Print

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

[BadAssMutha]

So I've recently had some unlucky games where my opening terminal action winds up at the bottom of my deck and misses the reshuffle. In these cases, I've tried "doubling up" on my terminal on turn 4, so that I can hopefully get 2 plays in on the next shuffle, and not fall too far behind (especially important for card-givers like Sea Hag or Maurader). Let's assume an easy case where there's no extra actions in the kingdom, I open Silver/Terminal, and the terminal in question doesn't give +Cards. I don't draw the terminal on turn 3, and buy a coin or a nonterminal. Then don't draw my terminal on turn 4. Should I buy another, or stick with what my plan would otherwise have been?

As I figure it, there's only a 25% of collision between the two terminals on the second reshuffle - draw the last 2 cards in the deck (one of which is terminal), then there's a 3/12 shot of getting the other terminal at the top of the shuffle. Seems having the second terminal might be the way to go, even if I normally wouldn't have gotten that terminal until my deck got a little bigger. Obviously, this depends on the kingdom and all, but I just wanted some thoughts. I got burned by this a few times in a row, so I'm forced to wonder if I'm thinking about this wrong somehow, or just got unlucky.

[eHalcyon]

Really depends.  There are some cards where it's even good to open terminal/terminal.  Swindler stands out, as does Steward when you are looking to trash down quickly.

[HiveMindEmulator]

I usually have 2 terminals in my deck by the second shuffle anyway...

[ftl]

Sea hag, ambassador - also a good reason to get double terminals.

2 terminals in a 14-card deck is reasonable if they're reasonably good.

[LastFootnote]

Sea hag, ambassador - also a good reason to get double terminals.

Doesn't Ambassador/Ambassador beat Sea Hag/Ambassador?

EDIT: Or did you mean that those are just two cards that you often want two of early?

[dondon151]

I am not sure that I would open double Sea Hag if given the chance.

[LastFootnote]

I am not sure that I would open double Sea Hag if given the chance.

There are definitely boards where I would. It's possible that I have on a Baker board.

[HiveMindEmulator]

I am not sure that I would open double Sea Hag if given the chance.

There are definitely boards where I would. It's possible that I have on a Baker board.

Such a board would be exceedingly rare. Usually you want some sort of economy.

[DG]

Two good terminals in a treasure deck is usually ok. You sometimes need to watch out when buying a +2 coin action, thinking it's like a silver, but then never getting those 2 coins when the actions clash. If you need coins to spend your way out of a hole then silver is much safer.

Islands, feasts, and embargoes are cards that suit your turn 4 dilemma. If you bought one on turn 1 or 2 then you typically want it out of your deck before you buy a second on turn 4. If they stay in your deck too long they are ineffective and a blockage to development.

[Piemaster]

There are plenty of times that you want a second terminal in on the second reshuffle.  However, in most cases, the fact it missed the first reshuffle shouldn't be a relevant factor in your decision making.  Either your deck will benefit from the second (Sea Hag) or it won't.  Don't send good money after bad.

[ftl]

EDIT: Or did you mean that those are just two cards that you often want two of early?

Yes, that's what I meant. Sea Hag less often than ambassador though.

[meandering mercury]

YES, YOU SHOULD BUY A SECOND TERMINAL.*

Here's two reasons why:

(1) The chance of collision is reduced. Let me approximate your 14-card deck with a 15-card deck. In this case you'll see all your cards on t5, t6, and t7. If the terminal misses the shuffle, then the chance of collision is 3/13 = 23% (with the approximation). If it doesn't miss the shuffle, the chance of collision is

(3/13)^2 + 2*(5/13)^2 = 59/169 = 35%

(Someone correct me if I'm wrong?) The downside of getting two terminals is the chance of collision, but now you've cut the probability of collision down by a third.

(2) You're already behind. Missing your terminal is not good news, and you might need to rely on some luck to get your back. -Stef- has pointed this out previously with his Borinion analogy.

* obviously it depends on the kingdom and all. There are plenty of kingdoms where a second terminal doesn't make sense. There are plenty of kingdoms where you'd buy a second terminal anyway. Guys, guys, that wasn't really the point of this thread.

[Drab Emordnilap]

I've opened Scheme/Sage/Warehouse with Sea Hag reasonably often; that's similarly bad for economy, but I think it's right to do sometimes.

[Warfreak2]

Scheme is strictly better than a second Hag, so it seems reasonable. Sage has the advantage of skipping over the Curse that just got put on your deck, and also finds Silvers, so it doesn't seem harmful to your economy.

[Witherweaver]

You could also open Scout and move that Curse from the top of your deck to the fourth card down.  All the while smirking at your opponent.

[eHalcyon]

Scheme is strictly better than a second Hag, so it seems reasonable. Sage has the advantage of skipping over the Curse that just got put on your deck, and also finds Silvers, so it doesn't seem harmful to your economy.

It is not strictly better.  Easy counter example - when Villages are available.

[Warfreak2]

Even if you get a lucky hand of Village/Sea Hag/Sea Hag, that means you didn't have a Sea Hag in one of the turns either before or after it, unless you are drawing your deck, which is impossible so early in a Sea Hag game. Playing both of your Sea Hags in the same turn is also less efficient for the handsize attack effect.

[SCSN]

Scheme is obviously not strictly better. The most important difference is that when your Scheme and Sea Hag don't immediately collide, Scheme delays the 2nd Sea Hag play by 1-3 turns (possibly more if your Hag gets Hagged), whereas a 2nd Sea Hag would have attacked right away.

[eHalcyon]

Even if you get a lucky hand of Village/Sea Hag/Sea Hag, that means you didn't have a Sea Hag in one of the turns either before or after it, unless you are drawing your deck, which is impossible so early in a Sea Hag game. Playing both of your Sea Hags in the same turn is also less efficient for the handsize attack effect.

If you play double Sea Hag right before their reshuffle, it's better than if you played Scheme and Sea Hag because the Curse on the next turn won't get shuffled into their deck.

I'm not saying that double Sea Hag is better.  Scheme is almost always better.  It's just that Scheme is not strictly better, and people should be more strict about using the term "strictly".

