Print

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

[Hockey Mask]

I guess I don't understand the purpose of the lists. Are we comparing cards, cost, or value?

I made a long post about this already. We are comparing the general impact of cards on the board and for easier measure we group them by cost before.

Is this to promote discussion or education?

Both.

The impact of cards on the board?  Not sure exactly what is meant by this or it's usefulness to a typical Dominion player.  It seems the most useful list would be one that would compare each card by cost and their value/strength.  If I have four coins to spend what is typically my best purchase? 

[Qvist]

If I have four coins to spend what is typically my best purchase?

That's exactly not how it can work. I almost never buy a Duchess for $2. I get it for free most of the time, but the free gain has an impact on the board if Duke is there. Also, Alt VP cards have a different big impact on the board, for example Gardens. It has a big impact on the board, but that doesn't necessarily mean I should go for it every time. Chapel is the best $2 card and I have $2 turn 9, that means I should get it, right? There's a reason that Chapel is a top card and Trading Post is not, although both are often the way to go if you can open with it.

[StrongRhino]

Um guys, Qvist already chose what is happening. What are we arguing about?

[Witherweaver]

Also (because I like to beat dead horses), I believe considering a Stonemason to be worth more than $2 is greatly undervaluing the fact that the on-buy effect can only occur when you buy a card.  There are many games where most of your deck is not bought, but gained (Border Village, Remodel, Remake, Stonemason itself, Haggler, Butcher, Develop, Expand, Swindler, Saboteur, Workshop, Ironworks, Armory, Mine, Taxman, Rebuild, etc.).  If you rank it as, say, a $5 card because of its overpay ability, you're neglecting that you don't get the $5 worth out of it when you gain it in any other way.

On a side note, I played a neat game against a bot with Swindler and Masterpiece where the bot overpaid Masterpiece with two or three $6+ hands, and I Swindled his Silver into more Masterpieces.  It was cute

[Hockey Mask]

Um guys, Qvist already chose what is happening. What are we arguing about?

This would be the discussion part of education and discussion.

We all know that Dominion is anything but consistent but if we keep making exceptions for different situations.  A $2 Chapel is a horrible purchase if it is the fifth one in my deck.

To actually make a useful list it should go from the cheapest card to the most expensive.  In the end, the list would generally go from $2 to $7 with some blurring of costs.  It would provide better education...what is typically the best use of $4?  Overspend for Chapel?  And discussion...pull Chapel from the $2 dregs and compare it to other power cards.

[eHalcyon]

Also (because I like to beat dead horses), I believe considering a Stonemason to be worth more than $2 is greatly undervaluing the fact that the on-buy effect can only occur when you buy a card.  There are many games where most of your deck is not bought, but gained (Border Village, Remodel, Remake, Stonemason itself, Haggler, Butcher, Develop, Expand, Swindler, Saboteur, Workshop, Ironworks, Armory, Mine, Taxman, Rebuild, etc.).  If you rank it as, say, a $5 card because of its overpay ability, you're neglecting that you don't get the $5 worth out of it when you gain it in any other way.

On a side note, I played a neat game against a bot with Swindler and Masterpiece where the bot overpaid Masterpiece with two or three $6+ hands, and I Swindled his Silver into more Masterpieces.  It was cute

You are overselling that fact, I think.  In some games you gain more than you buy, but that is actually extremely rare.  With BV, you are usually still BUYING the BV.  In the majority of other cards you name (Remodel family, among others), you still need to BUY fodder for them.  Several of the cards are ATTACKS, so they don't really work for this argument. 

The workshop-family cards are straight up gainers and are a point FOR valuing overpay cards more highly.  How is the fact that Stonemason can be gained by Workshop a point against comparing it to $5 cards?  Not only can I get a $5 effect from SM, but bonus! -- I also have the option of gaining the card from Workshop if I'm more interested in its on-play effect than its overpay effect.

Probably the only card that really fits your argument is Develop, where developing your card gives you MORE fodder.  But a board where a pure Develop strategy is viable is pretty rare.


