Print

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

[WanderingWinder]

Is BM without support really faster?

Mint is not at all a good Gardens support. Better to spam Hamlet +buy to get extra copper.

But that's a paradigm you've developed based on 90% of the time not being able to acquire a Mint without trashing.  Gainers that gain 5's are usually remodel variants which are their own problem for a Gardens deck.

I think I agree that the presence of Hamlet might cause outshinery issues, though.  Might be better to pick a different helper.  Cellar with some nice 3's and 4's maybe.

That's the point though.  If there was an easy way to get Mint without trashing, then maybe it would work.  But it's not going to be helpful enough to Feast->Mint for Gardens, especially if +Buy is available.  Maybe if there was no +Buy?  Mint is still probably not good enough as Gardens support, especially given you'd need two reshuffles before you could gain multiple cards a turn... and then you would only be able to do that once per turn, unless you Feasted multiple Mints or had Throne Room or something.  But there are too many hoops here.

Or what about this: kingdom is Mint/Feast/Gardens/Hamlet and no other cards of note.

You have a 5/2 opening and decide to go for Gardens (intending to empty the Gardens, Hamlets and Estates). You'd like to have a Mint (you're happy to copy a Copper for the cards and to maintain some economy in the face of greening, and the occasional free Silver makes it even better) but you hate to trash 5 Coppers, so you open Feast/Hamlet.

Ehhh.. I mean it's cute, but no way it's even remotely competitive.

What if Mint was the only $5 card, there were no gardens and you were going to do some weird Coppersmith strategy?  Anyway that could actually be feasible?

Unlikely.

The thing is, Feast->Mint is jumping through hoops to gain Mint without trashing your Treasure.  I could see that as possible late in the game, when you want to Mint Plats and you've already rid yourself of Coppers/weak treasures.  But as an opener?

OK, weird Coppersmith strategy... well, why do you want Mint at all?  To get more Copper?  That won't work.  For Coppersmith to be viable, you would need:

- a way to draw lots of Copper in hand
- probably a way to play multiple Coppersmiths
- +Buy to make use of all your money

The last point is the killer here.  If you have +Buy, then you can easily gain more Copper without going to the trouble of Feasting a Mint (which just has huge opportunity cost).  If you don't have +Buy, then Coppersmith is unlikely to be worth it.

Thrones Feast to get two, then keep throning Mint for more coppers/silvers?  If you can line then up, that gets you more cards than +buy.

No reason to buy the feast before TR there. But more to the point, it doesn't actually get you more cards than +buy, because you just throne the +buy all the time.

[ashersky]

Is BM without support really faster?

Mint is not at all a good Gardens support. Better to spam Hamlet +buy to get extra copper.

But that's a paradigm you've developed based on 90% of the time not being able to acquire a Mint without trashing.  Gainers that gain 5's are usually remodel variants which are their own problem for a Gardens deck.

I think I agree that the presence of Hamlet might cause outshinery issues, though.  Might be better to pick a different helper.  Cellar with some nice 3's and 4's maybe.

That's the point though.  If there was an easy way to get Mint without trashing, then maybe it would work.  But it's not going to be helpful enough to Feast->Mint for Gardens, especially if +Buy is available.  Maybe if there was no +Buy?  Mint is still probably not good enough as Gardens support, especially given you'd need two reshuffles before you could gain multiple cards a turn... and then you would only be able to do that once per turn, unless you Feasted multiple Mints or had Throne Room or something.  But there are too many hoops here.

Or what about this: kingdom is Mint/Feast/Gardens/Hamlet and no other cards of note.

You have a 5/2 opening and decide to go for Gardens (intending to empty the Gardens, Hamlets and Estates). You'd like to have a Mint (you're happy to copy a Copper for the cards and to maintain some economy in the face of greening, and the occasional free Silver makes it even better) but you hate to trash 5 Coppers, so you open Feast/Hamlet.

Ehhh.. I mean it's cute, but no way it's even remotely competitive.

What if Mint was the only $5 card, there were no gardens and you were going to do some weird Coppersmith strategy?  Anyway that could actually be feasible?

Unlikely.

The thing is, Feast->Mint is jumping through hoops to gain Mint without trashing your Treasure.  I could see that as possible late in the game, when you want to Mint Plats and you've already rid yourself of Coppers/weak treasures.  But as an opener?

OK, weird Coppersmith strategy... well, why do you want Mint at all?  To get more Copper?  That won't work.  For Coppersmith to be viable, you would need:

- a way to draw lots of Copper in hand
- probably a way to play multiple Coppersmiths
- +Buy to make use of all your money

The last point is the killer here.  If you have +Buy, then you can easily gain more Copper without going to the trouble of Feasting a Mint (which just has huge opportunity cost).  If you don't have +Buy, then Coppersmith is unlikely to be worth it.

Thrones Feast to get two, then keep throning Mint for more coppers/silvers?  If you can line then up, that gets you more cards than +buy.

No reason to buy the feast before TR there. But more to the point, it doesn't actually get you more cards than +buy, because you just throne the +buy all the time.

If you are opening 4-silver, I don't think it matters which you buy first, but I see your point.

Is there a time when you prefer TR-Mint with silver in hand to TR-+buy with silver in hand?  Imagine its these terribad kingdoms.  I.e. you throne the +buy but all it does is get you 2 coppers in addition to your regular buy--the Mint got you 2 silvers plus regular buy.

