Print

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

[eHalcyon]

OK, let's try a simple exercise, for the sake of interest.  Consider the overpaid IGG.  Since it is like a mini-version of IGG, I will now call it Li'l-Gotten Gains (LGG).

Li'l-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.

For the sake of completeness, let's also consider a version without the cursing at all.  Let's call it Nil-Gotten Gains (NGG).

Nil-Gotten Gains - Treasure - $2
-----------------------------------
$1
When you play this, you may gain a Copper, putting it into your hand.

Now, here is the 2013 list for $1-$2 cards, and here is the 2013 list for $5 cards.  Assume that you agree with those two lists.  Now, where would you rank NGG and LGG in the $2 list?  Where would you rank LGG in the $5 list?  Please try to do this objectively, and provide reasoning for your placements (or reasoning for why you cannot make an adequate placement).

I will try.

On the $5 list, LGG is of course most similar to IGG.  However, it is inferior in two ways.  First of all, it does worse with TfB.  Second, and more important, the potential lower cost interferes with certain IGG strategies.  Normally I would say that the lower cost is a bonus, because if you cared more about the on-play then there is less opportunity cost for you.  With LGG, the big example is of course Gardens.  But this small advantage is outweighed by a disadvantage -- one of the most powerful aspects of IGG is that it runs out two piles at once.  With LGG, an opponent can easily counter by buying cheap LGGs, leaving extra curses in the supply.

IGG is ranked #5 on its list, so I cannot put LGG higher than that.  Therefore, I think I will put it at #9, below Torturer.  LGG is still very powerful, as all Cursers tend to be.  The disadvantage caused by the potential disruption as described above hurts it, but not terribly much.  You can still curse your opponent, and if your opponent is buying LGG at $2, well, they're just getting a poor card and they aren't really hurting you at all.  Maybe you can't 3-pile as easily, but there are other things you can do.  Overall, it is far more likely for both parties to buy IGG at $5.




OK, what about on the $2 list?

NGG is a terrible card in all but the most niche circumstances.  Although it is a Treasure, I would say that Beggar is better.  It provides an extra $1 on play and it has a snazzy reaction.  Moreover, in decks where you like the Copper gaining, Beggar is probably better for providing that third Copper, terminal or not.  Therefore I would put NGG below Beggar, which is at #14.  The next few cards below that are Vagrant, Moat and Herbalist.  I think all of these have decent use cases that are more common that NGG's.  Next is Pearl Diver... although PD is generally harmless in any deck, it has very little value.  At least NGG is worth up to $2 on play and has a decent use case with Gardens.  I will rank NGG at #18, pushing Pearl Diver down.

Great.  Now for the tough one -- LGG.  It is better than NGG for sure, so it has to be above #18.  Can I put an upper bound?  It doesn't beat Chapel in my book.

The next several cards on the list are Hamlet, Courtyard, FG, Lighthouse and Squire.  These are all strong $2 cards for different reasons.  I think LGG actually deserves a place among them.  After all, it junks the opponent's deck.  But it also costs an extra $3 to get that ability, which is a non-trivial cost.  How do I weigh that cost now?  By gut instinct, I think I would put LGG below FG and above Lighthouse -- so, #5.




The difficulty I experience is how to weigh the power of the overpay effect against the extra opportunity cost it incurs compared to the other $2 cards which have no such extra cost, nor such extra power.  There is a tension here that makes my head spin when trying to rank it.  It is even more difficult with the real overpay cards because you have to consider the opportunity cost/increased benefit for each amount you overpay from the base cost.

How would you guys do it?

[heron]

Why don't we just rate all of the cards from 0-10 (or 0-100 if you felt like it).
Then you can arrange them into a ranking however you like. Also it is way easier for the participants to do.

[werothegreat]

The difference between LGG and all the real overpay cards is that the real ones have no specified overpay amount.  LGG is just begging you to spend exactly $5 on it.  To me, your LGG and NGG are just further evidence that we should just rank the overpay cards by their stated cost, rather than putting them on every list, of trying to guess at some "optimal" cost for them.  Remember that you can also Workshop or Ironworks these, and in that case they will cost what they say they cost, and there will be no overpay.