I personally believe that it would be most useful to rank the overpay cards at whatever cost they are most likely to be purchased.  I don't know how this other piece of info would be determined, but I guess it doesn't matter because most people would prefer to just rank them at their base costs.  And you know what?  I'm perfectly fine with that.  In the end, it really doesn't matter that much.

But I would hope that everyone can see the merits to the different suggestions that have been put forward.  It is not completely ridiculous to rank Stonemason against $5 or $6+ cards; there is value in that.  It is not bad to rank it against $2 cards; there is value in that too.

[Witherweaver]

Also (because I like to beat dead horses), I believe considering a Stonemason to be worth more than $2 is greatly undervaluing the fact that the on-buy effect can only occur when you buy a card.  There are many games where most of your deck is not bought, but gained (Border Village, Remodel, Remake, Stonemason itself, Haggler, Butcher, Develop, Expand, Swindler, Saboteur, Workshop, Ironworks, Armory, Mine, Taxman, Rebuild, etc.).  If you rank it as, say, a $5 card because of its overpay ability, you're neglecting that you don't get the $5 worth out of it when you gain it in any other way.

On a side note, I played a neat game against a bot with Swindler and Masterpiece where the bot overpaid Masterpiece with two or three $6+ hands, and I Swindled his Silver into more Masterpieces.  It was cute

You are overselling that fact, I think.  In some games you gain more than you buy, but that is actually extremely rare.  With BV, you are usually still BUYING the BV.  In the majority of other cards you name (Remodel family, among others), you still need to BUY fodder for them.  Several of the cards are ATTACKS, so they don't really work for this argument. 

The workshop-family cards are straight up gainers and are a point FOR valuing overpay cards more highly.  How is the fact that Stonemason can be gained by Workshop a point against comparing it to $5 cards?  Not only can I get a $5 effect from SM, but bonus! -- I also have the option of gaining the card from Workshop if I'm more interested in its on-play effect than its overpay effect.

Probably the only card that really fits your argument is Develop, where developing your card gives you MORE fodder.  But a board where a pure Develop strategy is viable is pretty rare.


I personally believe that it would be most useful to rank the overpay cards at whatever cost they are most likely to be purchased.  I don't know how this other piece of info would be determined, but I guess it doesn't matter because most people would prefer to just rank them at their base costs.  And you know what?  I'm perfectly fine with that.  In the end, it really doesn't matter that much.

But I would hope that everyone can see the merits to the different suggestions that have been put forward.  It is not completely ridiculous to rank Stonemason against $5 or $6+ cards; there is value in that.  It is not bad to rank it against $2 cards; there is value in that too.

Okay, maybe overall you don't gain more than you buy, but for a given card (or set of cards with a given cost) you may gain more than you buy.  In particular, with Border Village, Haggler, Remake, Develop, etc., you may gain many more $4-$5 cards than you buy. 

I don't follow your argument for workshop being for valuing overpay cards more highly.  You're considering it a $5 because the $3 overpay is a plus.  When you gain it, you don't get that effect.  You only get $2 worth.  If you're more interested in its on-play effect than its overpay effect, why are you comparing it to $5 cards in the first place?

[eHalcyon]

I don't follow your argument for workshop being for valuing overpay cards more highly.  You're considering it a $5 because the $3 overpay is a plus.  When you gain it, you don't get that effect.  You only get $2 worth.  If you're more interested in its on-play effect than its overpay effect, why are you comparing it to $5 cards in the first place?

When you overpay for an overpay card, you get a bonus effect depending on how much you overpay.  The value you get from buying a $6 Stonemason is very different from the value you get for buying a $2 Stonemason.  We can all agree on that, right?

Now, let's say we compare $7 Stonemason to King's Court and Expand.  Is the fact that you can gain Stonemason with Workshop a negative here?  It really isn't.  You can't gain King's Court with Workshop, so this is something you can do with Stonemason that you can't with King's Court.  Moreover, the fact that you can gain Stonemason with Workshop does not mean you can't buy Stonemason for $7.



