Print

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

[Dingan]

Can anyone find a case where Butcher is worse than Remodel?

If you have one of each, and you want a Bank, and you can only play one, and you currently don't have any coins?

[eHalcyon]

Can anyone find a case where Butcher is worse than Remodel?

If you have one of each, and you want a Bank, and you can only play one, and you currently don't have any coins?

That's a cost thing, a "universal edge case" which was already covered in this thread and ruled out for the purposes of the puzzle.  Otherwise, there are lots of cases where you'd rather have a $4 card instead of a $5 card in hand (e.g. Forge, Upgrade).

[Roadrunner7671]

Gold is strictly better than Gold, Platinum is strictly better than Gold?

[eHalcyon]

Gold is strictly better than Gold, Platinum is strictly better than Gold?

Storyteller, when you don't want to cause a reshuffle.

[Roadrunner7671]

Gold is strictly better than Gold, Platinum is strictly better than Gold?

Storyteller, when you don't want to cause a reshuffle.

How about 'Gold is strictly better than Silver in your buy phase, Platinim is strictly better than Gold in your buy phase?

[Marcory]

You want to Counterfeit one of them, Platinum is already in the Trash, Gold is not in the Trash, and you don't want to beef up your opponent's Foragers.

Also with Counterfeit, you want to put a Gold (or Silver) in the Trash rather than a Platinum, so that your opponent's Rogue won't be able to attack you.

Alternately, you want to beef up the Foragers that will be in your upcoming Outpost hand.

More importantly, you played Navigator this turn, so you know that you will have 5 Market Squares in your next hand. You also know (for example, from a 3rd player's Cutpurse) that your opponent has a Noble Brigand. You have no other cards in your deck or discard pile. You want to trigger the Market Squares, so you want Gold or Silver to be in your discard pile (and thus, next turn's deck), rather than Platinum.

[Erick648]

You want to Counterfeit one of them, Platinum is already in the Trash, Gold is not in the Trash, and you don't want to beef up your opponent's Foragers.

Also with Counterfeit, you want to put a Gold (or Silver) in the Trash rather than a Platinum, so that your opponent's Rogue won't be able to attack you.

Alternately, you want to beef up the Foragers that will be in your upcoming Outpost hand.

More importantly, you played Navigator this turn, so you know that you will have 5 Market Squares in your next hand. You also know (for example, from a 3rd player's Cutpurse) that your opponent has a Noble Brigand. You have no other cards in your deck or discard pile. You want to trigger the Market Squares, so you want Gold or Silver to be in your discard pile (and thus, next turn's deck), rather than Platinum.

Remember, prices and wanting differently-named cards are ignored.

The Forager examples have to do with having differently-named Treasures in the trash, and don't count because then Menagerie and Fairgrounds would be universal edge cases.

The Rogue example has to do with prices, which also doesn't count or cards like Upgrade or Forge would be near-universal edge cases.

The Noble Brigand example is valid (and can be simplified by adding topdecking instead of an empty deck and whatnot).  Noble Brigand can trash Gold but not Platinum, so if for whatever reason you want your opponent's Noble Brigand to trash your treasure (Market Square is a good reason), Gold is better than Platinum

[Marcory]

In my example, instead of saying Navigator, I should have specified a third player's Bureaucrat or Cutpurse; oh well.

But doesn't Raid+Feodum make it impossible for another treasure to be strictly superior to Silver?

[GendoIkari]

In my example, instead of saying Navigator, I should have specified a third player's Bureaucrat or Cutpurse; oh well.

But doesn't Raid+Feodum make it impossible for another treasure to be strictly superior to Silver?

Those are based on the name of the card again; which has to be ignored for these purposes.

[markusin]

Can anyone find a case where Butcher is worse than Remodel?

Your opponent in a real-life game KCed 8 Bakers last turn, so you have to sigh exasperatedly and get out the poker chips.

Or those Pogs you have collecting dust somewhere.

[skip wooznum]

So here's something I put together showing what's strictly better than what among official Action cards with vanilla on-play effects (and choices of vanilla on-play effects), considering ONLY on-play effects and ignoring edge cases.

Relevant to recent debates here? Not especially.

Useful? Not really.

Mildly interesting to look at? Sort of, maybe!

peddler>abandoned mine is missing

[werothegreat]

That chart is also missing Lost City>Laboratory, Lost City>Village, Lost City>Moat.

[Roadrunner7671]

Hunting Grounds isn't strictly better than Smithy 

[Roadrunner7671]

Anything that can cause unfortunate reshuffles aren't strictly better than things that can't. With one card in your draw pile and a discard pile full of junk, Ruined Library is better than Smithy.

[Deadlock39]

Anything that can cause unfortunate reshuffles aren't strictly better than things that can't. With one card in your draw pile and a discard pile full of junk, Ruined Library is better than Smithy.

