Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 17  All

Author Topic: Strictly better than....  (Read 111049 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

amalloy

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 453
  • Respect: +620
    • View Profile
    • Twitch stream
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #75 on: June 12, 2014, 03:22:08 pm »
+1

Diadem>Masterpiece
Peddler>Oasis?

Definitely not Peddler>Oasis. Being allowed to discard can be good for you, and not just because of Tunnel. Menagerie, for example.

Diadem>Masterpiece is really good, but I don't think it 100% holds up. Maybe it's an Ambassador game where junking is a high priority (How/why did I get a Diadem in such a game? Who knows). I can Ambassador my opponent the Masterpiece, but I'm stuck with my Diadem.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #76 on: June 12, 2014, 04:30:25 pm »
+2

Diadem>Masterpiece

As already discussed, Taxman.  For this specific case, there's also Mint (can't mint a Diadem).




In order for A > B to be true (barring the universal edge cases), we need these to be true:

1. A and B share the same card types, which matters for Tribute and Jester.
2. A and B are not Treasure cards, which matters for Taxman.
3. A can do everything that B does, or else you will sometimes prefer B to do its special thing.
4. A does not force you to do anything that B doesn't also.

3 prevents a coin token card from being better than a standard virtual coin card, because you may prefer the virtual coin when using Black Market.  Same goes for a card B that has you discard when card A doesn't, due to Tunnel.

4 covers a lot of stuff you might not expect.  If it forces you to draw or even reveal an extra card, that can be undesirable for reshuffle considerations.  If it forces you to attack, that can be bad because your opponents may have reactions that benefit them.  If it forces you to play an extra card or to topdeck something, well there are situations where you don't want those things either.

4 doesn't cover extra coins (virtual or token), because having more money to spend never hurts you.  It doesn't cover extra buys or actions for the same reason.
Logged

Flip5ide

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Highest Rank/Rating: 58/5600
  • Respect: +136
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #77 on: June 12, 2014, 04:54:43 pm »
0

Can someone explain the Taxman caveat to me?
Logged
"If at first you don't succeed, find out if the loser gets anything." - William Lyon Phelps

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11808
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12846
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #78 on: June 12, 2014, 04:55:13 pm »
+1

Can someone explain the Taxman caveat to me?
Yes.

You want to trash a specific card to make your opponent discard it.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2706
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #79 on: June 12, 2014, 04:56:45 pm »
0

Can someone explain the Taxman caveat to me?

Silver isn't better than copper in your hand because your opponent could have a hand with coppers and no silver and you want them to discard it.
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1751
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #80 on: June 12, 2014, 04:59:00 pm »
0

Can someone explain the Taxman caveat to me?

Having any Treasure in hand in place of anything else changes how a Taxman attack affects you. If you have Plat or Copper and oponent attacks by trashing Plat, having a Plat effectively gives you $0 (because you have to discard it) and having a Copper effectively gives you $1.
Logged

Flip5ide

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Highest Rank/Rating: 58/5600
  • Respect: +136
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #81 on: June 12, 2014, 07:19:28 pm »
0

That's a major stretch. Besides, you can't lose Diadem to Taxman.
Logged
"If at first you don't succeed, find out if the loser gets anything." - William Lyon Phelps

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #82 on: June 12, 2014, 07:21:28 pm »
0

That's a major stretch. Besides, you can't lose Diadem to Taxman.

It works both ways.  If you have a Taxman, you can play it with a Copper to force opponents to discard Copper.  This is preferable to playing Taxman-Diadem which doesn't hurt opponents other than making them reveal their hands.

Doesn't matter if it's a stretch.  Edge cases are stretches by definition.

Diadem>Masterpiece
Peddler>Oasis?

Definitely not Peddler>Oasis. Being allowed to discard can be good for you, and not just because of Tunnel. Menagerie, for example.

Diadem>Masterpiece is really good, but I don't think it 100% holds up. Maybe it's an Ambassador game where junking is a high priority (How/why did I get a Diadem in such a game? Who knows). I can Ambassador my opponent the Masterpiece, but I'm stuck with my Diadem.

We already identified Ambassador as a "universal edge case" that can always make a "better" card worse.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 07:23:15 pm by eHalcyon »
Logged

liopoil

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2587
  • Respect: +2479
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #83 on: June 12, 2014, 07:38:28 pm »
+1

Revised list of cards we have to ignore for there to be any cards strictly better than another:

Possession
Masquerade
Ambassador
Horn of Plenty
Menagerie
Hunting Party
Forge
Remake
Upgrade
Governor
Procession (only for actions)
Taxman (only for treasures)
Rogue (only for cards costing 3+)
Graverobber (only for cards costing 3+)
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 09:35:05 pm by liopoil »
Logged

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1751
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #84 on: June 12, 2014, 07:40:41 pm »
0