[Drab Emordnilap]

There's also the case where you draw one opener each on turns 3 and 4. If one was a Scheme, you only play Sea Hag once this shuffle. If both were Sea Hag, you get two plays.

[Warfreak2]

If "strictly better" means "there is no edge case" then I think this forum is proof enough that no card is ever strictly better than any other. I think even with the Baker coin token actually giving you the direct choice between a Scheme and a second Hag, it is never right to get the Hag. If it's Scheme/Hag vs Hag/Hag, but only counting the games where the double-Hag player never collides Hags without a village, I doubt there is much difference in win rate. Remember, the Scheme player gets to keep the coin token!

[eHalcyon]

If "strictly better" means "there is no edge case" then I think this forum is proof enough that no card is ever strictly better than any other. I think even with the Baker coin token actually giving you the direct choice between a Scheme and a second Hag, it is never right to get the Hag. If it's Scheme/Hag vs Hag/Hag, but only counting the games where the double-Hag player never collides Hags without a village, I doubt there is much difference in win rate. Remember, the Scheme player gets to keep the coin token!

"Strictly" is strict, by definition.  If you want to be completely strict about it, no card is strictly better if they have different costs due to Forge.  Usually we talk about strictly better effects, in which case you can allow for the edgiest of edge cases, e.g. Hunting Grounds has a strictly better effect than Smithy (except in crazy reshuffle cases).

The cases where a second Sea Hag is better than Scheme are not that edgy.

Edit:

To clarify, "strictly better [effect]" should be reserved for when a card actually does everything another card does and more.  Hunting Grounds draws as much as Smithy, plus one extra card.  Worker's Village does everything Village does, plus one extra Buy.  These are examples of strictly better effects.

Scheme is not strictly better than Sea Hag because Scheme does not curse.  It does something entirely different.  It enables you to play Sea Hag more often, and since it is cantrip and only costs $3 it is almost always better than getting a second Sea Hag.  But it is not strictly better.

[LastFootnote]

To clarify, "strictly better [effect]" should be reserved for when a card actually does everything another card does and more.  Hunting Grounds draws as much as Smithy, plus one extra card.

To be extra, super picky, +4 Cards is not strictly better than +3 Cards, since there are times when you'd rather not draw that 4th card. If the effect were "+3 Cards. You may draw another card," then it would be strictly better than +3 Cards.

EDIT: With the existing cards, Festival's effect is strictly better than Woodcutter's effect because you're never obligated to use the extra Actions, nor are you ever obligated to spend the extra Coins that Diadem would produce due to you having those extra actions.

[Witherweaver]

Even if you get a lucky hand of Village/Sea Hag/Sea Hag, that means you didn't have a Sea Hag in one of the turns either before or after it, unless you are drawing your deck, which is impossible so early in a Sea Hag game. Playing both of your Sea Hags in the same turn is also less efficient for the handsize attack effect.

If you play double Sea Hag right before their reshuffle, it's better than if you played Scheme and Sea Hag because the Curse on the next turn won't get shuffled into their deck.

I'm not saying that double Sea Hag is better.  Scheme is almost always better.  It's just that Scheme is not strictly better, and people should be more strict about using the term "strictly".

Using "strictly better" to mean "always better" is strictly better than using "strictly better" to mean "almost always better".

[LastFootnote]

Even if you get a lucky hand of Village/Sea Hag/Sea Hag, that means you didn't have a Sea Hag in one of the turns either before or after it, unless you are drawing your deck, which is impossible so early in a Sea Hag game. Playing both of your Sea Hags in the same turn is also less efficient for the handsize attack effect.

If you play double Sea Hag right before their reshuffle, it's better than if you played Scheme and Sea Hag because the Curse on the next turn won't get shuffled into their deck.

I'm not saying that double Sea Hag is better.  Scheme is almost always better.  It's just that Scheme is not strictly better, and people should be more strict about using the term "strictly".

Using "strictly better" to mean "always better" is strictly better than using "strictly better" to mean "almost always better".

Not using the term "strictly better" is probably best.

[Witherweaver]

To clarify, "strictly better [effect]" should be reserved for when a card actually does everything another card does and more.  Hunting Grounds draws as much as Smithy, plus one extra card.

To be extra, super picky, +4 Cards is not strictly better than +3 Cards, since there are times when you'd rather not draw that 4th card. If the effect were "+3 Cards. You may draw another card," then it would be strictly better than +3 Cards.

EDIT: With the existing cards, Festival's effect is strictly better than Woodcutter's effect because you're never obligated to use the extra Actions, nor are you ever obligated to spend the extra Coins that Diadem would produce due to you having those extra actions.

Define the notation strictly better (a.e.) to mean strictly better in all but a set of edge cases with nominal measure.

[Witherweaver]

Even if you get a lucky hand of Village/Sea Hag/Sea Hag, that means you didn't have a Sea Hag in one of the turns either before or after it, unless you are drawing your deck, which is impossible so early in a Sea Hag game. Playing both of your Sea Hags in the same turn is also less efficient for the handsize attack effect.

If you play double Sea Hag right before their reshuffle, it's better than if you played Scheme and Sea Hag because the Curse on the next turn won't get shuffled into their deck.

I'm not saying that double Sea Hag is better.  Scheme is almost always better.  It's just that Scheme is not strictly better, and people should be more strict about using the term "strictly".

Using "strictly better" to mean "always better" is strictly better than using "strictly better" to mean "almost always better".

Not using the term "strictly better" is probably best.

Not using "strictly better" is strictly better than using "strictly better"

[Drab Emordnilap]

EDIT: With the existing cards, Festival's effect is strictly better than Woodcutter's effect because you're never obligated to use the extra Actions, nor are you ever obligated to spend the extra Coins that Diadem would produce due to you having those extra actions.

Possession, if we're playing this kind of pedantry. 

[Awaclus]

EDIT: With the existing cards, Festival's effect is strictly better than Woodcutter's effect because you're never obligated to use the extra Actions, nor are you ever obligated to spend the extra Coins that Diadem would produce due to you having those extra actions.

Possession, if we're playing this kind of pedantry. 

Or Wishing Well naming Woodcutter.