I guess my overall line of thought is that, yes, you can compare overpay cards to other cards at their base cost and still account for the fact that you can pay more and reap some additional reward.  That's true, that's fine.  But you can also do that if you put those cards on higher cost lists, taking into account that you can pay less to reap a smaller reward.  I would prefer to put them on the lists corresponding to the cost people are most likely to pay (e.g for Masterpiece, $5 or $6+) because I feel that it would be a more useful and informative comparison than comparing it to something like Woodcutter.  Stonemason is a much more powerful card than Secret Chamber... but that's because you can pay $7 for it and get value from it worthy of that price, whereas you can't do the same with Pawn.  That seems trivial to me.

But if the lists go the other way (and it sure seems like they will), that's fine.  No skin off my back.

[ashersky]

While we're doing this, can we please add Border Village to the $7, $8, $9, $10, and $11 cost lists?  After all, when you buy it, you gain a card costing less, so it is a variable cost card, too.

Same for Haggler--needs to be on the $5, $6, $7, $8, and $9 cost lists.

Oh, and Workshop should be on the $3, $4, $5, $6, and $7 cost lists, since it's card text power actually includes other cards.

This is important guys, really.  We need to be able to compared the $6 Workshop to Adventurer.

[werothegreat]

Um guys, Qvist already chose what is happening. What are we arguing about?

This would be the discussion part of education and discussion.

We all know that Dominion is anything but consistent but if we keep making exceptions for different situations.  A $2 Chapel is a horrible purchase if it is the fifth one in my deck.

To actually make a useful list it should go from the cheapest card to the most expensive.  In the end, the list would generally go from $2 to $7 with some blurring of costs.  It would provide better education...what is typically the best use of $4?  Overspend for Chapel?  And discussion...pull Chapel from the $2 dregs and compare it to other power cards.

Education?  What, are we all supposed to go to Dominion School now?  For fuck's sake, man, it's a game.

[NoMoreFun]

We need to be able to compared the $6 Workshop to Adventurer.

I'd take the Workshop

However the reason we may need to include the Guilds cards is because of their different function when you pay a different cost.

Personally I'd make a list out of the 4 overpay cards in isolation. They're not a reasonable comparison to cards of any cost. For whatever purpose there is to comparing the $3 cards, Masterpiece doesn't belong there. Even if the function is actually comparable, like $5 Masterpiece vs Cache, that's not doing the fact that you can pay other costs justice. This also becomes problematic if you're going to put them in the "6+" list. The way around that is to make different "6" and "7" lists, and include Peddler in the "6" list arguing that you're likely to have at least 1 action in play, but then things are getting kind of hackneyed.

[eHalcyon]

While we're doing this, can we please add Border Village to the $7, $8, $9, $10, and $11 cost lists?  After all, when you buy it, you gain a card costing less, so it is a variable cost card, too.

Same for Haggler--needs to be on the $5, $6, $7, $8, and $9 cost lists.

Oh, and Workshop should be on the $3, $4, $5, $6, and $7 cost lists, since it's card text power actually includes other cards.

This is important guys, really.  We need to be able to compared the $6 Workshop to Adventurer.

Uh, not at all.  BV only costs $6, no matter what you gain with it.  You never pay more.  Haggler and Workshop arent even close because those are effects from playing it, not from buying/gaining it.  These are not at all the same as overpaying, where you actually PAY MORE.  Yeah yeah it's an on-buy effect that just has a restriction on it, but when we are comparing cards by cost, an extra payment is actually relevant.  It costs $5 or more to buy a reasonably powerful Masterpiece.  At $3, it's terrible.

I mean, your last line -- compare $6 Workshop to Adventurer?  $6 Workshop is the same as $3 Workshop, which is a card of a strength that is costed at $3.  $6 Masterpiece is completely different from $3 Masterpiece; the former is an expensive card that is reasonably powerful for silver flooding while the latter is just a really bad $3.

[ashersky]

While we're doing this, can we please add Border Village to the $7, $8, $9, $10, and $11 cost lists?  After all, when you buy it, you gain a card costing less, so it is a variable cost card, too.