Procession should say "(only for Actions)"
Logged

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #85 on: June 12, 2014, 07:47:36 pm »
0

Should also add Remodel, Expand, Bishop, Salvager, etc.  Anything that cares about card cost in its text.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #86 on: June 12, 2014, 07:52:44 pm »
0

Revised list of cards we have to ignore for there to be any cards strictly better than another:

Possession
Masquerade
Ambassador
Horn of Plenty
Menagerie
Hunting Party
Forge
Remake
Upgrade
Governor
Wishing Well
Mystic
Procession (only for actions)
Taxman (only for treasures)
Rogue (only for cards costing 3-6)
Grave Robber (only for cards costing 3-6)

Graverobber is only one word.  The cost restriction doesn't apply because of cost reduction.  Well, I guess you can say "for cards costing $3+" because it'll never be able to bring back cards costing less.

Why are we ignoring Mystic and Wishing Well?

Should also add Remodel, Expand, Bishop, Salvager, etc.  Anything that cares about card cost in its text.

Ignoring the cost of a card is primarily to remove cards that care about fixed costs, like Forge, Remake, Upgrade.  These cards can sometimes make a cheaper card more useful than a more expensive card.  With all these TfB, higher cost is always better.  Trashing a $5 card with Expand is always better than trashing a $4 card, in terms of what you can gain from Expand.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 07:57:21 pm by eHalcyon »
Logged

liopoil

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2587
  • Respect: +2479
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #87 on: June 12, 2014, 08:21:31 pm »
0

Graverobber is only one word.  The cost restriction doesn't apply because of cost reduction.  Well, I guess you can say "for cards costing $3+" because it'll never be able to bring back cards costing less.

Why are we ignoring Mystic and Wishing Well?
Right, I knew that. Fixed

mystic and wishing well:
Another universal edge case: In your deck you have three cards, a, a, and b. a is supposedly strictly better than b. You play wishing well and draw a, and now you you can't guarrantee getting your wish right. You would prefer b in your hand because then you can get your wish right.
Logged

HiveMindEmulator

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • Respect: +2118
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #88 on: June 12, 2014, 08:33:04 pm »
+4

I love that the challenge has changed into constructing this list:

Revised list of cards we have to ignore for there to be any cards strictly better than another:

Possession
Masquerade
Ambassador
Horn of Plenty
Menagerie
Hunting Party
Forge
Remake
Upgrade
Governor
Wishing Well
Mystic
Procession (only for actions)
Taxman (only for treasures)
Rogue (only for cards costing 3+)
Graverobber (only for cards costing 3+)
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #89 on: June 12, 2014, 08:40:09 pm »
0

mystic and wishing well:
Another universal edge case: In your deck you have three cards, a, a, and b. a is supposedly strictly better than b. You play wishing well and draw a, and now you you can't guarrantee getting your wish right. You would prefer b in your hand because then you can get your wish right.

Ah, right.  I wonder if that's too broad though.  Can't a similar argument be made for any card that cares about cards in your deck?  Herald, Golem, Doctor.
Logged

liopoil

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2587
  • Respect: +2479
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #90 on: June 12, 2014, 08:44:47 pm »
0

mystic and wishing well:
Another universal edge case: In your deck you have three cards, a, a, and b. a is supposedly strictly better than b. You play wishing well and draw a, and now you you can't guarrantee getting your wish right. You would prefer b in your hand because then you can get your wish right.

Ah, right.  I wonder if that's too broad though.  Can't a similar argument be made for any card that cares about cards in your deck?  Herald, Golem, Doctor.
I don't see it with those cards. Can you explain?

Although it is true that for any two cards a and b, if the bonus a gives over b is useless to you this turn but might not be next turn you would rather draw b.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #91 on: June 12, 2014, 09:15:41 pm »
0

mystic and wishing well:
Another universal edge case: In your deck you have three cards, a, a, and b. a is supposedly strictly better than b. You play wishing well and draw a, and now you you can't guarrantee getting your wish right. You would prefer b in your hand because then you can get your wish right.

Ah, right.  I wonder if that's too broad though.  Can't a similar argument be made for any card that cares about cards in your deck?  Herald, Golem, Doctor.
I don't see it with those cards. Can you explain?

Although it is true that for any two cards a and b, if the bonus a gives over b is useless to you this turn but might not be next turn you would rather draw b.

In my deck I have cards A, A, B and B, with A > B.  I may prefer having Bs in my hand so that my Golem can hit A instead.

In my deck I have cards A and B, with A > B.  I may prefer having B in my hand so that my Herald can play A from the deck.

For both of the above, it works best with terminals to remove the possibility of playing the cards in your hand after Golem.  Even so, it should be possible to construct edge cases where the order of play matters, or cases where you wouldn't want to play the cards left in your hand even if you have the actions for it (reshuffle considerations, for example).