[Warfreak2]

To clarify, "strictly better [effect]" should be reserved for when a card actually does everything another card does and more. 

There's the rub. Oasis does everything Peddler does, and more: it makes you discard a card. Junk Dealer does everything Peddler does, and more: it makes you trash a card. Discarding a card is usually bad, and trashing a card is usually good, but no effect is ever always good, even +Actions, +$ and +buys can theoretically be liabilities in Possession games. Even "you may" - let me tell you, I lost at least one Possession game because my deck was full of Mining Villages. We have to agree on some assumptions: vanilla bonuses are good, discarding a card is bad, trashing a card is good, gaining a Copper is bad, any additional options are good, &c.

So Oasis is strictly worse than Peddler, but Watchtower, Tunnel and Poor House are quite common counterexamples indeed. The cases where a second Sea Hag is better than Scheme are not that edgy, but neither is Oasis/Tunnel, I think that's just something we have to live with.

[eHalcyon]

To clarify, "strictly better [effect]" should be reserved for when a card actually does everything another card does and more. 

There's the rub. Oasis does everything Peddler does, and more: it makes you discard a card. Junk Dealer does everything Peddler does, and more: it makes you trash a card. Discarding a card is usually bad, and trashing a card is usually good, but no effect is ever always good, even +Actions, +$ and +buys can theoretically be liabilities in Possession games. Even "you may" - let me tell you, I lost at least one Possession game because my deck was full of Mining Villages. We have to agree on some assumptions: vanilla bonuses are good, discarding a card is bad, trashing a card is good, gaining a Copper is bad, any additional options are good, &c.

So Oasis is strictly worse than Peddler, but Watchtower, Tunnel and Poor House are quite common counterexamples indeed. The cases where a second Sea Hag is better than Scheme are not that edgy, but neither is Oasis/Tunnel, I think that's just something we have to live with.

The "and more" has to be something that is always better to have.  Forced discard is not always better, nor always worse.  Trashing, likewise.  Oasis is not strictly worse than Peddler.

LFN is correct about the fourth card on Hunting Grounds, but that's something I pointed out myself in an earlier post as an edgy enough case.  But I guess the line drawn is fuzzy so yeah, probably shouldn't say HG is a strictly better effect than Smithy.

Possession is not a counterexample.  The effect of Mining Village is still strictly better than Village.  It's just that you'd prefer not to have better effects while possessed.

[Mic Qsenoch]

To clarify, "strictly better [effect]" should be reserved for when a card actually does everything another card does and more. 

There's the rub. Oasis does everything Peddler does, and more: it makes you discard a card. Junk Dealer does everything Peddler does, and more: it makes you trash a card. Discarding a card is usually bad, and trashing a card is usually good, but no effect is ever always good, even +Actions, +$ and +buys can theoretically be liabilities in Possession games. Even "you may" - let me tell you, I lost at least one Possession game because my deck was full of Mining Villages. We have to agree on some assumptions: vanilla bonuses are good, discarding a card is bad, trashing a card is good, gaining a Copper is bad, any additional options are good, &c.

So Oasis is strictly worse than Peddler, but Watchtower, Tunnel and Poor House are quite common counterexamples indeed. The cases where a second Sea Hag is better than Scheme are not that edgy, but neither is Oasis/Tunnel, I think that's just something we have to live with.

You're undermining your own point, the simple fact is that the mechanics in Dominion make certain effects/properties beneficial in one context and harmful in another. This can even change throughout the course of a game. So tacking on a overly strong modifier like "strictly" in card comparisons is often inaccurate and misleading (and unnecessary). It's not even an "edge case" thing, these are regularly appearing scenarios. Just say the thing is better/worse people.

[HiveMindEmulator]

I think eHalcyon's definition of "strictly better" is strictly better than Warfreak's.

[ftl]

Guys, for future reference, when discussing strategy, could you all just assume that when someone posts something that uses the words "strictly better", "always better", "almost always better", or anything like that, they're all equivalent? Because you know perfectly well what people mean.

 In a world where you can't say that HG is strictly better than Smithy, the words "strictly better" don't actually have anything to do with actual dominion strategy anymore. This nitpicking really has no connection to actual strategy discussion. Everyone knows there's always edge cases for everything.

[Mic Qsenoch]

Guys, for future reference, when discussing strategy, could you all just assume that when someone posts something that uses the words "strictly better", "always better", "almost always better", or anything like that, they're all equivalent? Because you know perfectly well what people mean.

 In a world where you can't say that HG is strictly better than Smithy, the words "strictly better" don't actually have anything to do with actual dominion strategy anymore. This nitpicking really has no connection to actual strategy discussion. Everyone knows there's always edge cases for everything.

I agree that pulling out edge-cases for every claim isn't great strategy discussion, however...

The reason I have an issue with the phrasing "strictly better" is not because I can't interpret it as "almost always better" or something similar, but because people use it when it isn't even true in general. The most common case of this is comparing cards with different costs. The trash-for-benefit mechanic is present on enough cards that calling something "strictly better" based on cost alone is very rarely appropriate, this is not an edge-case. Card cost is a both a cost, and a store of value.

People use "strictly better" rhetorically as a way of adding emphasis to a comparison, but it has become overused. And whenever the comparison of better/worse isn't so clear cut, it's important to point out that "strictly better" is not the right choice of words.

Unfortunately, there's not an easy way to separate objections which are nitpicking and which are important but subtle strategic considerations. I prefer a discussion where people are encouraged to trash other people's arguments for whatever reasons, with the understanding that their ideas will get picked apart as well. It's a quicker way of eliminating nonsense.

[AJD]

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Strictly_better

[eHalcyon]

I advocate an accurate use of "strictly better" so that fan cards can be discussed more easily, particularly when players make fan cards that are strictly better or worse than official cards.

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Strictly_better

Should clarify that the article is about strictly better effects.  Along with the point about variety, different costs also matter for various TfB.  For example, Forge and Upgrade may prefer a card that costs less than another.

[ftl]

Guys, for future reference, when discussing strategy, could you all just assume that when someone posts something that uses the words "strictly better", "always better", "almost always better", or anything like that, they're all equivalent? Because you know perfectly well what people mean.