Same for Haggler--needs to be on the $5, $6, $7, $8, and $9 cost lists.

Oh, and Workshop should be on the $3, $4, $5, $6, and $7 cost lists, since it's card text power actually includes other cards.

This is important guys, really.  We need to be able to compared the $6 Workshop to Adventurer.

Uh, not at all.  BV only costs $6, no matter what you gain with it.  You never pay more.  Haggler and Workshop arent even close because those are effects from playing it, not from buying/gaining it.  These are not at all the same as overpaying, where you actually PAY MORE.  Yeah yeah it's an on-buy effect that just has a restriction on it, but when we are comparing cards by cost, an extra payment is actually relevant.  It costs $5 or more to buy a reasonably powerful Masterpiece.  At $3, it's terrible.

I mean, your last line -- compare $6 Workshop to Adventurer?  $6 Workshop is the same as $3 Workshop, which is a card of a strength that is costed at $3.  $6 Masterpiece is completely different from $3 Masterpiece; the former is an expensive card that is reasonably powerful for silver flooding while the latter is just a really bad $3.

Someone doesn't read sarcasm well.

[NoMoreFun]

While we're doing this, can we please add Border Village to the $7, $8, $9, $10, and $11 cost lists?  After all, when you buy it, you gain a card costing less, so it is a variable cost card, too.

Same for Haggler--needs to be on the $5, $6, $7, $8, and $9 cost lists.

Oh, and Workshop should be on the $3, $4, $5, $6, and $7 cost lists, since it's card text power actually includes other cards.

This is important guys, really.  We need to be able to compared the $6 Workshop to Adventurer.

Uh, not at all.  BV only costs $6, no matter what you gain with it.  You never pay more.  Haggler and Workshop arent even close because those are effects from playing it, not from buying/gaining it.  These are not at all the same as overpaying, where you actually PAY MORE.  Yeah yeah it's an on-buy effect that just has a restriction on it, but when we are comparing cards by cost, an extra payment is actually relevant.  It costs $5 or more to buy a reasonably powerful Masterpiece.  At $3, it's terrible.

I mean, your last line -- compare $6 Workshop to Adventurer?  $6 Workshop is the same as $3 Workshop, which is a card of a strength that is costed at $3.  $6 Masterpiece is completely different from $3 Masterpiece; the former is an expensive card that is reasonably powerful for silver flooding while the latter is just a really bad $3.

Someone doesn't read sarcasm well.

You are implying, with your sarcasm, that there's no difference between this and putting the overpay cards on multiple lists.

[Hockey Mask]

Um guys, Qvist already chose what is happening. What are we arguing about?

This would be the discussion part of education and discussion.

We all know that Dominion is anything but consistent but if we keep making exceptions for different situations.  A $2 Chapel is a horrible purchase if it is the fifth one in my deck.

To actually make a useful list it should go from the cheapest card to the most expensive.  In the end, the list would generally go from $2 to $7 with some blurring of costs.  It would provide better education...what is typically the best use of $4?  Overspend for Chapel?  And discussion...pull Chapel from the $2 dregs and compare it to other power cards.

Education?  What, are we all supposed to go to Dominion School now?  For fuck's sake, man, it's a game.

Real pleasant.

[ashersky]

While we're doing this, can we please add Border Village to the $7, $8, $9, $10, and $11 cost lists?  After all, when you buy it, you gain a card costing less, so it is a variable cost card, too.

Same for Haggler--needs to be on the $5, $6, $7, $8, and $9 cost lists.

Oh, and Workshop should be on the $3, $4, $5, $6, and $7 cost lists, since it's card text power actually includes other cards.

This is important guys, really.  We need to be able to compared the $6 Workshop to Adventurer.

Uh, not at all.  BV only costs $6, no matter what you gain with it.  You never pay more.  Haggler and Workshop arent even close because those are effects from playing it, not from buying/gaining it.  These are not at all the same as overpaying, where you actually PAY MORE.  Yeah yeah it's an on-buy effect that just has a restriction on it, but when we are comparing cards by cost, an extra payment is actually relevant.  It costs $5 or more to buy a reasonably powerful Masterpiece.  At $3, it's terrible.