[sudgy]

Thrones Feast to get two, then keep throning Mint for more coppers/silvers?  If you can line then up, that gets you more cards than +buy.

Because you can open Throne Room/Feast...  I don't know if it would be worth it if you had to wait that long to get the mints...

[ftl]

no, you can't

[mail-mi]

I think sudgy was being sarcastic

[ashersky]

I think sudgy was being sarcastic

I think it was just a typo.

[sudgy]

I think sudgy was being sarcastic

I think it was just a typo.

I was sarcastic.  Maybe I should have thrown in a "definitely"...

[eHalcyon]

Thrones Feast to get two, then keep throning Mint for more coppers/silvers?  If you can line then up, that gets you more cards than +buy.

Lining up TR-Feast has the same odds as lining up two Treasure Maps, so not a great thing to be basing your Gardens strategy on.  And in that case, would you still open Feast?  Maybe, I guess...

The other thing is, if you successfully TR-Mint a couple times, you won't be able to keep doing it.  The extra Coppers and Silvers will make it harder to collide them; your TRs will be dead often.

Is there a time when you prefer TR-Mint with silver in hand to TR-+buy with silver in hand?  Imagine its these terribad kingdoms.  I.e. you throne the +buy but all it does is get you 2 coppers in addition to your regular buy--the Mint got you 2 silvers plus regular buy.

It would depend on the +Buy card, but if it would get you no extra money (i.e. you would only buy Coppers) then yeah, Mint would be better (barring edge cases like Counting House).  But the benefits of Mint would not outweigh the opportunity cost of getting that Mint in the first place, I think.  I would much rather open the +Buy card and get to use it after the first reshuffle than have to Feast for a Mint that I won't get to use until after the second reshuffle at the earliest.

[popsofctown]

-- Don't open Curse/Curse.

Any exceptions? I can't think of any.

There's always an exception.  Sometimes, that exception is insanity wolf.

Kirian called me an insane wolf.
I'd like to report him to the moderator for making a slur, where's the button for that.

[dondon151]

Has there ever been a kingdom empirically shown to have second-player advantage? I think this may be one of the things that don't depend on the board.

[WanderingWinder]

Has there ever been a kingdom empirically shown to have second-player advantage? I think this may be one of the things that don't depend on the board.

A board where BM-Noble brigand is best has a slight 2nd player advantage, by my research, though I could be missing something of course. I assume it's possible to engineer a kingdom to have this be the best strategy, though obviously it would be difficult.

[Mr Anderson]

A board with nine victory kingdom cards and smuggler?

[eHalcyon]

Kingdoms with Rock-Paper-Scissors strategy, where p2 can pick the winner.

I remember a thread about when there is p2 advantage. Hm...

[popsofctown]

Has there ever been a kingdom empirically shown to have second-player advantage? I think this may be one of the things that don't depend on the board.

A board where BM-Noble brigand is best has a slight 2nd player advantage, by my research, though I could be missing something of course. I assume it's possible to engineer a kingdom to have this be the best strategy, though obviously it would be difficult.

Transmute, University, Scout, Fairgrounds, Counting House, Coppersmith, Outpost, Possession, Chancellor, Noble Brigand?

[Mr Anderson]

Do not forget University into Scout and Counting House (after you trashed some Copper with Transmute).

[dondon151]

Remember, I asked for proof ;-/

[popsofctown]

Remember, I asked for proof ;-/

WW is saying that he used bots to determine that NB-BM is 2nd player advantage.  That is proof.  It is pretty certain that NB dominates -some- board, even if it's not mine.  I really don't see how you play anything else on mine

[DStu]

Has there ever been a kingdom empirically shown to have second-player advantage? I think this may be one of the things that don't depend on the board.

A board where BM-Noble brigand is best has a slight 2nd player advantage, by my research, though I could be missing something of course. I assume it's possible to engineer a kingdom to have this be the best strategy, though obviously it would be difficult.

Transmute, University, Scout, Fairgrounds, Counting House, Coppersmith, Outpost, Possession, Chancellor, Noble Brigand?

Late to the party, but the usual way to force BigMoney is filling it with Villages.
Save bets are Village, Worker's Village, Walled Village, Farming Village, Throne Room, Quarry
Quite save is e.g. Native Village, Scout, Golem

[Warfreak2]

-If you are ahead in VP and can end the game on your turn, do so.

One of my Go teachers taught me a wonderful edge case for this one: if you have the opportunity to crush your opponent, do so - you'll have the psychological advantage for the next game.

[ConMan]

-Open Potion if all cards have Potion in their cost.

This is depends on the kingdom because you are specifying a certain subset of possible kingdoms and saying that your rule definitely applies to those kingdoms.
Even so, you might be wrong in six player (if six player is really and truly a thing, I'm not positive it is).

[Dwight]False.[/Dwight] (Thanks for the template!)
In standard logic, a conditional statement is always true when its condition is false. In other words, "If X, then Y" is true when both X and Y are true, and when X is false regardless of Y. So in this case, "Open Potion if all cards have Potion in their cost" is true when there is a non-Potion card in the game, so its dependence on the board relies only on it being true in the circumstance that all the cards are Potion-cost and you *shouldn't* open Potion, which as you point out may or may not be true depending on the number of players and probably requires further investigation.

That said, statements of "If X, then Y" not depending on the board is probably on the edge of cheating for the purposes of this list.