 In a world where you can't say that HG is strictly better than Smithy, the words "strictly better" don't actually have anything to do with actual dominion strategy anymore. This nitpicking really has no connection to actual strategy discussion. Everyone knows there's always edge cases for everything.

I agree that pulling out edge-cases for every claim isn't great strategy discussion, however...

The reason I have an issue with the phrasing "strictly better" is not because I can't interpret it as "almost always better" or something similar, but because people use it when it isn't even true in general. The most common case of this is comparing cards with different costs. The trash-for-benefit mechanic is present on enough cards that calling something "strictly better" based on cost alone is very rarely appropriate, this is not an edge-case. Card cost is a both a cost, and a store of value.

People use "strictly better" rhetorically as a way of adding emphasis to a comparison, but it has become overused. And whenever the comparison of better/worse isn't so clear cut, it's important to point out that "strictly better" is not the right choice of words.

Unfortunately, there's not an easy way to separate objections which are nitpicking and which are important but subtle strategic considerations. I prefer a discussion where people are encouraged to trash other people's arguments for whatever reasons, with the understanding that their ideas will get picked apart as well. It's a quicker way of eliminating nonsense.

I still don't think in those cases it's the right play to call out "strictly better" as a choice of words. I think the better focus is on the actual disagreement rather than on the word choice.

This thread included the quote

Scheme is almost always better.  It's just that Scheme is not strictly better, and people should be more strict about using the term "strictly".

That's the kind of thinking I think is unproductive and leads to derailment of discussions to stuff like, well, the last page worth of posts.

The discussion started with the claims that

I've opened Scheme/Sage/Warehouse with Sea Hag reasonably often; that's similarly bad for economy, but I think it's right to do sometimes.

Scheme is strictly better than a second Hag, so it seems reasonable. Sage has the advantage of skipping over the Curse that just got put on your deck, and also finds Silvers, so it doesn't seem harmful to your economy.

This whole subsequent discussion, by the way, did *not* lend any clarity to whether/when you actually want a second sea hag instead of scheme/sea hag, because it led to a focus on finding edge cases to defeat the phrasing "strictly better" rather than strategy.

Because it does seem that scheme/sea hag is, well, almost always going to be better than getting a second early sea hag, isn't it? All the edge cases I can think of are the sort of edge cases you'd come up with to solve puzzles, not things you'd actually aim for in a game. When is something going to outweigh the risks of terminal collision PLUS having one extra dead card once curses are out? I don't know, maybe I'm missing some obvious strategies or combos that really want a second hag rather than a scheme+hag... but the focus on the phrase "strictly better" hasn't helped me (or, most likely, other readers as well) come up with them.

[Drab Emordnilap]

I don't think you'd ever want two Sea Hags over one plus Scheme. The point I was trying to make is that both of those options is bad for your early economy, so if you'd be willing to take the economic hit of Scheme Hag (if Scheme was in the kingdom), double Sea Hag is comparable.

[AJD]

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Strictly_better

Should clarify that the article is about strictly better effects.  Along with the point about variety, different costs also matter for various TfB.  For example, Forge and Upgrade may prefer a card that costs less than another.

The thing about how wikis work is...

[eHalcyon]

Well, apologies for derailing the thread.  "Strictly better" is just a pet peeve topic of mine.

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Strictly_better

Should clarify that the article is about strictly better effects.  Along with the point about variety, different costs also matter for various TfB.  For example, Forge and Upgrade may prefer a card that costs less than another.

The thing about how wikis work is...

OK, fine.  Done.

Captcha seems a bit wonky.  It asked "Which card is the only one that let you get a new card in your deck without gaining it?"  I answered Masquerade and it didn't go through.

[Warfreak2]

The "and more" has to be something that is always better to have.

You're undermining your own point, the simple fact is that the mechanics in Dominion make certain effects/properties beneficial in one context and harmful in another.

On the contrary, you are making my own point: nothing is always better than any other thing, as the edge case patrol (of which I'm a paid up member) can attest to. If "strictly better" is going to mean anything, and have any use for discussing cards (including fan cards!), it has to be something other than "this effect is always better", because that is never true. So either we stop using the term altogether, or we define it in a way such that, even in real games sometimes, you might prefer a card that is strictly worse.

It seems having discarding as a negative effect is controversial. Yes, there are combos with draw-to-X, obviously Tunnel, and Poor House. But I hope we can agree that "+5 Cards, discard 4 cards from your hand" is strictly worse than Embassy, "+1 Action, +3 Cards, discard 2 cards from your hand" is strictly better than Warehouse, "+2 Cards, +2 Actions, discard 3 cards from your hand" is strictly worse than Inn, and "+1 Action, reveal any number of cards from your hand, +1 Card per card revealed" is strictly better than Cellar. OK, so discarding doesn't seem so bad when you do it in small amounts, especially when you choose the number of cards. I've presented a definition of "strictly better" which the community says doesn't work for Oasis, and probably Hamlet; but if the other definition can't even say that Hunting Grounds is strictly better than Smithy, I'm going to think that my definition is better.

[Mic Qsenoch]

The "and more" has to be something that is always better to have.

You're undermining your own point, the simple fact is that the mechanics in Dominion make certain effects/properties beneficial in one context and harmful in another.

On the contrary, you are making my own point: nothing is always better than any other thing, as the edge case patrol (of which I'm a paid up member) can attest to. If "strictly better" is going to mean anything, and have any use for discussing cards (including fan cards!), it has to be something other than "this effect is always better", because that is never true. So either we stop using the term altogether, or we define it in a way such that, even in real games sometimes, you might prefer a card that is strictly worse.

It seems having discarding as a negative effect is controversial. Yes, there are combos with draw-to-X, obviously Tunnel, and Poor House. But I hope we can agree that "+5 Cards, discard 4 cards from your hand" is strictly worse than Embassy, "+1 Action, +3 Cards, discard 2 cards from your hand" is strictly better than Warehouse, "+2 Cards, +2 Actions, discard 3 cards from your hand" is strictly worse than Inn, and "+1 Action, reveal any number of cards from your hand, +1 Card per card revealed" is strictly better than Cellar. OK, so discarding doesn't seem so bad when you do it in small amounts, especially when you choose the number of cards. I've presented a definition of "strictly better" which the community says doesn't work for Oasis, and probably Hamlet; but if the other definition can't even say that Hunting Grounds is strictly better than Smithy, I'm going to think that my definition is better.