I mean, your last line -- compare $6 Workshop to Adventurer?  $6 Workshop is the same as $3 Workshop, which is a card of a strength that is costed at $3.  $6 Masterpiece is completely different from $3 Masterpiece; the former is an expensive card that is reasonably powerful for silver flooding while the latter is just a really bad $3.

Someone doesn't read sarcasm well.

You are implying, with your sarcasm, that there's no difference between this and putting the overpay cards on multiple lists.

I was trying to imply that there are many different cards that "compete" at many different price points; so many in fact, that it strikes me as silly to want to list cards over and over at different price points as if they are different cards.

To me, the argument for putting overpay cards on all possible lists comes down to the fear that having it only on the $2 list means you can't take into consideration Stonemason + Caravan vs. Goons.  But in reality, you can.  I believe someone said it best on f.ds once: it depends on the kingdom.

[DStu]

relevant xkcd

[Witherweaver]

I don't follow your argument for workshop being for valuing overpay cards more highly.  You're considering it a $5 because the $3 overpay is a plus.  When you gain it, you don't get that effect.  You only get $2 worth.  If you're more interested in its on-play effect than its overpay effect, why are you comparing it to $5 cards in the first place?

When you overpay for an overpay card, you get a bonus effect depending on how much you overpay.  The value you get from buying a $6 Stonemason is very different from the value you get for buying a $2 Stonemason.  We can all agree on that, right?

Now, let's say we compare $7 Stonemason to King's Court and Expand.  Is the fact that you can gain Stonemason with Workshop a negative here?  It really isn't.  You can't gain King's Court with Workshop, so this is something you can do with Stonemason that you can't with King's Court.  Moreover, the fact that you can gain Stonemason with Workshop does not mean you can't buy Stonemason for $7.

I guess I should clarify.  I'm not saying that you can get it with a Workshop is a negative.  I'm saying that  if you include it on the $7 card list, you're inherently giving it a +$5 boost that simply doesn't exist in certain cases (e.g., when you get it from a Workshop).  So you're not accurately valuing its use, because you did not get a $7 card.  You got a $2 card and spent $5 for a special ability.  Moreover, that you can gain your "$7" card with a Warehouse is fallacious, because you did not gain a $7 card.  You gained a $2 card, and you didn't get the option to "up its value".

I'm basically saying that considering it to be worth a higher price isn't accurate, because, well, that extra price isn't inherently tied into the card.  You only get it when you buy the card and pay extra.  You don't get it when you play the card, or gain the card.  So if it's on the $5 or $7 list, its value is inflated.  Or you have to correct for that and value it lower. 

I guess my overall line of thought is that, yes, you can compare overpay cards to other cards at their base cost and still account for the fact that you can pay more and reap some additional reward.  That's true, that's fine.  But you can also do that if you put those cards on higher cost lists, taking into account that you can pay less to reap a smaller reward.  I would prefer to put them on the lists corresponding to the cost people are most likely to pay (e.g for Masterpiece, $5 or $6+) because I feel that it would be a more useful and informative comparison than comparing it to something like Woodcutter.  Stonemason is a much more powerful card than Secret Chamber... but that's because you can pay $7 for it and get value from it worthy of that price, whereas you can't do the same with Pawn.  That seems trivial to me.

But if the lists go the other way (and it sure seems like they will), that's fine.  No skin off my back.

Stonemason is a more powerful card than Secret Chamber, but I would say that would be true if it didn't have an overpay ability, because I think its play ability is better than Secret Chamber's.  I also think we're undervaluing that you can only overpay once.  If you want to overpay again, you have to purchase another copy of the card, and the opportunity cost for that only goes up.  You can't just piledrive overpayed Stonemasons unless you have a way to deal with them.  You're also (in general) neglecting to buy something else, though Stonemason's overpay ability takes care of that for you.

Well anyway, we basically agree on all the facts, we just view them differently. 

