3331
« on: January 06, 2012, 10:50:58 am »
Here's a question I'm grappling with as I write the Worst $4's list:
Are these rankings based on how bad the cards are when you consider adding them to any random deck you're building? Or are they based on how helpful they are when you do buy them? Or both?
Clearly, throwing Coppersmith into a random deck is pretty awful. But when you do buy Coppersmith and build for it, it's glorious. Spy, on the other hand, is basically always a mediocre addition to your deck.
(Maybe multiply how good it is by how often it is likely to be good?)
My sense is that, especially since these are sort of instructional, that I should go with the former (i.e., Coppersmith is worse than Spy), and explain why they are so rarely bought in the first place. This is also, I believe, the approach the list has mostly taken thus far.
Maybe it's time to bite the bullet and work harder at making these official. Qvist's topic is quite good.