I wouldn't mind at all if I never read the words "strictly better" on this forum ever again (I know this won't happen). To me, the most natural interpretation of "strictly better" is "always better" (or something extremely close to always, with the only exceptions being esoteric). If you want some other definition to be used you have to specify the cases by effect or something. And then that definition is only useful if everyone engaged in the discussion agrees to use the word in that fashion (this is hard to do). Here you want to say decreasing the number of cards discarded makes Warehouse strictly better, but this is clearly not the case in the common (not at all edge case) scenarios of Tunnel, Poor House, Draw-to-X, and Menagerie, so I don't see why you would choose the word "strictly".

It's not that I really want to be pedantic (I know, I'm not convincing anyone of that), but I just don't find the "strictly" modifier useful, I find it more confusing than anything else. There are other ways of placing emphasis on comparisons without using a phrase that makes people immediately think of exceptions.

[scott_pilgrim]

I wouldn't mind at all if I never read the words "strictly better" on this forum ever again (I know this won't happen).

It won't happen if you keep arguing about the meaning of "strictly better".

Or even if you just read this post.

[eHalcyon]

The "and more" has to be something that is always better to have.

You're undermining your own point, the simple fact is that the mechanics in Dominion make certain effects/properties beneficial in one context and harmful in another.

On the contrary, you are making my own point: nothing is always better than any other thing, as the edge case patrol (of which I'm a paid up member) can attest to. If "strictly better" is going to mean anything, and have any use for discussing cards (including fan cards!), it has to be something other than "this effect is always better", because that is never true. So either we stop using the term altogether, or we define it in a way such that, even in real games sometimes, you might prefer a card that is strictly worse.

It seems having discarding as a negative effect is controversial. Yes, there are combos with draw-to-X, obviously Tunnel, and Poor House. But I hope we can agree that "+5 Cards, discard 4 cards from your hand" is strictly worse than Embassy, "+1 Action, +3 Cards, discard 2 cards from your hand" is strictly better than Warehouse, "+2 Cards, +2 Actions, discard 3 cards from your hand" is strictly worse than Inn, and "+1 Action, reveal any number of cards from your hand, +1 Card per card revealed" is strictly better than Cellar. OK, so discarding doesn't seem so bad when you do it in small amounts, especially when you choose the number of cards. I've presented a definition of "strictly better" which the community says doesn't work for Oasis, and probably Hamlet; but if the other definition can't even say that Hunting Grounds is strictly better than Smithy, I'm going to think that my definition is better.

Nope.  If you use your definition that way, "strictly" becomes meaningless.  Just say "usually" or "almost always"!

"Strictly better" certainly does come up in real scenarios.  After you've gained the card (i.e. discounting on gain), Count has a strictly better effect than Mandarin.  On play (i.e. discounting the reaction), Storeroom is a strictly better effect than Secret Chamber.

"Strictly better" happens often enough with fan cards, which is why it's useful to keep the definition *strict*.

[ftl]

Yeah, but it never happens with real cards. What people mean is always clear from context.

[Warfreak2]

If someone makes a fan card "+3 Cards, +1 Action, discard two cards from your hand", then it's "strictly better" than Warehouse, even though there are clear cases where you'd rather have the Warehouse: 3 Estates+Library, or 3 Tunnels, or Village+3 Coppers+2 Poor Houses. By my definition, it's strictly better so it has to cost $4+. By yours, sometimes you'd prefer a Warehouse, so it could be allowed to cost $3.

I think Possession is a valid reason to prefer having a Mandarin than a Count; if you're playing a Hunting Party stack and you only ever want to put a Hunting Party back for +$3 to buy a Province, the option to gain a Duchy is only helping your opponent when they possess you. Obviously I agree with you, once in your deck, Count is strictly better. But there is at least one situation where you'd prefer the Mandarin.

[eHalcyon]

If someone makes a fan card "+3 Cards, +1 Action, discard two cards from your hand", then it's "strictly better" than Warehouse, even though there are clear cases where you'd rather have the Warehouse: 3 Estates+Library, or 3 Tunnels, or Village+3 Coppers+2 Poor Houses. By my definition, it's strictly better so it has to cost $4+. By yours, sometimes you'd prefer a Warehouse, so it could be allowed to cost $3.

I think Possession is a valid reason to prefer having a Mandarin than a Count; if you're playing a Hunting Party stack and you only ever want to put a Hunting Party back for +$3 to buy a Province, the option to gain a Duchy is only helping your opponent when they possess you. Obviously I agree with you, once in your deck, Count is strictly better. But there is at least one situation where you'd prefer the Mandarin.

The bolded part -- what?  You don't only cost based on what is "strictly better".  That's like arguing that Hunting Grounds can cost $2 because it isn't strictly better than Fool's Gold.

Your example card is not strictly better than Warehouse.  But it is almost always better, so it shouldn't cost $3. 

I feel like you don't appreciate how the word "strictly" is typically used.  It's not just a Dominion term.

And as I said before when you last brought up Possession, the effect of Count is still strictly better.  It's just that you don't want better cards to be in your hand while you are possessed.

[ycz6]

The problem is that "almost always better" does not mean the same thing as "strictly better." Sea Hag is almost always better than Scout. It is obviously not strictly better, however strictly you choose to define "strictly."

Just pretend that "Worker's Village is strictly better than Village" is shorthand for "the effect of Worker's Village is strictly better than the effect of Village." It's not like anyone is confused by the first sentence. The looser definition is just more useful.

I feel like you don't appreciate how the word "strictly" is typically used.  It's not just a Dominion term.

I dunno, man. Meanings of words change. It happens literally all the time.

[LastFootnote]

I feel like you don't appreciate how the word "strictly" is typically used.  It's not just a Dominion term.

I dunno, man. Meanings of words change. It happens literally all the time.

I see what you did there.