[eHalcyon]

I don't follow your argument for workshop being for valuing overpay cards more highly.  You're considering it a $5 because the $3 overpay is a plus.  When you gain it, you don't get that effect.  You only get $2 worth.  If you're more interested in its on-play effect than its overpay effect, why are you comparing it to $5 cards in the first place?

When you overpay for an overpay card, you get a bonus effect depending on how much you overpay.  The value you get from buying a $6 Stonemason is very different from the value you get for buying a $2 Stonemason.  We can all agree on that, right?

Now, let's say we compare $7 Stonemason to King's Court and Expand.  Is the fact that you can gain Stonemason with Workshop a negative here?  It really isn't.  You can't gain King's Court with Workshop, so this is something you can do with Stonemason that you can't with King's Court.  Moreover, the fact that you can gain Stonemason with Workshop does not mean you can't buy Stonemason for $7.

I guess I should clarify.  I'm not saying that you can get it with a Workshop is a negative.  I'm saying that  if you include it on the $7 card list, you're inherently giving it a +$5 boost that simply doesn't exist in certain cases (e.g., when you get it from a Workshop).  So you're not accurately valuing its use, because you did not get a $7 card.  You got a $2 card and spent $5 for a special ability.  Moreover, that you can gain your "$7" card with a Warehouse is fallacious, because you did not gain a $7 card.  You gained a $2 card, and you didn't get the option to "up its value".

I'm basically saying that considering it to be worth a higher price isn't accurate, because, well, that extra price isn't inherently tied into the card.  You only get it when you buy the card and pay extra.  You don't get it when you play the card, or gain the card.  So if it's on the $5 or $7 list, its value is inflated.  Or you have to correct for that and value it lower. 

I guess my overall line of thought is that, yes, you can compare overpay cards to other cards at their base cost and still account for the fact that you can pay more and reap some additional reward.  That's true, that's fine.  But you can also do that if you put those cards on higher cost lists, taking into account that you can pay less to reap a smaller reward.  I would prefer to put them on the lists corresponding to the cost people are most likely to pay (e.g for Masterpiece, $5 or $6+) because I feel that it would be a more useful and informative comparison than comparing it to something like Woodcutter.  Stonemason is a much more powerful card than Secret Chamber... but that's because you can pay $7 for it and get value from it worthy of that price, whereas you can't do the same with Pawn.  That seems trivial to me.

But if the lists go the other way (and it sure seems like they will), that's fine.  No skin off my back.

Stonemason is a more powerful card than Secret Chamber, but I would say that would be true if it didn't have an overpay ability, because I think its play ability is better than Secret Chamber's.  I also think we're undervaluing that you can only overpay once.  If you want to overpay again, you have to purchase another copy of the card, and the opportunity cost for that only goes up.  You can't just piledrive overpayed Stonemasons unless you have a way to deal with them.  You're also (in general) neglecting to buy something else, though Stonemason's overpay ability takes care of that for you.

Well anyway, we basically agree on all the facts, we just view them differently.

It doesn't matter that you only get it once. Again, consider IGG. Without the on-gain, it would cost far less.

[Witherweaver]

etc.

It doesn't matter that you only get it once. Again, consider IGG. Without the on-gain, it would cost far less.

Well, that's a good point.  But, I think a $5 IGG and a $2+$3 stonemason don't exactly compare.  That is, I don't think IGG would be the same as $2 for IGG-curse effect, you may overpay by $3 to give each player a curse.  Either the $2 base would be useless since everyone would just pay $5, or it would actually make it too powerful, because then it becomes much easier to rush the IGG pile in the cases when curses run out before IGGs, letting you three pile earlier.  Or it would break it the strategy and make it not a good card, because the defender could buy a couple for $2 and prevent you from emptying the curse pile.

