Yes my scenario makes assumptions, but it was merely to illustrate the point that cursers don't
necessarily contraindicate playing mine. Which is my main point here. Virtually all of your talk about cursing and discard attacks boils down to "there is something better to buy". This is a fair point ... it just has nothing to do with the game dynamics of cursing or discarding - it just has to do with other cards being better than mine. Yes I want the curser before the mine, but that doesn't mean I won't take the mine as well later.
For instance, imagine two games:
Game 1: Say I have a hag/develop game; I painfully clear out estates and my hag gives out the 10th curse (we split 5/5) before I trash any curses. I play develop on the hag. What card do I get on the 5 side? Duchy is always an option, but if it is early enough I may want some economy rather than toiling through the duchies and estates. What 5s are better than mine here?
Game 2: Say I have a hag/develop game; I clear out all the curses (we split 6 him - 4 me) and develop my hag. My deck is otherwise identical to the case above (just a difference in shuffle luck on hitting estate vs curse, so I have 3 fewer silver, but 5 fewer curses). What 5s are better than mine here?
I submit that the answer to both questions are almost entirely the same, if not identical. If I want a lab in game 1, then I'm going to want it in game 2. When is mine a good gain for game 2 ONLY? If you can't answer this, then mine doesn't have negative synergy with curse givers, it just is a weaker card than the curse giver.
Mine does fall better into some curse strategies, because some strategies that are strong at dealing with cursing (most notably sifting) synergize well with mine. I have played boards where I go for warehouse/hag which ends up making my deck quick enough for mine to be a good addition. Without the hag slowing the game, though, BM/draw would beat sifter/mine silly.
man i just dont agree with that assessment at all. i'm gonna play the militia over mine 9/10 times late in the game. first off, the +cards or +$2 of discard attacks will almost always be worth more than the virtual +$1 of mine. second, if it is late game than you are probably not as worried with improving your deck. what is the benefit of going silver -> gold if you will see that gold maybe one more time over the rest of the game. even a cutpurse effect is useful, especially with the increased benefits the attacks offer your own hand.
Basically the game has 3 phases for militia:
1. When playing the militia hurts the other player and nets you +2 coin.
2. When playing the militia nets you +2 coin, but you can't make 8 (11 or whatever).
3. When playing the militia nets you +2 coin, and you can make 8 (11 or whatever).
Phase 1 dominates most 2er. So yeah, militia beats mine there. However, in 3er you go pretty quickly to phase 2 if the other players go militias. Mine wins heavily there. In 3er we see the real dynamics of discard on mine (separately from the value of attacking the opposition). There mine lets you ramp up your deck faster than a terminal silver. How much time each game spends in each of the 3 phases is determined heavily by board dynamics. Once your deck is built up enough, phase 3 comes into play and militia beats mine out. Mine is absolutely no contraindicated on discard boards in 3er. It works really well there if you can't beat down your opponent.
Again, like with the curse giver it is not the dynamics of playing 3 card hands bad with mine - it is just that the discard attacks tend to be better than mine. Mine's usefulness relative to most other similar cards (e.g. non-terminal 5's) is not affected by a discard attack in the kingdom.
Which also brings up another point. Mine is better than discard attacks when there are very strong responses to discard attacks - Wt, Jack, Horse traders, lighthouse (sometimes), and tunnel all favor the mine directly over the attack.
i'm not really sure i understand this question, sorry. there are a ton of cards which would be preferable to mine in a good engine. good engines take more than just coin, so any of the +actions, + cards, or attacks of the $5 cards will often be more useful than a mine.
Look, when you say card X conflicts with engines you are saying that
regardless of which engine you play, the card is is
relatively worse compared to other options just by dint of having an engine.
For instance, venture is worse with strong draw engines. If you are drawing your entire deck, venture is a copper. If you do have cards not in hand venture will skip just as happily past big engine components (like Kc/lab) to snag a copper. So if I've got a strong draw engine, then a lot of cards are better for me than venture (e.g. in the simple case duchess or silver nets me an additional coin when I draw my entire deck). I will buy duchess over venture in a strong enough draw engine (e.g. Kc/Lab) because venture is nombo with that engine. However I will
not buy duchess over venture in most non-engine games because I risk conflicting terminals and venture often will snag a silver or gold giving me a higher payout.
So imagine you have two boards:
1. has hamlet/smithy/remodel
2. has chancellor/great hall/wood cutters
Okay now board one supports a strong engine. Board two does not. Now board one is good option for mine, you will (eventually) draw your entire deck every turn and mine gives you cumulative increases in buying power without decreasing component density. Board two is a non-engine board. If, and only if, mine is bad for all strong engines qua engines, then there should be marginal cards that you'd buy on board 1 in preference to mine and these same cards would not be bought in preference to mine on board 2. What are these cards?
Here are a few they are not - hunting party (you will buy HP in preference to mine on either board), scout (you will buy mine in preference to scout on either board), and mountebank (you will by mountebank in preference to just about anything on either board).
If a card conflicts with a play style, you will see its relative usefulness swing wildly when looking at one situation or the other. Some cards will become rubbish in comparison, others will get wildly useful. I don't see mine making those swings, so it appears to be neutral to positive for engine play. Yeah there may well be stronger cards out, but those will be stronger cards regardless of playing an engine or whatever.
Var:
I don't think you are right here. In the absence of any special factors (discard attacks, sifters, Platinum, Potion, kingdom treasure, trash for benefit, cards that make use of Copper, Trickster, Saboteur, Jester), I don't see any reason why Silver+Silver shouldn't be just as good as Gold+Copper.
In fact, in the absence of all the special factors, Silver+Silver should be slightly better because it decreases the risk that you draw your Mine with only Gold (although that risk is not that high anyway). And some of the special factors mentioned above can even favor Silver+Silver (as greatexpectations has already pointed out) - Trickster, Jesters, Potion and certain kingdom treasure.
Copper/gold has higher variance than silver/silver. So say I have the rest of the deck and I can either have gold x2/silver x3/ copper x4 or silver x5/ copper x2. When I get hit with a militia I have non-zero chance of making 8 with the golds. With the silvers I have a zero chance of making 8. Sometimes you want higher variance (e.g. warehouse), sometimes you want less (e.g. envoy). With a militia setup (you choose what to discard), higher variance is much better as you can keep the best cards and discard the bad.