That being said, value is lost when a word (like "literally") starts being used to mean the exact opposite thing. Especially when we don't have another word that means "literally". Though I agree that "strictly" could be used differently in different contexts.

[shMerker]

Dominion has plenty of words that don't mean the same thing as they do in other contexts. Most of the card names are names of actual things that aren't cards conferring abstract benefits to their temporary owners, but it would be really annoying if every time I wanted to talk about Smithy I said "a card with the word 'Smithy' printed at the top".

The "strictly" in "strictly better" works fine anyway. Grand Market is strictly something in relation to Market. I mean I think you can rigorously define that relationship in a way everyone will agree with*. There just isn't a perfect word for it. so if you're going to complain about something complain about the "better".

But really I'm wondering if anyone has ever actually been confused by this terminology. Everyone seems to have an intuitive sense of which card effects are "good", "bad", or "neutral". Given that why even bring it up?

Edit: I just realized most of this post is sort of beside the point because it only covers relationships like Hunting Ground : Smithy but this started with someone using strictly better to refer to an actual purchasing decision, which I agree was kind of misleading and not really what is usually intended when people here say "strictly better".

*Something like: Ignoring cost and extrinsic factors such as variety, a card A is "strictly better" than card B if A's good effects are the same as or a superset of B's and B's bad effects are the same as or a superset of A's while both A and B have the same neutral effects.

[AJD]

That being said, value is lost when a word (like "literally") starts being used to mean the exact opposite thing.

This is a misconception here. Nobody uses literally to mean the opposite of 'literally'—i.e., 'figuratively'. They use the word literally figuratively, which is not the same thing at all.

[LastFootnote]

That being said, value is lost when a word (like "literally") starts being used to mean the exact opposite thing.

This is a misconception here. Nobody uses literally to mean the opposite of 'literally'—i.e., 'figuratively'. They use the word literally figuratively, which is not the same thing at all.

Touché! But that doesn't really matter. How am I meant to convey that something literally happened if it is acceptable to use the term "literally" figuratively?

[ftl]

By using the word "literally". As with "strictly better", the meaning is usually going to be clear from context. Or by just writing the sentence differently so that the meaning is clear even without the word "literally" - the English language is pretty malleable, you can get your meaning across if you really want to!

[LastFootnote]

By using the word "literally". As with "strictly better", the meaning is usually going to be clear from context. Or by just writing the sentence differently so that the meaning is clear even without the word "literally" - the English language is pretty malleable, you can get your meaning across if you really want to!

Ah, but will that continue to be the case if people abuse the language? If what you say is true, why are there so many miscommunications?

(I'm actually not normally a English language purist, but it is fun to play devil's advocate.)

[shMerker]

Actually no. But wordplay isn't an abuse of language. Abusing language would be things like using passive voice to obscure responsibility or using unnecessarily complex verbiage to create the appearance of expertise. Wordplay is just part of hacking the language to make it do more things.

And there are so many miscommunications because brains are complicated. We have a technology for moving thoughts from one brain to another that we've been working on for thousands of years, but all along the way we've been adding new thoughts that aren't covered by the existing standards, so we pile up a lot of ad hoc solutions that necessarily can't consider all possible implications and then later revise those with more ad hoc solutions. But you can use this technology to preserve thoughts for an astoundingly long time after the brains they came from are gone without a trace so I think overall it's working pretty well.

[LastFootnote]

Actually no. But wordplay isn't an abuse of language. Abusing language would be things like using passive voice to obscure responsibility or using unnecessarily complex verbiage to create the appearance of expertise. Wordplay is just part of hacking the language to make it do more things.

From dictionary.com:

word·play  [wurd-pley]
noun
1.
clever or subtle repartee; verbal wit.
2.
a play on words; pun.

I would not consider the improper use of the word "literally" to fall under either of these definitions.

[shMerker]

Do you not see the irony in quoting a dictionary definition to refute an argument in favor of using words in non-standard ways?
Do you at least see it now?

[HiveMindEmulator]

When opening terminals miss the reshuffle... we get into drawn-out arguments over English.

[LastFootnote]

Do you not see the irony in quoting a dictionary definition to refute an argument in favor of using words in non-standard ways?
Do you at least see it now?

i·ro·ny   [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
noun, plural i·ro·nies.
1.
the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
2.
Literature.
a.
a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b.
(especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
3.
Socratic irony.
4.
dramatic irony.
5.
an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.


But seriously! Back to the actual derailed discussion. Using "literally" to mean "figuratively" is not wordplay. And yes, language can evolve over time and words can take on more than one meaning. But when a word means both one thing and the complement of that thing, that word has no meaning whatsoever.

It's not just that they're opposites! Black and white are opposites, but there are many things that are neither black, nor white. But if something isn't meant figuratively, then it is meant literally, and vice versa. It's like you're arguing that it would be OK if one of the definitions of "off" was "on".

"Honey, why are all the lights in the house on?! I asked you to turn them off before you left!"

"Oh, you meant 'off' off! I assumed you were using the definition of 'off' that meant 'on'! My bad!"

[Drab Emordnilap]

My better half and I have this exact conversation about what turning the air conditioner "down" means. (Lower temperature setting vs less work done by the machine)

[AJD]

Using "literally" to mean "figuratively" is not wordplay.

Using literally to mean 'figuratively' does not exist. Cf. http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=8879.msg269702#msg269702

[shMerker]

Do you not see the irony in quoting a dictionary definition to refute an argument in favor of using words in non-standard ways?
Do you at least see it now?

[snip]

Man that's a lot of words to say "no". Could you maybe try to abuse language a little less?

This discussion is all pretty familiar.

[Warfreak2]

The bolded part -- what?  You don't only cost based on what is "strictly better".  That's like arguing that Hunting Grounds can cost $2 because it isn't strictly better than Fool's Gold.

Your example card is not strictly better than Warehouse.  But it is almost always better, so it shouldn't cost $3. 

The only part of this which contradicts anything I said is "not strictly better"; I didn't propose any price that it "should" cost, I was just talking about the consideration that if A is strictly better than B, A has to cost more than B. There is no such implication of "almost always better": Chapel is almost always better than Lookout, and Silver is almost always better than Scout. In that case the fan card could even cost $2.