I'm think in general a $X+(N-X)overpay card is not the same as an $N card.  Aside from all the cards that care about costs (from which there are many), a $5 card should in general be (slightly) more valuable than spending $X+(5-X) on an $X card, because there should be some opportunity cost for that extra utility.  A Stonemason and two $3 cards is usually not as good as a power $5 attacker, though of course there are some cases where those options turn out to be better.  It is very situational, of course, but we have a general principle of convexity of use vs. cost.   That Stonemason has this extra ability makes it, in my view, a valuable $2 card.  Kind of like Fool's Gold is a valuable $2 card, but hey you can't just spend $2 and grab one.  You need to be buying all of them, ideally with +buys.  It's almost as if an effective overpay is built into the mechanics of Fool's Gold.

And anyway, if Stonemason cost a fixed $5 it wouldn't be a great card.  Good in some cases, but not as useful.  It's the variability that gives it its value.  And its cost of $2 is tied into its balance; it would be much different if it cost $1 or $3 or $4. 

[eHalcyon]

etc.

It doesn't matter that you only get it once. Again, consider IGG. Without the on-gain, it would cost far less.

Well, that's a good point.  But, I think a $5 IGG and a $2+$3 stonemason don't exactly compare.  That is, I don't think IGG would be the same as $2 for IGG-curse effect, you may overpay by $3 to give each player a curse.  Either the $2 base would be useless since everyone would just pay $5, or it would actually make it too powerful, because then it becomes much easier to rush the IGG pile in the cases when curses run out before IGGs, letting you three pile earlier.  Or it would break it the strategy and make it not a good card, because the defender could buy a couple for $2 and prevent you from emptying the curse pile.

I'm think in general a $X+(N-X)overpay card is not the same as an $N card.  Aside from all the cards that care about costs (from which there are many), a $5 card should in general be (slightly) more valuable than spending $X+(5-X) on an $X card, because there should be some opportunity cost for that extra utility.  A Stonemason and two $3 cards is usually not as good as a power $5 attacker, though of course there are some cases where those options turn out to be better.  It is very situational, of course, but we have a general principle of convexity of use vs. cost.   That Stonemason has this extra ability makes it, in my view, a valuable $2 card.  Kind of like Fool's Gold is a valuable $2 card, but hey you can't just spend $2 and grab one.  You need to be buying all of them, ideally with +buys.  It's almost as if an effective overpay is built into the mechanics of Fool's Gold.

And anyway, if Stonemason cost a fixed $5 it wouldn't be a great card.  Good in some cases, but not as useful.  It's the variability that gives it its value.  And its cost of $2 is tied into its balance; it would be much different if it cost $1 or $3 or $4.

Stonemason's on-play effect is about as valuable as IGG's on-play effect.  Both are niche and usually weak.  If IGG is worth comparing at $5 (and it is), then it's also worth looking at the value of a $5 SM with the on-buy effect of gaining two $3s.  And hey, you say that SM+two $3s is not as good as power $5 attack... that is not obvious.  Not at all.  That is an interesting thing to discuss, to compare.  That is a reason why it would be interesting to rank SM at $5 with other $5 cards.

But let's be even more clear about this.  Let's look at Masterpiece again.  This is a card that is obviously useless at its base cost.  It is a $3 Copper.  Why would you ever get this over Silver?  Why would you ever get this over a real Copper, which costs less and has interaction with cards like Apothecary, Counting House and Coppersmith?  There are the usual name-caring edge cases (Menagerie, Fairgrounds, etc.) but those apply to everything.  No, there is no way to argue otherwise -- you would pretty much never buy a base cost Masterpiece.  Not even if it cost $1.  Given the popularity of Copper, you would rarely buy it even if it were free.

Masterpiece's function and power is ENTIRELY in its overpay effect.  That's it.  That's all.  That's what should be ranked.  Who is going to buy Masterpiece with only $3?  Nobody.  Who is going to use a gainer on Masterpiece?  Nobody.  And, let's face it, it's also terrible at $4 -- with rare exception, you would prefer to buy Silver and not have to take this Copper junk.  In the end, you are almost always going to be buying Masterpiece for a minimum of $5.  That's why I believe that Masterpiece should be put with the $5 cards, or maybe even $6+.