[eHalcyon]

The difference between LGG and all the real overpay cards is that the real ones have no specified overpay amount.  LGG is just begging you to spend exactly $5 on it.  To me, your LGG and NGG are just further evidence that we should just rank the overpay cards by their stated cost, rather than putting them on every list, of trying to guess at some "optimal" cost for them.  Remember that you can also Workshop or Ironworks these, and in that case they will cost what they say they cost, and there will be no overpay.

The real overpay cards should be even more difficult to rank.  LGG is begging you to spend $5 on it, so when you evaluate it for the $2 list you only have to consider it at $2 and $5.  And even that is tough.  With the real overpay card, you are going to have to keep in mind its base cost, the effect when you overpay $1, the effect when you overpay $2, etc.  That just seems bonkers to keep straight and rank fairly.

The Workshop argument means nothing to me.  You are pretty much never going to Workshop a Masterpiece.  Again, the whole reason for its existence is in the overpay.  You only ever buy Masterpiece, and you only ever do it at $4+ (and rarely at $4 anyway).

Again, I invite you to try the exercise.

[Witherweaver]

I had to upvote your post for the sake of the IGG variant names.

I'd probably agree with the NGG analysis.  Maybe being a treasure instead of an action makes it better, but Beggar is still probably better.

The LGG on $5 I'm not so sure about.  I think the lack of simultaneous piling could actually hurt it more here.  I think you'd have to play with it a lot to see if it still plays the same.  If your opponent picks up two LGG they may not hurt him that much, where you have to either pick up two curses yourself or empty a different pile.  On the other hand, if there is another curser on the board and you want to 3-pile this could actually be a bonus.  You could buy a couple at $5 to try to win the curse split, then empty the pile more easily for $2 once the curses are gone, then use the $2 worth to get Duchys.  I don't know, hard to say here.

The $2 list is the list ...  I would say it's a pretty powerful $2 card, precisely because it gives you the option to spend $3 to curse your opponent.  I would probably put it right around Fool's Gold, maybe one above or one below.  Having to pay $3 for the effect is not that dissimilar to having to buy a bunch of Fool's Gold and enable their collision, and it seems better than the cards ranked below Fool's Gold. Though this also depends on the same kind of issues comparing it to $5. 

Of course as Werothegreat said, the analogy is lacking since the overpay if fixed. 

[Hockey Mask]

Why don't we just rate all of the cards from 0-10 (or 0-100 if you felt like it).
Then you can arrange them into a ranking however you like. Also it is way easier for the participants to do.

Or from 1-205.   

[WanderingWinder]

Why don't we just rate all of the cards from 0-10 (or 0-100 if you felt like it).
Then you can arrange them into a ranking however you like. Also it is way easier for the participants to do.

Or from 1-205.   

The thing is, a point scale gives us not only an ordering of cards (ranking), but also a chance to say how big the differences are. I like this a lot.

[eHalcyon]

I had to upvote your post for the sake of the IGG variant names.

I'd probably agree with the NGG analysis.  Maybe being a treasure instead of an action makes it better, but Beggar is still probably better.

The LGG on $5 I'm not so sure about.  I think the lack of simultaneous piling could actually hurt it more here.  I think you'd have to play with it a lot to see if it still plays the same.  If your opponent picks up two LGG they may not hurt him that much, where you have to either pick up two curses yourself or empty a different pile.  On the other hand, if there is another curser on the board and you want to 3-pile this could actually be a bonus.  You could buy a couple at $5 to try to win the curse split, then empty the pile more easily for $2 once the curses are gone, then use the $2 worth to get Duchys.  I don't know, hard to say here.

With LGG, if your opponent just buys two to disrupt you, you still put 8 Curses into their deck.  That's still powerful, even though you don't empty two piles.  That's why I still put it high.

The $2 list is the list ...  I would say it's a pretty powerful $2 card, precisely because it gives you the option to spend $3 to curse your opponent.  I would probably put it right around Fool's Gold, maybe one above or one below.  Having to pay $3 for the effect is not that dissimilar to having to buy a bunch of Fool's Gold and enable their collision, and it seems better than the cards ranked below Fool's Gold. Though this also depends on the same kind of issues comparing it to $5.

For the latter list, the problem I have is that the jump from $2 to $5 to trigger the overpay is big.  How costly is that jump?  How much should I knock down its rating to compensate for that?  I have trouble doing that, and I am interested in hearing how others do it.  You seem to take it for granted, even though you ultimately end up ranking it right where I did.  Well, I guess you say that you consider it an extra cost, sort of like the need to buy lots of FG to make it worthwhile.  Fair enough, though "buy more" and "pay more" feel fundamentally different to me.