For Doctor -- in my deck I have cards A, B and C, with A > B.  Both B and C are junk cards I want to trash from my deck.  I may prefer to have B in my hand so that I know to name C when I play Doctor.

I say "junk card" for the example but you could create edgy edge cases where you still want to trash a decent card.
Logged

scott_pilgrim

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1102
  • Respect: +2144
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #92 on: June 12, 2014, 09:30:59 pm »
+4

I interpreted the puzzle as: you're playing a game of Dominion, and a genie pops up and says "I can turn any card X in your hand into card Y, but it will turn back into X at the end of your turn (and you can accept this offer as many times as you like this turn)."  Which (if any) pairs of cards, X and Y, are such that you would make this deal in any situation, given that none of the cards on liopoil's list are in the kingdom or Black Market deck?

So if that's how the puzzle is interpreted, the Golem and Herald cases don't work, because the assumption is that replacing X with Y doesn't affect what is remaining in your deck.
Logged

liopoil

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2587
  • Respect: +2479
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #93 on: June 12, 2014, 09:33:50 pm »
+1

I interpreted the puzzle as: you're playing a game of Dominion, and a genie pops up and says "I can turn any card X in your hand into card Y, but it will turn back into X at the end of your turn (and you can accept this offer as many times as you like this turn)."  Which (if any) pairs of cards, X and Y, are such that you would make this deal in any situation, given that none of the cards on liopoil's list are in the kingdom or Black Market deck?

So if that's how the puzzle is interpreted, the Golem and Herald cases don't work, because the assumption is that replacing X with Y doesn't affect what is remaining in your deck.
In this case WW and mystic don't work either. And actually, I like this definition, so I'll take them off the list.

Also, I'm not convinced that those cards work universally. Take village and worker's village for example - play order can't matter.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 09:37:42 pm by liopoil »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #94 on: June 12, 2014, 09:55:42 pm »
0

I interpreted the puzzle as: you're playing a game of Dominion, and a genie pops up and says "I can turn any card X in your hand into card Y, but it will turn back into X at the end of your turn (and you can accept this offer as many times as you like this turn)."  Which (if any) pairs of cards, X and Y, are such that you would make this deal in any situation, given that none of the cards on liopoil's list are in the kingdom or Black Market deck?

So if that's how the puzzle is interpreted, the Golem and Herald cases don't work, because the assumption is that replacing X with Y doesn't affect what is remaining in your deck.
In this case WW and mystic don't work either. And actually, I like this definition, so I'll take them off the list.

Also, I'm not convinced that those cards work universally. Take village and worker's village for example - play order can't matter.

Hmm...

My hand is Village-Village-Golem-Diadem and my deck is WV, WV and 4 Copper in an unknown order.  I want to maximize my number of actions to get more value out of Diadem.  This means that I should play Golem first, because I will get fewer +actions if my Villages draw Worker's Village.  I prefer having WV in hand over Village because of the possibility that Golem sifts through 2 Copper and I would prefer to leave Villages unplayed than trigger a reshuffle (but I am willing to risk it with the initial Golem play).

I think that works. :P

Even if the examples aren't universal, they still cut out a large swath of possibilities.

scott_pilgrim is right though, and I think I may have been thinking that way subconsciously, which is why I questioned WW and Mystic on the list.

This discussion has gotten more interesting than I thought it would.  "Universal edge case" is my favourite oxymoron for the day.
Logged

Flip5ide

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Highest Rank/Rating: 58/5600
  • Respect: +136
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #95 on: June 13, 2014, 12:02:36 am »
0

Scavenger>Duchess
Logged
"If at first you don't succeed, find out if the loser gets anything." - William Lyon Phelps

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #96 on: June 13, 2014, 12:18:46 am »
0

Scavenger>Duchess

Scavenger doesn't let you sift the next card.  It also doesn't force your opponent to look at a card, which may force them to reshuffle.
Logged

Flip5ide

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Highest Rank/Rating: 58/5600
  • Respect: +136
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #97 on: June 13, 2014, 12:26:45 am »
0

So I guess another way of putting it is, a pair of cards (card X and Card Y) which, if both in your hand, you would always play one over the other.
Logged
"If at first you don't succeed, find out if the loser gets anything." - William Lyon Phelps

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1751
    • View Profile
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #98 on: June 13, 2014, 08:25:56 am »
+3

So I guess another way of putting it is, a pair of cards (card X and Card Y) which, if both in your hand, you would always play one over the other.

I think only Haven makes you play a card over another (see its official FAQ).
Logged

enfynet

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1691
  • Respect: +1162
    • View Profile
    • JD's Custom Clubs
Re: Strictly better than....
« Reply #99 on: June 13, 2014, 09:24:42 am »
0

Wouldn't this puzzle be easier if the only cards in the Kingdom were the two (or more) in question? Otherwise every answer relies on the other 8 more than the two in question.
Logged
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious."
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 17  All
 

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 21 queries.