Print

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

[GendoIkari]

We've all heard "you should either buy silver, or a card that is better than silver." When should you buy a card that is worse than a silver, if you can afford a silver? 

[Jack Rudd]

We've all heard "you should either buy silver, or a card that is better than silver." When should you buy a card that is worse than a silver, if you can afford a silver? 

Buying a Copper or Curse will win the game on piles.

(I didn't say this was likely.)

[guided]

Define "worse".

Because under the definition of "worse" that comes to mind the answer is tautologically "never, ever ever ever"

[chwhite]

We've all heard "you should either buy silver, or a card that is better than silver." When should you buy a card that is worse than a silver, if you can afford a silver? 

Buying a Copper or Curse will win the game on piles.

(I didn't say this was likely.)

Buying a Curse to win on piles is actually somewhat common.

The two other common reasons: bump your Fairgrounds up to the next level, or turn your Ambassadors into Curse machines.

[ftl]

Buying a Copper or Curse will win the game on piles.

Or any other card that's "worse than silver" but will end the game on piles. (Copper's unlikely to run out, sure, but I can certainly imagine Pawns running out in a game with +buy)

Or when you're collecting different cards for Fairgrounds, you may at some point want to buy a card which does nothing for your deck besides being unique. Or when you specifically want actions for Vineyard, or when you have a Scrying Pool deck and even a useless action is better than a Treasure.

[Octo]

Surprised this one hasn't been said: When you're buying an estate near the end.

Still, the issue of the value comparison being time-dependant is the elephant in the room on that one.

[DG]

There are plenty of examples where buying nothing is better than buying silver.

[Thisisnotasmile]

When you have a Trader in hand and you're just going to reveal it to end up with a Silver anyway.

[ycz6]

Thisisnotasmile's post gave me an idea:

You have a Bridge in play, $2 total treasure, two buys, and a Trader in hand. The Curse and Copper piles are both out. If you buy a Silver, you'll be out of money, whereas if you buy an Estate and reveal the Trader you will have $1 remaining and can buy another Estate. In this case buying an Estate is strictly better than buying a Silver, unlike TINAS's original situation, where you might as well just buy a Silver. And you may still prefer a Silver to an Estate.

Less contrived solution:

The Silvers are Embargoed.

[ftl]

Oh. Duh at ycz6's second one. That gets around guided's and everyone else's complaint that 'worse' is subjective. I like it.

[guided]

I'm not just being contrarian, I seriously have no idea what the OP means by "worse". When we talk about buying things that are better than silver, we mean better in helping you win the game. So if we mean worse in the same sense, then the answer is "never". If some other buy makes you less likely to win the game, you shouldn't make that buy, period. If we mean worse in some other sense, what sense is that?

[Jack Rudd]

I'm not just being contrarian, I seriously have no idea what the OP means by "worse". When we talk about buying things that are better than silver, we mean better in helping you win the game. So if we mean worse in the same sense, then the answer is "never". If some other buy makes you less likely to win the game, you shouldn't make that buy, period. If we mean worse in some other sense, what sense is that?

Well, there's the old "strictly worse" sense: "this card does nothing for you that Silver wouldn't do just as well". But that set is just {Copper, Curse}.

[guided]

I can more usefully send you Coppers and Curses with Ambassador. I can trash them on Upgrade without gaining stuff I might not want. Owning them is not "strictly worse".

[Jack Rudd]

I can more usefully send you Coppers and Curses with Ambassador. I can trash them on Upgrade without gaining stuff I might not want. Owning them is not "strictly worse".

True. The common definition of strict superiority ignores trash-for-benefit and similar effects.

[Axxle]

I can more usefully send you Coppers and Curses with Ambassador. I can trash them on Upgrade without gaining stuff I might not want. Owning them is not "strictly worse".

True. The common definition of strict superiority ignores trash-for-benefit and similar effects.

You can use copper for counting house and coppersmith, and curses for... I don't know.  I can't discard a silver to ignore Mountebanks attack so that's something.

[Jimmmmm]

I can more usefully send you Coppers and Curses with Ambassador. I can trash them on Upgrade without gaining stuff I might not want. Owning them is not "strictly worse".

If you take these things into consideration then it is impossible for something to be strictly worse than something else unless they are the same price. And even that doesn't take into account 3-piling. I think strictly worse tends to refer to when you play card A compared to when you play card B. Of course, that's not entirely accurate since Copper isn't SW than Silver when Counting Houses are around, even though each play of Silver is better than each play of Copper.

On the other hand, Coppers and Curses are strictly worse than Silvers on most boards, even by your definition.

[DStu]

On the other hand, Coppers and Curses are strictly worse than Silvers on most boards, even by your definition.

But nevertheless guided's question is valid, I wanted to ask the same thing. "Worse" is just not a attribute that's definined well enough. I can live with the common "strictly worse" like "striktly better" (ignoring price, trash-for-whatever, pile-endings, embargos and other special cases), but that's as mentioned only Copper and Curse. Which I think would in this case better to be spelled out explicitly, as they are only 2 cards and then it's totally clear what's meant.

So maybe we just name the cards we think will meet the description (and maybe why), and in which situations you would prefer them over Silver.

Copper:
- Coppersmith/Counting House/Apothecary
- Silver is embargod and some rare cases where I need one more additional coin in my deck.
- Maybe some rare cases with HuntingParty, all Coppers trashed and I need one more additional coin to be hunted for.
- Also rare cases with Menangerie
- When I'm possessed I also "should" buy a Copper over a Silver, annoyingly it's not my decision...

[GendoIkari]

I'm not just being contrarian, I seriously have no idea what the OP means by "worse". When we talk about buying things that are better than silver, we mean better in helping you win the game. So if we mean worse in the same sense, then the answer is "never". If some other buy makes you less likely to win the game, you shouldn't make that buy, period. If we mean worse in some other sense, what sense is that?

I meant it in the definition that you are thinking of. The correct answer is trivially "never." Just meant to be a bit of fun.

[Jimmmmm]

I'm not just being contrarian, I seriously have no idea what the OP means by "worse". When we talk about buying things that are better than silver, we mean better in helping you win the game. So if we mean worse in the same sense, then the answer is "never". If some other buy makes you less likely to win the game, you shouldn't make that buy, period. If we mean worse in some other sense, what sense is that?

I meant it in the definition that you are thinking of. The correct answer is trivially "never." Just meant to be a bit of fun.

Surely then the correct answer would be "if you're unable to buy a Silver." So either the pile's empty, or you can't buy a Silver due to Contraband. And, of course, there must be something else you can afford which is better than nothing.

[GendoIkari]

Ooh, there's another question... your opponent plays a Contraband. When should you name Silver?

Actually, I guess the answer is obvious... if it was the only card in his hand; he had no other money from actions or previous treasure, and there's no better 3s.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Ooh, there's another question... your opponent plays a Contraband. When should you name Silver?

Actually, I guess the answer is obvious... if it was the only card in his hand; he had no other money from actions or previous treasure, and there's no better 3s.

He has already played multiple other Contrabands and Silver is the best card left un-named so far.