Print

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

[Jimmmmm]

I would argue if you take away the on-gain effect IGG is a totally solid $2-value card.

I would totally agree. But I would also argue that the difference between a $0 card and a $2 is much less than the difference (on average) between a $2 and a $5 card.

[Mean Mr Mustard]

I am having some trouble justifying the opportunity lost through the purchase of Scheme.  This card has a few problems.  First of all, if used with a non-draw card it is an anticycler.  It adds nothing to an economy, can cockblock blind draws and will not allow a player to maintain a combo over several turns without several instances of the card in the deck, all of which could be considered a loss of a Silver.

Cartographer, Tunnel and Scheme all impressed me when I first read the new card list, but all of them have been a bit disappointing.  I do not need to be convinced that these cards are useful, I am sure that they are in some cases.  They just don't perform as well as I had imagined.  OTOH, I was not at all impressed when I first saw IGG, Cache, Develop and was very confused about JoAT and they have all exceeded my expectations. 

[guided]

Consider it to be a cheap, gimped Silver. If Silver is worth $3, then a non-cursing IGG should logically be worth less.

Right.

If you need the $1, boom, gain the Copper. If you don't, don't. Gaining a Copper that you can immediately cash in for a buck is pretty good, really not that much worse than just playing a Silver.

[guided]

I would totally agree. But I would also argue that the difference between a $0 card and a $2 is much less than the difference (on average) between a $2 and a $5 card.

IGG gives away Curses when you gain it, is the reason it doesn't cost $2

[Jimmmmm]

Right. So given you have $5 (and there are other reasonable 5s), you can either give your opponent a $0 card and yourself a $2 card, or give yourself a $5 card. And I would say a $5 card is generally better than the difference between a $0 and a $2 card. (Think how bad Remodel usually is at getting rid of your Coppers.)

[guided]

Right. So given you have $5 (and there are other reasonable 5s), you can either give your opponent a $0 card and yourself a $2 card, or give yourself a $5 card. And I would say a $5 card is generally better than the difference between a $0 and a $2 card. (Think how bad Remodel usually is at getting rid of your Coppers.)

You call a Curse "a $0 card" as if it were no worse than a Copper. Tip: Curse is much worse than Copper.

Certainly there will be many situations where you would prefer to gain a different $5 card than IGG.

[Jimmmmm]

Tip: Curse is much worse than Copper.

Well, obviously. But generally speaking, you want as few as possible of both in your deck. That's why Mountebank is such a good card.
More explicitly: I would say that the average $5 card is better than the difference between a Curse and a Copper which can be a Silver at the cost of producing more Coppers.

I would say that IGG is good when you can either turn it into something else or get cards/$/VP chips for it, not so good compared to other $5s when you can't, and terrible when the only trasher is the Jack (Referring to a game I just played when I was happy for my opponent to keep buying IGGs).

Other than Gardens/Copper strategies that I've already mentioned, in what situations would you say IGG is good when you expect to keep it for the rest of the game?

[Nihnoz]

Oasis is a fun little soft-counter to sea hag.

[Nihnoz]

I think I played the most pleasant and fast sea hag game I've ever had just a bit ago.

[Anon79]

OTOH, I was not at all impressed when I first saw IGG, Cache, Develop and was very confused about JoAT and they have all exceeded my expectations. 

We've had some discussion on IGG and Cache already. Care to share your findings with the rest of us re: Develop?

[DG]

I am having some trouble justifying the opportunity lost through the purchase of Scheme.  This card has a few problems.

It's good, don't worry. I think its uses will be contrary to some people's expectations though. The only problems I see are the opportunity cost vs silver and people playing it badly.

[Jimmmmm]

My best experience with Scheme is alongside Ghost Ship. I bought up on some Schemes (mostly because they were new) and the three of them seemed to group together and stay on top of my deck for a while. Then when my Ghost Ship came along, I was guaranteed to be able to play it at least four times in a row, which can be really painful to be on the receiving end of. Obviously there are plenty of cards you want to play as often as possible, but GS seems to fit the bill here more than most.

[WheresMyElephant]

Scheme is great! All it does is let you play your favorite Action card more often. Probably not twice as often, probably not even quite as often as if you had another copy of that card instead of the Scheme (although it'll never collide with itself, which can be nice!). But still quite a little bit. And of course multiple Schemes stack, until you're basically playing that card every turn and you finally hit diminishing returns. (Of course, you don't HAVE to Scheme the same card every time; it's just the simplest example.)

Of course the utility of Scheme depends on how powerful the best Action card in your deck is, and how difficult it would be to simply buy more copies of that card instead of Scheming it. I'd say it's worthwhile with good $5 actions in play, but with good $6 or $7 Actions it's awesome.

