. On the other hand Ambassador thins you deck notably faster than Lookout does

and ambassador is a terminal and it completely ruins every turn you play it in. and a lot of times you draw it with like 3 coppers and one estate and then you have to decide wether to return 2 coppers or just one estate. if you chose the estate, you get -1 dead card and your opponent gets +1 dead card, which is nice, but your oponent will easily get rid of it with lookout, so it's not that big a deal. and if you use it on copper it means that your turn is compeltely scrwed over because you don't have any treasures left. and note that, if you play ambassador vs lookout, soon you'll be out of estates and have to use it on coppers while your enemy can comfortably trash with lookout without ruining his turns.

On top of that, Ambassador continues to be useful, being usable as a psuedo-curser, throwing out coppers, estates or of course, even curses, right through the mid and often late game, and offers other interesting pile-depletion options and other things right up to endgame, while Lookout becomes a completely dead card.

i completely disagree, i think lookout scales better, because of the reasons i desrcibed above.

Finally, Doctor > Lookout for deck thinning, I'd say, in my limited experience. And you can open with two of ANY $3 card, so that's not really a point worth noting...

with "can" i meant "it's good". and it is good because it's non terminal. try opening with 2 ambassadors.

you can also couple it with any other $3-4 terminal like swindler without risking anything, another thing you can't do with ambassador. and if there are shelters ambassador becomes even worse...

but i just compared it to ambassador because he's #1. the actual joke is that even steward is higher than lookout which makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

[eHalcyon]

Maybe you should take up SheCantSayNo's offer because you are definitely overestimating Lookout.

In the Amb vs. Lookout matchup, Amb will be removing dead cards more quickly than Lookout.  Yeah you probably don't buy anything that you play it on, but the faster deck trimming is worth it.  On the flip side, you may say that Lookout can easily trash the junk that Amb is sending, but that doesn't matter because the effect of Amb's junking is that your deck is slowed down a lot.  You play Lookout and trash a junk card, your opponent gives you a junk card with Ambassador.  Your deck is no better for it now.

Being able to buy something on the turn that you trash is nice, but trimming down quickly is usually much better.

[Watno]

try opening with 2 ambassadors.

Go take SCSN's offer and you'll see what a double ambassador opening can do.

[eHalcyon]

P.S. even putting value on being able to buy something on the turn you trash, I don't see why you would rank Lookout at the top.  Forager is the easy comparison here.  The main difference is that Lookout trashes from the deck whereas Forager trashes from the hand, and Forager provides coin and +Buy.  Forager wins here -- the money that it provides is worth at least as much as the extra card you would have in hand with Lookout (due to not having trashed from hand).  But Forager is less risky and it provides +Buy which can be very handy.  Pretty much the only thing that Lookout has over Forager is slightly increased cycling.

[jonts26]

try opening with 2 ambassadors.

Go take SCSN's offer and you'll see what a double ambassador opening can do.

Double Amb is much much worse if your opponent isn't getting an amb also.

And @silverspawn - read my last post where I address the steward comparison. Lookout trashes weakly (only one card, and you have limited control over what that card is). And that's really the only thing it does. The deck rearrangement is very minor at best. And you do have to consider the risk of being forced to trash a good card. The other cards which are ahead of it on this list tend to not trash all that well either, but they do other things as well. Steward trashes 2 cards, albeit non-terminally. But 2 trashing 2 cards is a lot better than trashing 1 card. And once you've trashed, steward is a very useful engine card since it can draw or give $.

[silverspawn]

Come to Outpost and we'll play a bunch of games where you open double Lookout and I open double Amb. I'd be surprised if it would take more than two games to convince you that Amb is vastly superior.

sure, why not. i'm probably wrong, given that everyone seems to be so sure, but it'll be interesting

e: though to really disprove my point you'd have to open double steward. and do we play with or without shelters?

P.S. even putting value on being able to buy something on the turn you trash, I don't see why you would rank Lookout at the top.  Forager is the easy comparison here.  The main difference is that Lookout trashes from the deck whereas Forager trashes from the hand, and Forager provides coin and +Buy.  Forager wins here -- the money that it provides is worth at least as much as the extra card you would have in hand with Lookout (due to not having trashed from hand).  But Forager is less risky and it provides +Buy which can be very handy.  Pretty much the only thing that Lookout has over Forager is slightly increased cycling.

i don't buy into that whole risky thing. experience shows that there is almsot always a way to be relatively safe. and yea, forager is top tier aswell, but it doesn't always give +$ and it's -2 cards, where as lookout is just -1. that's what makes it so good, it trashes with just 1 card disadvantage. aside from lookout, only $5 non-terminal cards do that

[dondon151]

How about you just look at the CouncilRoom.com list of best openings and see where Amb/Amb ranks relative to Lookout/Lookout?