With Doctor and Herald, I don't know.  I expect Herald's on-play to be the main attraction, and Doctor is sort of mixed.  But the overypay is the star for Stonemason and especially Masterpiece.



So yeah, I would put Masterpiece with the $5 cards, maybe $6+.
I would put Stonemason with the $6+ as well.
Doctor I have no idea.
Herald probably $4 as I expect that the overpay would be used rarely.

And while we're at it, I now think I would move Peddler to the $2 category (that's also where PH is, right?) because that is usually the price you pay for it; when ranking it, one would account for the fact that you have to jump through hoops to get it at that reduced price, as well as the fact that TfB performs much better with it than with the other cheap cards in that tier.




I recognize that ranking by base cost is a fine option.  It is the simplest method.  It means people don't have to take into account that TfB will be less effective with it than other cards in the category.  In exchange, they have to account for the overpay.  I, on the other hand, think it would be easier, more appropriate and altogether more useful to compare overpay cards at the total cost they are likely to be paid for.  If I rank Masterpiece against $5 cards, I would account for the fact that TfB is less effective with it because of its nominal $3 price.  I find that far easier to factor in that it would be to rank Masterpiece against $3 cards and try to account for all the other prices I might pay for it.  But like, that's just my opinion. 

[Qvist]

Ill-Gotten Gains - Treasure - $2+
-----------------------------------
$1
When you play this, you may gain a Copper, putting it into your hand.
-----------------------------------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it by $3. If you do, each other player gains a Curse


Duchess - Action - $2+
----------------------------------
+2$
Each player (including you) looks at the top card of his deck, and discards it or puts it back.
---------------------------------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it by $3. If you do, gain a Duchy.

[Witherweaver]

Well, fair enough.  I'm still hung up on, well, if you're going to rank cards by cost, then they should be by the cost, which is a well-defined mechanic of Dominion.  So Masterpiece is a $3 and nothing can ever change that.  That you'd never pay $3 for it is something you take into account as you consider it's usefulness. 

Of course, the ranking could certainly done by something other than the card's cost, but then it's no longer a "Best $X Card" list.

The other point, $2+$3overpay (=, <, >, <=, >=) $5 is interesting.  I think *in general* it should be < 5, because you should be giving something up to have that flexibility.  That just makes sense to me.  I say in general because, of course, there are many situations when, for instance, you're going to want to $3 (plus having Stonemason in your deck) over a $5.  But I think that shouldn't be the dominant situation.  A discussion like this probably merits its own more general topic.. when is $X+(N-X)overpay better than $N?  And of course that's what (I think) the point of those that want it on the $N list.

Maybe each overpay card should each have its own separate list/discussion for every possible price point. 

[eHalcyon]

Ill-Gotten Gains - Treasure - $2+
-----------------------------------
$1
When you play this, you may gain a Copper, putting it into your hand.
-----------------------------------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it by $3. If you do, each other player gains a Curse

Yup, I would put that with the $5s because that's the price at which it is most likely to be purchased.  I would rank this lower than the real IGG though, because people can screw with the double piling by buying it on the cheap.

Duchess - Action - $2+
----------------------------------
+2$
Each player (including you) looks at the top card of his deck, and discards it or puts it back.
---------------------------------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it by $3. If you do, gain a Duchy.

This is iffier to me, for a different reason.  If ranking this with the $5s, it seems more akin to ranking Duchy-with-a-bonus, but we've already declined to rank Duchy, Province, etc. in the lists.

[Witherweaver]

But I think what is interesting with those is that the mechanics are fundamentally different.  I mean Duchess doesn't matter much, but I think IGG would actually play much differently, because the standard IGG strategy almost relies on curses and IGGs going together.  Plus it also has implications with Gardens. (Can you ignore cursing and just get $2 IGG and $4 Gardens?)

Anyway, interesting, though in my mind it makes IGG not a $5 card, since it's a $2 card.  Though it's easier to put this on the $5 list, because $2/$5 are the only options, unlike the variable pay cards.  You'd have to have a whole separate ranking/discussion on figuring out whether a given card should be most often $5, $6, whatever.