Of course as Werothegreat said, the analogy is lacking since the overpay if fixed.

I believe the analogy holds because it is a simplified case.  I mean, imagine this:

Adequatepiece - Treasure - $3+
$1
-----------------------------------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it by $2. If you do, gain 2 Silvers.

This is certainly weaker than Masterpiece.  MP does everything AP does, except you could ALSO pay $4 for it to get 1 Silver, or $6+ for it to gain 3+ silvers.  Now, rank AP against the $3 cards.  You have to keep in mind the overpay ability.

Now rank MP.  You have to keep in mind all the things you do when ranking AP, but you also have to think about MORE things on top of that.  It only gets more difficult to account for those extra options.



If it is tough to rank when the overpay is limited, it is infinitely more difficult when the overpay is unlimited.  If you still find it easy, hats off to you.  That is why I proposed my exercise -- I'm interested in how you finagle that evaluation, because it may very well help me with my own thought process.

[Schneau]

Why don't we just rate all of the cards from 0-10 (or 0-100 if you felt like it).
Then you can arrange them into a ranking however you like. Also it is way easier for the participants to do.

Or from 1-205.   

The thing is, a point scale gives us not only an ordering of cards (ranking), but also a chance to say how big the differences are. I like this a lot.

Agreed. But at the same time, it makes it harder to compare the list to your personal list, which is a lot of the fun.

Plus, people tend to be really bad at rating things on scales. The distributions of ratings tend to be way wackier than they should be.

At the same time, I like the idea too! I'm torn.

[Witherweaver]

I had to upvote your post for the sake of the IGG variant names.

I'd probably agree with the NGG analysis.  Maybe being a treasure instead of an action makes it better, but Beggar is still probably better.

The LGG on $5 I'm not so sure about.  I think the lack of simultaneous piling could actually hurt it more here.  I think you'd have to play with it a lot to see if it still plays the same.  If your opponent picks up two LGG they may not hurt him that much, where you have to either pick up two curses yourself or empty a different pile.  On the other hand, if there is another curser on the board and you want to 3-pile this could actually be a bonus.  You could buy a couple at $5 to try to win the curse split, then empty the pile more easily for $2 once the curses are gone, then use the $2 worth to get Duchys.  I don't know, hard to say here.

With LGG, if your opponent just buys two to disrupt you, you still put 8 Curses into their deck.  That's still powerful, even though you don't empty two piles.  That's why I still put it high.

The $2 list is the list ...  I would say it's a pretty powerful $2 card, precisely because it gives you the option to spend $3 to curse your opponent.  I would probably put it right around Fool's Gold, maybe one above or one below.  Having to pay $3 for the effect is not that dissimilar to having to buy a bunch of Fool's Gold and enable their collision, and it seems better than the cards ranked below Fool's Gold. Though this also depends on the same kind of issues comparing it to $5.

For the latter list, the problem I have is that the jump from $2 to $5 to trigger the overpay is big.  How costly is that jump?  How much should I knock down its rating to compensate for that?  I have trouble doing that, and I am interested in hearing how others do it.  You seem to take it for granted, even though you ultimately end up ranking it right where I did.  Well, I guess you say that you consider it an extra cost, sort of like the need to buy lots of FG to make it worthwhile.  Fair enough, though "buy more" and "pay more" feel fundamentally different to me.

Of course as Werothegreat said, the analogy is lacking since the overpay if fixed.

I believe the analogy holds because it is a simplified case.  I mean, imagine this:

Adequatepiece - Treasure - $3+
$1
-----------------------------------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it by $2. If you do, gain 2 Silvers.

This is certainly weaker than Masterpiece.  MP does everything AP does, except you could ALSO pay $4 for it to get 1 Silver, or $6+ for it to gain 3+ silvers.  Now, rank AP against the $3 cards.  You have to keep in mind the overpay ability.

Now rank MP.  You have to keep in mind all the things you do when ranking AP, but you also have to think about MORE things on top of that.  It only gets more difficult to account for those extra options.



If it is tough to rank when the overpay is limited, it is infinitely more difficult when the overpay is unlimited.  If you still find it easy, hats off to you.  That is why I proposed my exercise -- I'm interested in how you finagle that evaluation, because it may very well help me with my own thought process.