The difference between "almost always better" and "strictly better" is that a "strictly better" card has to be better at performing the same narrow function.

And as I said before when you last brought up Possession, the effect of Count is still strictly better.  It's just that you don't want better cards to be in your hand while you are possessed.

That is cheating. In that case, the fan card is strictly better than Warehouse, it's just that you don't want Estates to be in your hand when you play Library. Your very next sentence is an exception, a situation in which you'd prefer the "strictly worse" card. I don't see why Possession, exotic though it is, should bypass the definition of whether a card is good or bad by saying "oh, it's bad to have good cards". Discarding is still bad, just in games with Library, it's good to have bad cards? But if it's good to have them, then they are good, obviously.

[eHalcyon]

Because the effect of the card is still better... I don't know why that's so hard to understand.  Possession is not an exception, though it sounds like one.  When a card is better, it is also better for the possessing player.  Possession is quirky and turns things on its head.  It does not mean that the card was worse.  In the context of the situation it is less preferable that the possessor gets to play a better card, but the crux is still that the card in question is better.

The bottom line is that the term "strictly" means "always" or "exactly" in pretty much every field.  When something is "strict", by definition there are no exceptions.

[Warfreak2]

In a Hunting Party/Possession game, the effect of Count is to allow my opponent to gain a Duchy, which is a worse effect than Mandarin. I don't know why you think putting the word "effect" all over the place changes what you are saying.

Possession is quirky because it can make normally-good cards bad to have. But when it does that, they do become bad cards, they hurt you and help your opponent, I don't know why you wouldn't want to define that as being the hallmark of a bad card.

I'm the one saying Possession isn't an exception. Like most cards, it changes what other cards on the board are good. You seem to be be saying that those cards are still good cards, just you don't want them because they can hurt you and help your opponent.

[eHalcyon]

In a Hunting Party/Possession game, the effect of Count is to allow my opponent to gain a Duchy, which is a worse effect than Mandarin. I don't know why you think putting the word "effect" all over the place changes what you are saying.

No, adding in "effect" doesn't change anything.  I do that for clarification purposes, though apparently it is confusing you.  My points still stand.

You're making too much of Possession.  If card A is better than card B, it's still true in a Possession game.  Unfortunately for you, the better card is also better for the one who possesses you.

If that's not satisfactory for you, then fine -- in that case, Possession means absolutely nothing is strictly better than anything else, because when you are possessed, "better" becomes "worse" for you.  But hey, it was still better for the one who was making the decisions (i.e. the possessor)! 

I still consider Possession exceptionally exceptional, but if you don't, OK then.  It doesn't change the definition of "strict".

Possession is quirky because it can make normally-good cards bad to have. But when it does that, they do become bad cards, they hurt you and help your opponent, I don't know why you wouldn't want to define that as being the hallmark of a bad card.

Because that's false --the good card doesn't hurt you.  It helps you opponent when they possess you, it still helps you when you are playing your regular turn.  (Excepting Amb and Masq, of course.)

I'm the one saying Possession isn't an exception. Like most cards, it changes what other cards on the board are good. You seem to be be saying that those cards are still good cards, just you don't want them because they can hurt you and help your opponent.

Not at all.  The reason you might not want them is because they are good, if your opponent can use your deck more often than you (multi-Possession) or if your opponent can make better use of it than you could (e.g. Apprentice).  But I say it again - it's because they are good cards.

[eHalcyon]

Here, maybe this will help.  Quick Google search finds this page which gives the definition with which I (and I think most here) are familiar.  I think they explain it more clearly than I have been.

Strictly better is a term used to compare cards that are identical in most regards, and in each way they are different the same one is more favorable. For example, Lightning Bolt is strictly better than Shock. Both are instants that cost [1 red mana?] and deal damage to a creature or player, but Lightning Bolt deals 3 damage where shock deals 2 damage. The opposite of strictly better is called strictly worse, as in "Shock is strictly worse than Lightning Bolt."

The convention is well understood among experienced Magic players. However, those new to the terminology may complain that a strictly better card is not better in all situations than a strictly worse card. For example, Shock is a better card to draw than Lightning Bolt if both players are at two life and the opponent controls a Booby Trap naming Lightning Bolt. Such examples are not a failure of the terminology; it compares only the attributes of the cards regardless of obscure situations that may arise in play.

The second paragraph is key.  I consider Possession an "obscure situation".  On the flip side, things like forced discard and forced trashing are not so "obscure" because you may or may not want that in multiple situations.  But when would I ever prefer having Mandarin in my deck instead of Count?  Only in Possession games.


OK, incidentally, that last sentence is not exactly true because of cards that care about names (e.g. Harvest), but that's one reason why I try to clarify by talking about strictly better effects rather than strictly better cards.  The other reason is cost, in that there are quite a few cards that care about cost (Forge, various TfB) that may make you prefer a card costing less or a card costing more, depending on the situation.  Since there are many cards where cost and name matter, it's true that no Dominion card is strictly better than any other.  But some effects are strictly better than other effects, and those comparison are useful for discussion.  Maybe cases where card name matters could be counted as obscure, but specifying "effect" is easy enough.

[Warfreak2]

You're making too much of Possession.  If card A is better than card B, it's still true in a Possession game.  Unfortunately for you, the better card is also better for the one who possesses you.

If that's not satisfactory for you, then fine -- in that case, Possession means absolutely nothing is strictly better than anything else, because when you are possessed, "better" becomes "worse" for you.  But hey, it was still better for the one who was making the decisions (i.e. the possessor)!

No. No. Outside of the context of a game, a card can be better than another, but in a game, how good a card is depends on what other cards are available. When Possession is available, Mining Village can become worse than Village.

What? If you will insist on using you own definition of "strictly better", which can't even say Hunting Grounds is strictly better than Smithy, then of course nothing is strictly better than anything else, never mind when Possession is on the board. My definition has lots of cards being strictly better than other cards.

Because that's false --the good card doesn't hurt you.  It helps you opponent when they possess you, it still helps you when you are playing your regular turn.  (Excepting Amb and Masq, of course.)