Except you have to throw out a few of the "always true" edge cases to have a discussion about cards being "strictly better" at all.  Much like we are ignoring that for almost all of the pairs of cards in that chart, you could prefer the "worse" card due to a TfB card like Forge.

...but, I am not getting into a "strictly better" argument ever again, so if you disagree with me, I graciously pre-concede the debate to you.

[scott_pilgrim]

Anything that can cause unfortunate reshuffles aren't strictly better than things that can't. With one card in your draw pile and a discard pile full of junk, Ruined Library is better than Smithy.

If you read this thread, you would see that this has already been discussed.  Woodcutter isn't even strictly better than Abandoned Mine, because maybe you're going to play Storyteller and trigger an unwanted re-shuffle from the extra coin.  And really, it is impossible for any card to be strictly better than a differently named card, because there are always times when the name of a card can make it preferable to another card (Fairgrounds, for example).  Earlier in the thread, people discussed which of these edge cases are worth consideration in a practical use of "strictly better", because it's obvious that there would never really be any use for the term if it is to be interpreted literally.

If you prefer, you can think of Rubby's chart as showing you which cards' vanilla effects are subsets of which other cards' vanilla effects.

[GendoIkari]

Anything that can cause unfortunate reshuffles aren't strictly better than things that can't. With one card in your draw pile and a discard pile full of junk, Ruined Library is better than Smithy.

If you read this thread, you would see that this has already been discussed.  Woodcutter isn't even strictly better than Abandoned Mine, because maybe you're going to play Storyteller and trigger an unwanted re-shuffle from the extra coin.  And really, it is impossible for any card to be strictly better than a differently named card, because there are always times when the name of a card can make it preferable to another card (Fairgrounds, for example).  Earlier in the thread, people discussed which of these edge cases are worth consideration in a practical use of "strictly better", because it's obvious that there would never really be any use for the term if it is to be interpreted literally.

If you prefer, you can think of Rubby's chart as showing you which cards' vanilla effects are subsets of which other cards' vanilla effects.

Maybe I just don't remember or haven't read the thread carefully enough, but I thought that "names of cards" and "costs of cards" were what had been called out as specific things that would be ignored in the question of "strictly better". If that's true, then it's completely valid to point out that +3 card is not strictly better than +2 cards.

After all, avoiding extra draw is the basis for saying that Storyteller and Diadem cause problems.

[GendoIkari]

In fact, if you do say that prices and names (and Possession) are the only edge cases to ignore, then I do believe that the only real strictly better situations I can think of are:

Butcher > Remodel
Expand > Remodel
Worker's Village > Village

[Roadrunner7671]

Mining Village > Village
Wishing Well > Ruined Library
Hamlet > Ruined Library

[GendoIkari]

Mining Village > Village
Wishing Well > Ruined Library
Hamlet > Ruined Library

Mining Village you are correct. But The other 2 no... Wishing Well can cause an unwanted reshuffle just like Moat vs Ruined Library. For Hamlet, that extra action can cause an unwanted reshuffle if you play Storyteller then Diadem.

[Roadrunner7671]

Mining Village > Village
Wishing Well > Ruined Library
Hamlet > Ruined Library

Mining Village you are correct. But The other 2 no... Wishing Well can cause an unwanted reshuffle just like Moat vs Ruined Library. For Hamlet, that extra action can cause an unwanted reshuffle if you play Storyteller then Diadem.

You're right about Hamlet, but what if you wish for the ace of spades when you play Wishing Well?

[Accatitippi]

In fact, if you do say that prices and names (and Possession) are the only edge cases to ignore, then I do believe that the only real strictly better situations I can think of are:

Butcher > Remodel
Expand > Remodel
Worker's Village > Village

By those rules, I think Mining Village > Village also applies.
Unless you also put click efficiency in the equation, of course.

Edit: I answered just half an hour too late.

[Accatitippi]

Well, actually:
Most cantrips>Ruined Library.

[Roadrunner7671]

Well, actually:
Most cantrips>Ruined Library.

Actually no. If you play a cantrip, then play Storyteller and discard a Diadam for three cards, you might cause an unwanted reshuffle.

[eHalcyon]

Mining Village > Village
Wishing Well > Ruined Library
Hamlet > Ruined Library

Mining Village you are correct. But The other 2 no... Wishing Well can cause an unwanted reshuffle just like Moat vs Ruined Library. For Hamlet, that extra action can cause an unwanted reshuffle if you play Storyteller then Diadem.

You're right about Hamlet, but what if you wish for the ace of spades when you play Wishing Well?

Revealing the extra card will still trigger the reshuffle.


@Gendo I don't remember if we concluded whether reshuffle triggering should be considered, but it was certainly discussed. We were thorough.