[hobo386]

To echo what others have said, scheme is mostly useful for pairing with a very strong action card. Early game, you might buy one on turn 3 if you get $5 on turn one or two. Later on, you pair it with a strong action you might not be able to buy/reliably draw every turn.  Golem is an obvious choice. King's Court/Throne Room (along with the card you want to KC) is another good one, even if the paired cards aren't that expensive.  Scheme also combos decently with minion (the more you get in your hand at the same time, the better), with possession (because it is absurdly powerful), with counting house (counting house still has problems, but scheme + counting house is better than a single counting house, in cases where you want one).  I'd also imagine it can slightly speed up a bridge/native village combo or an ironworks/gardens deck.

Other uses are less obvious. Scheme worked pretty well for me in this game (http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201110/18/game-20111018-063536-1232a16a.html) by letting me reliably get my cartographer to sift through green cards, then use my torturer to fetch enough silvers to buy a province.

It's not a "must have" card in every game, but it has a good variety of uses.

[Mean Mr Mustard]

Okay I will write a bit about Develop.

When I first saw the card it seemed like a weaker cousin of Remake, an in a lot of ways it is.  Remake is a card that can enable a fast ramp up of deck quality by rapidly disposing of the weak starting cards, and Develop can be played that way, but not to much effect.  It is decent at converting Estates into Silvers, but for destroying Coppers it is strictly worse than Trade Route in lieu of some Highway/Bridge scheme.

And then of course it dawned on me that the real strength of Develop was the ability to set up a combo and place it on top of the deck.  For this to be a viable strategy I like to see a good synergy between the $3 and $5 cards and, just as importantly, there must be a good $4 card that either pairs well with a $6 card of that you wouldn't mind seeing often.  The board must be able to support Develop in another way as well:  it must not be fast enough to make Develop obsolete, because this is not an ultra-fast strategy.  I am thinking with anything as fast as BM/Masq may be too quick for most variations of this deck.

The key is the $4 card, for that is the card that wants to be developed first, gaining a $5 and $3 card that hopefully can do something strong together on the next turn.  The $4 card should also be good enough to help progress the deck, because chances are that it may not collide with Develop right away.

The first $4 developed may be trashed for any $5 card and another develop, so a Gold can be gained the next turn.  I really like to see IGG on a Develop board because it is a great target and immediately effects the opponents buildup.  Or it can be developed into a nice $5 keeper card and a silver or a good cantrip.  If there are $7 cards on the board, it may be a really good time to play Develop;  I think it surely must be but I actually haven't played out that scenario yet so I cannot say for sure.

It is important to know that at some point this Develop chain must break in order to move into the VP buying stage; it is sometimes tempting to keep up the immediate gratification at a fatal cost to victory.   With very few exceptions (like the KC/Masq pin), every Dominion deck should have as the main goal to progress the deck as quickly as possible to be able to gain as much VP as it can in the least amount of turns.  Develop is no different.  So if there are powerful $5 cards on the board, than perhaps using Develop to gain $5/Develop may not be the best strategy.

Develop is not easily put into a cubby hole, and I think that it is one of the cards in this set that will be creating new and interesting effects for quite a while.  I really could not possible write a definitive piece on it because I have in no way mastered all the subtle interactions that Develop can facilitate.  So to keep it simple:  Use it on fours just about as often as possibles, and on fives if the deck needs a jolt of treasure or some other tricks can be seen.  Absolutely ignore this card in very fast situations as it will not compete, at least as far as I have been able to discern.  If there are very fast Develop strategies they are completely dependent on the cards available.  Playing Develop on a board without $4 or $5 cards is complete lunacy, as far as I can tell.  It is just asking for a beat down.  Using it to trash Coppers should be viewed as a failure in most cases.  And remember, the goal is to push the deck towards a winning end game, and other distractions may be fun and interesting but are ultimately kind of stupid.

Final edit

[guided]

I would say that the average $5 card is better than the difference between a Curse and a Copper which can be a Silver at the cost of producing more Coppers.

If this is true it's only technically and barely so, with the word "average" doing all the heavy lifting. If the opportunity cost of taking IGG instead of some other $5 card is too high in some particular instance (and this will often be true), by all means take some other $5 card.

[Jimmmmm]

I would say that the average $5 card is better than the difference between a Curse and a Copper which can be a Silver at the cost of producing more Coppers.

If this is true it's only technically and barely so, with the word "average" doing all the heavy lifting. If the opportunity cost of taking IGG instead of some other $5 card is too high in some particular instance (and this will often be true), by all means take some other $5 card.