In the hands of a possessor, even normal cards like Cartographer can be used to hurt you. That seems rather irrelevant anyway.

it's because they are good cards.

No. If having them in your deck could help your opponent too much, or hurt you too much, then in that game they are not good cards. Familiar can be bad when Trader is on the board, yeah? I don't see the sense in insisting that a card is still good when you don't want it; obviously the cards you prefer to have, have to be better. If better doesn't mean you prefer to have it, what does it mean?

[Warfreak2]

Strictly better is a term used to compare cards that are identical in most regards, and in each way they are different the same one is more favorable. For example, Lightning Bolt is strictly better than Shock. Both are instants that cost [1 red mana?] and deal damage to a creature or player, but Lightning Bolt deals 3 damage where shock deals 2 damage. The opposite of strictly better is called strictly worse, as in "Shock is strictly worse than Lightning Bolt."

The convention is well understood among experienced Magic players. However, those new to the terminology may complain that a strictly better card is not better in all situations than a strictly worse card. For example, Shock is a better card to draw than Lightning Bolt if both players are at two life and the opponent controls a Booby Trap naming Lightning Bolt. Such examples are not a failure of the terminology; it compares only the attributes of the cards regardless of obscure situations that may arise in play.

The second paragraph is key.  I consider Possession an "obscure situation".  On the flip side, things like forced discard and forced trashing are not so "obscure" because you may or may not want that in multiple situations.  But when would I ever prefer having Mandarin in my deck instead of Count?  Only in Possession games.

That is hilarious, because that is the definition I am using and you are not. Hunting Grounds is strictly better than Smithy because it draws an extra card, which is favourable, and it gains a Duchy (or three Estates) when you trash it, which is favourable.

From the definition: "and in each way they are different the same one is more favorable."
My quote: "We have to agree on some assumptions: vanilla bonuses are good, discarding a card is bad, trashing a card is good, gaining a Copper is bad, any additional options are good, &c."

From the definition: "However, those new to the terminology may complain that a strictly better card is not better in all situations than a strictly worse card."
Your quote: "The bottom line is that the term "strictly" means "always" or "exactly" in pretty much every field.  When something is "strict", by definition there are no exceptions."

I'm going to stop now, I don't know how I can show you that you are wrong any more clearly than that.

[eHalcyon]

I see the issue then. Your consider common things to be obscure.

Drawing an extra card is on the edge for me, because it isn't all that uncommon for it to cause a bad reshuffle. I take bigger exception to you suggesting that forced trashing or forced discard can be strictly better or worse.

Or way bigger an example is what started this whole debate - Scheme and Sea Hag. If you are using that definition, there is no way you could say that Scheme is strictly better than Sea Hag.

[markusin]

If only we had used the term "strictly stronger" instead of "strictly better". To me, "better" in the "strictest" sense means it always gives a greater contribution to your victory than what you are comparing it to. Problem is, Dominion is so full of edge cases (and any edge cases, no matter how hypothetical they seem to be, can be considered valid), that you're bound to find one where one "stronger" card leads to a loss where the "weaker" card would have resulted in a win. "Stronger" suggests the possibility of backfire, say with Possession.

Consider this card:
"Strictly Better" Monument
Action-$4
+$2
+2VP

If you count mind games as valid edge cases (Say, the one proposed for Golem-plays-Adventurer-before-Poor-House edge case in the memes thread), then even this card might not be "strictly better" than monument. Imagine a 2p game where there are only two Provinces left and p1 is behind by 1 point and knows that he/she cannot buy a Province next turn. p1 wants p2 to observe PPR and buy duchy instead of province on p2's next turn. If p1 plays regular Monument and buys Duchy, then p2 can equalize the score by following PPR and buying Duchy. If p1 plays "Strictly Better" Monument and buys Duchy, p2 would now still be losing by 1 point if they bought Duchy on his/her turn, so they'd be more inclined to break PPR and buy Province. Then p2 can rejoice when p1 cannot buy the last Province on the next turn.

So yeah, if that edge case is valid, then we've stripped the term "strictly better" of all meaning by defining it as meaning perfectly better in all situations, at least in Dominion.

[shMerker]

Wasn't the term "strictly better" coined for discussing the design of Dominion anyway? The concept is only a strategy concern in situations where you are given the choice between gaining a card and gaining one its "strictly better" counterparts, which I think most people agree is almost always a trivial decision anyway. You are not really surprising anyone when you tell them that, all other things being equal, gaining a Grand Market is better than gaining a Market. I mean, it's right there on the card. If you need a strategy article to help you work that one out I'm not sure Dominion is the game for you.

What I'm saying is discussions of "strictly better" should really be moved to the variants and fan cards subforum where it has actual relevance to stuff people are trying to do.

[eHalcyon]

The term was used for Magic before it was used for Dominion.

[jaybeez]

To me, this is the final word on the debate about the usage of the word "literally":

[shMerker]

The term was used for Magic before it was used for Dominion.

I didn't realize that. I don't know a whole lot about Magic but it seems like that idea would be more relevant in that sphere, where there's a wider range of cards that could be in play at any given time.

But I have to wonder, do Magic players have this same argument? Edge cases are pretty much the entire game.

[eHalcyon]

I quoted a nice definition from a mtg wiki earlier in this thread.  Maybe I was a bit too adamant about there being *no* exceptions.  But I think it is fair to say that forced discard or forced trashing are not strictly worse or better than not having that on a card, and it should be very, very obvious that Scheme cannot be strictly better than Sea Hag because they are completely different cards.

[shMerker]

And now, assuming the MtG wiki can be trusted, I can answer my own question.

The convention is well understood among experienced Magic players. However, those new to the terminology may complain that a strictly better card is not better in all situations than a strictly worse card. For example, Shock is a better card to draw than Lightning Bolt if both players are at two life and the opponent controls a Booby Trap naming Lightning Bolt. Such examples are not a failure of the terminology; it compares only the attributes of the cards regardless of obscure situations that may arise in play.

So yeah they do have this argument, but there's still general consensus about it.

Edit: VVV Yeah sorry I'll stop posting if it's not about terminal collisions.

[mail-mi]

I think this discussion has become strictly worse than it should.