Print

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

[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":