Actually it's entirely true: I would say it. 
Obviously it depends on other cards.
Regardless, I'd still like to know: other than what's already been mentioned, what kind of board/situation makes IGG worthwhile?

[ehunt]

My very first develop game had throne room, ill-gotten gains, and nobles, and I was of the opinion that develop must be a power-card.
 
a lot of folks have said that develop is a horrible opening, but i have to disagree (at least a little). it's more like trade route: something i'll strongly consider opening if there's no other trashing and no 5s that I can't afford to miss on the second shuffle, and something that i'll also consider opening if it's likely to be very useful later (which is board-dependent). on the other hand, i open trade route too much...

i also think we're underrating oracle.

[jimjam]

soft counter to ghost ship?

[HiveMindEmulator]

I think IGG is much better than it looks on the surface. Sure buying ONE doesn't sound all that appealing. But ignoring them can be quite perilous, because while one curse is no big deal, ten is. In a kingdom with no (or weak) trashing, the curses will be able to slow you down enough that you can't get an insurmountable lead before you end up taking all 10 curses. Then with 2 piles down, the treasure-filled IGG deck can probably do well enough in a duchy race to end up winning. So while it may not be your #1 priority to buy IGGs, you probably can't just ignore them.

[Anon79]

Thanks MMM! from what I'm hearing, it sounds like Develop creates tactical openings and opportunities, like ensuring that a particular pair of $4 and $6 are drawn together. Kinda forgot that this expansion introduces quite a few "tactical" cards.

On another note, I think Donald is trolling the simulators here with Jack of all Trades.

A: "Let's make a non-reaction card that does extremely well with big money, is resilient to attacks, but doesn't obviously combo with anything else. This will make the simulators think it's elite, but hopefully catch them all out in other ways."
B: "Okay, firstly it must support big money. Hopefully also makes the card strong if it comes to Duchy dancing."
A: "Gain a silver."
B: "Be resilient to deck inspection attacks."
A: "You get to mill your own deck when you play this."
B: "Be resilient to handsize attacks."
A: "Draw to 5."
B: "Be resilient to cursing attacks."
A: "After drawing, trash a card from hand."
B: "How will that play out, will people buy many of these and trash too many coppers? You wanted this to be the king of Duchy dancing."
A: "Fine, trash a non-treasure card. This should also make it strongest if you purchase only 1 or 2, ideal for those simulators."
B: "I think you got a winner."

[Geronimoo]

I don't think Donald cares about the simulators. They probably make up less than 0,1% of the Dominion player population.

[Davio]

I don't think Donald cares about the simulators. They probably make up less than 0,1% of the Dominion player population.

And I think most of the cards were designed before the first game was out, thus before people started simulating.

Besides, simulating is a real narrow experience and the conclusions that can be drawn from it are not always meaningful. This is because a kingdom has 10 (or 11 with Young Witch, or even more with Black Market) cards, while a simulator takes into account only a few.

Simulating is certainly useful, because it gives us some baselines from which we can try to optimize. Big Money has become quite famous and it tells us: If you can't get at least 4 Provinces/Colonies by Turn X, you're probably doing something wrong. But the more complex a game becomes (Cursers, Ambassadoring, saving up for double Province buys, switching to a different strategy halfway because you got unlucky in the beginning), the less useful the simulation is.

Simulations are good at showing the standalone power of some of the cards vs. the standalone power of some other cards, but very bad at coming up with powerful combo's (which aren't part of the input), that's what good players do.

[PigFiend]

I stand by my assessment of Mandarin as pretty bad, its treasure-giving powers compare to the mediocre Harvest and Merchant Ship, its "return cards to deck" powers will be situationally useful but usually a drag- I can't imagine them being useful more often,

I don't think Mandarin is great, but whether in your hand or in the supply, it gives you choices. Rather than purely the 'can you over-afford / not-quite-afford a Province scenario, since most good players have a plan as to what they need to buy, why not apply that logic to other situations where you would over-buy or under-buy any other card you need?

Does this Highway help you now or if you Mandarin it to the top of your deck, will you increase its likelihood to draw with a +buy card? That sort of play requires some canny deck management and restraint; most people would play the Highway to see if they luck into that card.

In one game with action heavy madness, after chaining many actions and having little draw deck left, I'd buy a Mandarin to throw $5 in treasures back on top so that I could next turn buy an Inn and put all the good stuff back in now that it had discarded.

I'm not campaigning that Mandarin is any better than a mid-value $5, but I am saying that there's a lot of potential for fun in it.

[Fangz]

An interesting thing to do is to buy a mandarin in a tactician turn. You can usually arrange to get two province buys out of that, assume you have some silvers and golds.