Well, the analogy breaks because to put the overpay cards on one of the $X above its actual cost first involves figuring out which one it should be at.  Should Doctor be on the $6, $5, $4 list?  It may get bought most often for $4 but there's something really unintuitive about it, especially since $4 is, well, not its cost.  What I meant is, if we had decided that L'il-Gotten Gains should be on the $5 list, that would not imply that Doctor should go on a list other than the $3 one.

But your purpose was to wonder how we'd rank a more simplified version and use that to help us learn how to rank the more complicated versions, and for that the exercise works.  Though it still seems more natural to consider LGG on the $2 list instead of the $5 list there.  For the variable ones, it's even more more natural, since there's no natural target list other than its base cost.

[eHalcyon]

Well, the analogy breaks because to put the overpay cards on one of the $X above its actual cost first involves figuring out which one it should be at.  Should Doctor be on the $6, $5, $4 list?  It may get bought most often for $4 but there's something really unintuitive about it, especially since $4 is, well, not its cost.  What I meant is, if we had decided that L'il-Gotten Gains should be on the $5 list, that would not imply that Doctor should go on a list other than the $3 one.

But your purpose was to wonder how we'd rank a more simplified version and use that to help us learn how to rank the more complicated versions, and for that the exercise works.  Though it still seems more natural to consider LGG on the $2 list instead of the $5 list there.  For the variable ones, it's even more more natural, since there's no natural target list other than its base cost.

Ahh, OK.

I think LGG naturally belongs on the $5 list rather than on the $2, but we can agree to disagree on that.

But as to what list to put overpay cards on, if not the base cost -- yes, you are correct.  There is no obvious contender as there is with LGG.  That is a discussion worth having only if a majority of people are amenable to putting the overpay cards on a higher cost list.  But we can discuss it anyway. 

Masterpiece clearly has to go on the $5 or $6+ list.  I tend towards $6+ actually.  At $5 it is quite similar to Cache, so we can just look at that ranking.  The $6+ list already encompasses cards of different prices, so it will naturally hold a card that has flexible price all its own.  Moreover, at $6+ Masterpiece is a very compelling card.

Likewise, Stonemason should go on the $6+ list because at $5, it only gains $3 cards (and $2 cards and Poor House, if you account for that as you should).  While certainly useful at times, it is pretty much the bottom of what SM can do.  It naturally belongs in the $6+ category because the most likely use cases with SM will be to rapidly gain $4 engine components, power $5s, and occasionally other $6+ cards.

It is tougher with Herald.  However, its overpay benefit is arguably less impactful than the above two cards (temporary setting up the next hand vs. permanently adding cards to the deck) while its on-play effect is arguably much more useful in general.  While the overpay can be very useful in the right situation (e.g. stacking KC-KC-Bridge-Bridge-Bridge), it will probably be a minor bonus more often.  Therefore it is easier to account for the overpay when evaluating Herald at its base cost.  Herald will actually be worth buying at its base cost pretty often, and overpaid not as much (and even less for a high overpayment).

Doctor is where it gets tough.  The community has already shown itself to have some difficulty coming to a consensus on this card.  Initial comments in the f.ds preview thread were praising the power of the overpay and considered the on-play to be weak.  I thought it would be the other way around, and sentiment definitely turned when WW posted his opinion -- that the overpay was weak but the on-play to be decently fast trashing, perhaps on par with Steward.  More recently, I've read reports of massively overpaying Doctor for major trashing, and this seems like it might be a fairly common use case as well.  So yeah, in the end, I don't know where Doctor should go.  Right now I think (and note: this is all pure conjecture now) it would be most commonly bought at base cost or at $4, but not so much at $5 because that's a more significant jump.  Higher overpayments would be rare as well, until you get to really really big situations where you get LOTS of trashing out of it.  But man, I don't know.  Maybe it's too hard to puzzle out.  Just toss it on the $3 list by default, OK.

But Stonemason probably shouldn't be on the $2 list, and Masterpiece definitely shouldn't be on the $3 list.

[Tables]

Why don't we just rate all of the cards from 0-10 (or 0-100 if you felt like it).
Then you can arrange them into a ranking however you like. Also it is way easier for the participants to do.

This has a number of issues of it's own. 0-10 is far too granulated (assuming integers). You'd have Witch vs. Mountebank win based on which got the most non-10 votes. But then 0-100 is probably a little too big to work with. So you'd need to compromise somewhere between I think, maybe 25. But yeah, that could well work, and you could do the entire list that way.