[ftl]

Unfortunately, councilroom stuff is all really old now    and doesn't include data with shelters, which matters for amb.

Lookout is actually a pretty good trasher. But the thing is, trashing is the only thing it does. And it's not a fast trasher, only trashing one card at a time.

Ambassador is better than it because it's both a trasher AND an attack, and it gets rid of 2 cards at once (giving your opponent one!)
Steward is better than it in part because of versatility. Early-game it's a trasher which trashes faster than lookout (2 cards instead of 1). But then mid-game it's either coins or card draw, whereas lookout is a dead card when you're out of stuff you can safely trash.

Shelters make Ambassador way weaker. Then it's just a copper-trasher, and it's pretty bad.

[HiveMindEmulator]

I agree that Lookout is underrated, but I think you're underrating like all the other trashers... I think the problem is that you're looking at them too myopically. If they were 1-shot cards, Lookout might be the best since it hurts this turn the least and helps next turn the most. But you have to look at the entire flow of the game, not just a couple turns.

The thing that makes Ambassador so powerful is that it combines attacking with deck-cleaning. The attack forces the game to be longer, which makes it okay to spend some turns not buying anything, since you'll have plenty of time to build up as the game goes on. Steward is powerful because it trashes quickly and then turns into a drawing card, which is great in a deck with all the weak cards trimmed out. Lookout fails to have the power of these cards because the light trashing with no built-in transition isn't extreme enough to single-handedly affect the game flow as often.

[Kirian]

i... don't get it. lookout is hands down the best 3-4$ trasher.

I think we've been trolled.

Seriously, these are not individual opinions picked from someone's ass.  It is the generally agreement of dozens of players with a combined hundred thousand plus games that Lookout is one of the worst $3 trashers, while Ambassador and Masquerade are top 10 cards overall, and Steward is reasonably high as well.

I mean, I could claim that Counting House is a great $5 card because it's the only card than can provide $25 with one play, but that would be a dumb thing to claim.

[silverspawn]

It is the generally agreement of dozens of players with a combined hundred thousand plus games...

...which is no argument whatsoever. it's also a general agreement of billions of people that there is a god and that democracy is the superior form of goverment and i disagree with both of those statements, and so do millions of others. in broodwar, even professional gamers who play the game for more than 12 hours a day thought that the vulture was bad, only to later realise that it was overpowered and had to be nerfed. if you start using these kinds of arguments you just talk yourself into a corner, because opinion of majority just doesn't - mean - anything. so just don't do it. it's incredibly short minded.

we actually played 2 games with double amb vs dual lookout and both of them very incredibly close early game and both of them he eventually won, but he's just better at this game, so it doesn't disproof or proof anything

all of that doesn't mean that ambassador isn't in fact better, but i still don't see it and what you wrote here doesn't exactly help making me believe anything.

[Beyond Awesome]

I honestly don't think Amb. holds up as much these days. It is still strong, but DA really changes the strength of that card.

[scott_pilgrim]

[dondon151]

...which is no argument whatsoever.

Data and science are not arguments?

Actually, no, you're right. They aren't arguments; they're facts.

[GeoLib]

...which is no argument whatsoever.

Data and science are not arguments?

Actually, no, you're right. They aren't arguments; they're facts.

He's saying that just because everyone says it's awesome doesn't make it awesome. That isn't the same as data, science, or fact. Obviously there is merit in the aggregate view of people who have played a whole bunch of games, but I wouldn't call it fact. (I still think amb is way better than lookout)

[dondon151]

I don't care about that. Amb/Amb is way better than Lookout/Lookout on average. The fact that there are some Shelters games every now and then that weaken Amb isn't going to change the relationship between the two cards.

[heron]

Okay. So. You open with a lookout. I open with an ambassador. You play your lookout, trashing a card. I play ambassador, getting rid of two cards and giving you one.
Your deck did not get any smaller! You still have the same amount of junk! If we continue to play lookouts and ambassadors with equal frequency (not hard to do even though ambassador is terminal) you will never successfully trash your estates and coppers since I will keep giving you new ones! This is bad for you, and as such the majority of the time ambassador is superior to lookout.

But you're like, wait man, I opened DOUBLE Lookout! I'm trashin' two card a shuffle now! So, maybe I open Ambassador/Lookout, and I get rid of three cards to your one. You are going to lose.

And then, you're still not done arguing of course, so you say, whoa man, you might be trashin' super fast, but I'm building my deck way faster than you since I get to keep my full hand!
Except, honestly, if you open double lookout, your hand is going to be pretty crappy, averaging 2.33 coins per turn. Which, as you said, isn't very good since often the two dollar cards aren't very important anyway.