Print

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

[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.