[Witherweaver]

Likewise, Stonemason should go on the $6+ list because at $5, it only gains $3 cards (and $2 cards and Poor House, if you account for that as you should).

Technically, at $5 a Stonemason can't gain $2 and Poor House.  Stonemason gains a card of the amount overpaid, not up to the amount.  Not what you meant, but I think it's relevant because you actually do have to consider each possible price.  Sometimes you want to spend $4 or $5 for special cases.  Not to mention the specialist of cases, overpaying $2+P (or $3+P or $4+P, probably not $6+P but maybe) for Scrying Pool and the rest.  In fact that latter case seems like the biggest one.. perhaps not the most common since Potions aren't in most games, but probably a bigger deal when you can do it since the opportunity cost of buying extra potions is high.

Edit: Oh, and you might sometimes buy Stonemason for $2.  The on-play ability is not useless, and on some boards the overpay ability may not be relevant.

[ftl]

Overpaying 6+P for stonemason seems entirely reasonable. I'd do it if I got an 8+P hand!

[markusin]

if it wasn't for Masterpiece being so horribly awful when bought at $3, I'd have argued that all the overpay cards be evaluated at their base cost. I mean, you'd buy Doctor at $3 and Herald at $4, but bought at $3 Masterpiece would go straight to last place.

Similar to the LGG example, you can imagine a card that reads like this:

Rare Collectible - $5
$1
-----------------------------------
When you buy this, gain 2 Silvers. While this card is not in the supply, it costs $3.

That's not too far off from Masterpiece, and that would probably be rated as a $5, seeing as how Cache like it is.

Why not just have all the overpay cards on 2 lists: their base cost list and the 6+ list. You can pay $6+ coins for all of them, and they all have good utility when purchased at that price point. But then the question of Peddler complicates it all.
Behold the 0$ list: curse < (the 5 ruins) < copper < Peddler

[eHalcyon]

Likewise, Stonemason should go on the $6+ list because at $5, it only gains $3 cards (and $2 cards and Poor House, if you account for that as you should).

Technically, at $5 a Stonemason can't gain $2 and Poor House.  Stonemason gains a card of the amount overpaid, not up to the amount.  Not what you meant, but I think it's relevant because you actually do have to consider each possible price.  Sometimes you want to spend $4 or $5 for special cases.  Not to mention the specialist of cases, overpaying $2+P (or $3+P or $4+P, probably not $6+P but maybe) for Scrying Pool and the rest.  In fact that latter case seems like the biggest one.. perhaps not the most common since Potions aren't in most games, but probably a bigger deal when you can do it since the opportunity cost of buying extra potions is high.

Edit: Oh, and you might sometimes buy Stonemason for $2.  The on-play ability is not useless, and on some boards the overpay ability may not be relevant.

I know it's not "up to".  But if you have $5 to spend, you can choose to withhold some of that to buy SM and gain two PHs.  It's included.  OTOH if you have just $2 to spend, you have no access to SM's special power at all.  It is excluded.

Yeah you have to consider each possible price.  But this is why I am advocating putting overpay cards in whatever cost tier is most commonly used, i.e. absolutely not $3 for Masterpiece.  I have to consider the other use cases, but they are less impactful.  If I rank Masterpiece against the $3s, it is awkward because I will never buy it at a mere $3.  The biggest consideration is actually how powerful the card is when I buy it for $5 or $6 or whatever.  Since that's the case, why not compare it to the other cards that I also buy at $5 or $6 or whatever?  Isn't that more natural?


Edit: Oh, and Potions are neat for SM but Potions are rare enough that I would be happy to fold that into the regular ranking.  SM on-play isn't useless, but it is bad in most cases.  Come on -- in many games you will buy SM to gain two of something awesome, GM or whatever, and the SM that you gain will be seen as a freaking penalty.

[Witherweaver]

and Masterpiece definitely shouldn't be on the $3 list.

I still can't find myself convinced of this.  Masterpiece is basically a bridge that only works on silver.  But you don't have to buy a Bridge and play it every time.  You just have to pay $1 for each one-shot Bridge on top of the entry fee at $3.  The fact that you need to pay for this effect is, well, something you take into account when you figure out if you want to buy it.  You may need to spend $5 on it for it to be useful, but you really didn't spend $5 on Masterpiece.  You spent $3, and hey you got 2 buys that can only be used to buy Silver at a discounted price, and you spent $2 on that.  Is that all that different from, say, a Village?  You spend $3 on a Village, but you didn't buy that Village unless you're spending money (this turn or another one) on actions that makes use of it.  Or any other card that requires a helper. 

And there exist edge cases where you'd buy Masterpiece for $3.  Sure, they're rare and may never come up for you, but just the fact that they exist tells me that, well, it matters that it's a $3 card.

Edit: Oh, and Potions are neat for SM but Potions are rare enough that I would be happy to fold that into the regular ranking.  SM on-play isn't useless, but it is bad in most cases.  Come on -- in many games you will buy SM to gain two of something awesome, GM or whatever, and the SM that you gain will be seen as a freaking penalty.

It seems like almost every time Stonemason is in the same game as Scrying Pool you'd want to do this.  Sometimes for Apothecary, Golem, and Familiar as well.  You play more games without Potions than with Potions, but I think they come up enough for it to be relevant. 

As for the on-play effect.. I could be overvaluing it.  I've only played with Stonemason a few times (interestingly enough, it seemed like a more relevant card the times it came up with Potions), so I may be overvaluing the effect.  I'm mostly thinking of its use towards the ends of games for gaining Duchys or Estates (and in rarer cases, Provinces)

I know it's not "up to".  But if you have $5 to spend, you can choose to withhold some of that to buy SM and gain two PHs.  It's included.  OTOH if you have just $2 to spend, you have no access to SM's special power at all.  It is excluded.

Yeah, I'm just saying you really bought a "$3 SM" and why didn't you compare it to the $3 cards instead of the $5 cards?  The lists don't take into account that you could purchase cheaper cards. (Where does the best $4 fit into the best $5?  It doesn't, really, that's not how the list is set up.)

[SirPeebles]

The more I think about this, the more I feel that we ought to just put all four of these cards into $6+, just like we do with Peddler.  It's not perfect, but it seems to be simplest.

As an aside, perhaps we should rename that $6+ category to "$6 and up" or "$6 or more", since $6+ now has a formal meaning as a Dominion price, namely a card with cost $6 for which one may overpay.  Also, I just noticed that Possession costs $6+ by the "$6 or more" convention, despite not being on that list.

[SirPeebles]

and Masterpiece definitely shouldn't be on the $3 list.

I still can't find myself convinced of this.  Masterpiece is basically a bridge that only works on silver.

I'm sorry, but this is absurd.  It plays absolutely nothing like Bridge.  It is a treasure flooder, specifically of Silver.  Bridge decks involve villages for actions, drawers to get bridges together, and someone quoting me with some comment about Bridge the card game.  Masterpiece involves none of that, and gives you a bunch of Silvers immediately (indeed, before even gaining the Masterpiece itself)!

[Witherweaver]

and Masterpiece definitely shouldn't be on the $3 list.

I still can't find myself convinced of this.  Masterpiece is basically a bridge that only works on silver.

I'm sorry, but this is absurd.  It plays absolutely nothing like Bridge.  It is a treasure flooder, specifically of Silver.  Bridge decks involve villages for actions, drawers to get bridges together, and someone quoting me with some comment about Bridge the card game.  Masterpiece involves none of that, and gives you a bunch of Silvers immediately (indeed, before even gaining the Masterpiece itself)!

I mean the effect of it.  Buying a Masterpiece is equivalent to having played a (noncommulative) bridge for each $1 extra you play, but you can only use the Bridge for Silver.  The mechanics of how you get to that point are entirely different.  So maybe I spoke poorly.  My point wasn't that Masterpiece plays like Bridge, it was that we can evaluate Masterpiece as a $3 card by taking the overpayment into account. 

But your point is kind of what I'm trying to say.  For Bridge to be a sensible card to buy, you have to be buying cards that draw and cards that give extra actions (and have a deck of playing cards lying around).  These things you take into account when you rank Bridge as a $4 card.  When you buy Masterpiece, you have to spend some extra money, or else you bought a $3 Copper.  You need to spend more money and get more cards to make it worthwhile, but you have to do that for almost every other card as well (possibly on different turns).  This you would take into account when you rank it as a $3 card. 

The basic question is what kind of analysis would you go through to rank overpay cards.  I'm saying you can guide yourself by thinking of overpay cards in a similar way as cards that require you to buy other cards to make that purchase not useless (FG, Bridge, Villages, etc.)

[SirPeebles]

There are certainly more than two viewpoints in this thread, but it seems to me that the mechanism for comparing cards is pretty much in agreement despite whatever linguistic games we are playing.

The sticking point seems to be one of categorizing.  Roughly speaking, we currently organize cards by cost.

Some here are saying that there is some meaningful reasoning behind this.  Others say it is entirely arbitrary, and that if it weren't for translation issues we would be just as well off organizing alphabetically.

I'm personally leaning towards cost meaning something.  Sure, we could rank Mastetpiece alongside $3 cards, keeping in mind all of the usual intracasies.  But why?  Because there's a 3 in the bottom corner?  Really?  Why not reflect a bit on why cost was a sensible (if crude) means by which to subdivide our list.

From a practical perspective, there is no more logic behind including Masterpiece as $3 card as there is as a $2.  Forget all of these obfuscating edge cases.  Forget about trash for benefit -- while vital for Rats or Peddler, it is plainly not relevant in a Silver flooded deck.

If you really believe that cost is irrelevant and arbitrary, why argue that Mastetpiece ought to be ranked with the $3 cards?

Edit:  Apparently I misspelled Masterpiece as Mastetpiece at some point, and my phone now believes that the latter is a word and has been autocompleting to Mastetpiece.  Sorry.

[Tables]

We could always have a list of cards with funny costs. Peddler, Overpay, perhaps Potion costs OR expensive cards.

[WanderingWinder]

There are certainly more than two viewpoints in this thread, but it seems to me that the mechanism for comparing cards is pretty much in agreement despite whatever linguistic games we are playing.

The sticking point seems to be one of categorizing.  Roughly speaking, we currently organize cards by cost.

Some here are saying that there is some meaningful reasoning behind this.  Others say it is entirely arbitrary, and that if it weren't for translation issues we would be just as well off organizing alphabetically.

I'm personally leaning towards cost meaning something.  Sure, we could rank Mastetpiece alongside $3 cards, keeping in mind all of the usual intracasies.  But why?  Because there's a 3 in the bottom corner?  Really?  Why not reflect a bit on why cost was a sensible (if crude) means by which to subdivide our list.

From a practical perspective, there is no more logic behind including Masterpiece as $3 card as there is as a $2.  Forget all of these obfuscating edge cases.  Forget about trash for benefit -- while vital for Rats or Peddler, it is plainly not relevant in a Silver flooded deck.

If you really believe that cost is irrelevant and arbitrary, why argue that Mastetpiece ought to be ranked with the $3 cards?

Edit:  Apparently I misspelled Masterpiece as Mastetpiece at some point, and my phone now believes that the latter is a word and has been autocompleting to Mastetpiece.  Sorry.

Because you are mis-categorizing the opposing argument. "Others say it is entirely arbitrary, and that if it weren't for translation issues we would be just as well off organizing alphabetically." This isn't something that anyone is really claiming. Cost has a weak correlation with strength and ergo some functional use as a grouping mechanism - but it's not a hard-and-fast thing. Spelling would be possible, yes, and only somewhat worse, as the cost thing doesn't make *so* much of a difference. But of course, it is a little worse, because there is zero relevance of name, as opposed to modest relevance of cost. However, some kind of functionality division would be equally valid to cost - rank the villages, or the T4B cards, or whatever - the cost isn't INTEGRAL to the ratings. And in any case, you want to rank the card as an overall package, not for a piece of it. So Border Village should be reasonably high on 'rank the villages', even though AS a village, it's not very good.

[Witherweaver]

However, some kind of functionality division would be equally valid to cost - rank the villages, or the T4B cards, or whatever - the cost isn't INTEGRAL to the ratings. And in any case, you want to rank the card as an overall package, not for a piece of it. So Border Village should be reasonably high on 'rank the villages', even though AS a village, it's not very good.

I was thinking about this and wondering if it would work.  What would the functionality categories be?

Maybe something like:

Hand-Size Increasers
Junkers
Villages
Gainers
Trashers
Buyers (cards that give +buy since that doesn't fit into anything else except sort of Gainers)
Money-Generators
Deck Inspection (your own)
Pace-Reducing Attacks (that are not Junkers.. so Discarding, messing with opponent's top deck to give him bad cards, etc.)
Alternate VP cards
Alternate Treasures

A good deal of cars have to go in multiple categories, but maybe that's a good thing.  It lets you evaluate the same card against different aspects.  And coming up with a mutually disjoint collection of sets would probably be tough, and there would probably be too many of them that are too specialized. 

[eHalcyon]

There are certainly more than two viewpoints in this thread, but it seems to me that the mechanism for comparing cards is pretty much in agreement despite whatever linguistic games we are playing.

The sticking point seems to be one of categorizing.  Roughly speaking, we currently organize cards by cost.

Some here are saying that there is some meaningful reasoning behind this.  Others say it is entirely arbitrary, and that if it weren't for translation issues we would be just as well off organizing alphabetically.

I'm personally leaning towards cost meaning something.  Sure, we could rank Mastetpiece alongside $3 cards, keeping in mind all of the usual intracasies.  But why?  Because there's a 3 in the bottom corner?  Really?  Why not reflect a bit on why cost was a sensible (if crude) means by which to subdivide our list.

From a practical perspective, there is no more logic behind including Masterpiece as $3 card as there is as a $2.  Forget all of these obfuscating edge cases.  Forget about trash for benefit -- while vital for Rats or Peddler, it is plainly not relevant in a Silver flooded deck.

If you really believe that cost is irrelevant and arbitrary, why argue that Mastetpiece ought to be ranked with the $3 cards?

Edit:  Apparently I misspelled Masterpiece as Mastetpiece at some point, and my phone now believes that the latter is a word and has been autocompleting to Mastetpiece.  Sorry.

Because you are mis-categorizing the opposing argument. "Others say it is entirely arbitrary, and that if it weren't for translation issues we would be just as well off organizing alphabetically." This isn't something that anyone is really claiming. Cost has a weak correlation with strength and ergo some functional use as a grouping mechanism - but it's not a hard-and-fast thing. Spelling would be possible, yes, and only somewhat worse, as the cost thing doesn't make *so* much of a difference. But of course, it is a little worse, because there is zero relevance of name, as opposed to modest relevance of cost. However, some kind of functionality division would be equally valid to cost - rank the villages, or the T4B cards, or whatever - the cost isn't INTEGRAL to the ratings. And in any case, you want to rank the card as an overall package, not for a piece of it. So Border Village should be reasonably high on 'rank the villages', even though AS a village, it's not very good.

But that's the point, isn't it?  We organize the lists by card cost.  Either that is an arbitrary categorization, in which case it shouldn't matter that a couple overpay cards are moved into a different category, or there is some meaning ascribed to the categorization.  I think most of us would concede the latter.

So what is the meaning of the lists?  Well, absent other knowledge, cost is an adequate approximation of a card's power.  We rank $5 cards against other $5 cards because we expect them to be in the same neighborhood of power.

How do overpay cards fit into this framework?  The more you overpay, the more powerful these cards become.  Just as we would expect a $5 card to be more powerful than a $3 card, a Doctor overpaid by $2 is more powerful than a doctor purchased at just $3.  Therefore there is a reason to include overpay cards on multiple lists at different prices.

The problem with that approach is that it gets pretty messy.  Eventually you'll have to collapse them into each other anyway, on the $6+ list.  It would be mad to try to rank every possible cost because overpay is unbounded.  I think most people would prefer to put each individual card on a single list.

So the question is, which list does Doctor belong on?  Masterpiece?  Stonemason?  Herald?  Regardless of the little number in the corner, these cards can effectively be purchased at different costs, and the card you buy is of a proportional power level.  A $6 Masterpiece is vastly different from a $3 Masterpiece.  If you put it on one list or the other, you still have to account for the other potential costs and powers of the card.  Personally, I find it easier for me to consider the possible "lesser" effects while comparing at the higher cost.

But again, no matter where you put the card, you have to keep in mind that you could pay more for it (or less for it, if it goes on a higher list) to get a proportionally better (or worse) ability.  Given this, you could put it pretty much anywhere.  But the best place to put it is, I think, the cost at which the card is most commonly purchased.  By doing so, we would minimize the impact of all that extra stuff we have to account for.  We compare the cards to their usual competition.

I admit that it is not trivial to determine the most common purchase price for overpay cards.  But at the very least, Masterpiece is not a $3 and Stonemason is not a $2!