Print

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

[Qvist]

Three years passed since the first Dominion Card Lists were compiled, the skill level of all players raised and a lot of new knowledge is gained. A new expansion was released and everyone is eager to learn how the new cards rank. That means it's time for the 2015 edition of the Dominion Card Lists.

What do you have to do?
If you like to contribute, go to http://www.qvist.de/dommesh
I'm not the best web designer to make it look nice, but it works. There you can order the cards either all at once in a big list or by comparing two cards at a time. If you do the latter, the app will tell you when you're done and no new "card duel" is available anymore. I didn't include a registration or anything like that for this simple app. You can just login by your Goko name and any password you like. The next time you login you just have to remember the password you've set on your first login. I expect that nobody will trick me by using a user name of anyone else. I will also still accept PMs if you still want to do that in the old fashioned way. If you send me a PM please be sure that you put each card in order and don't miss any. If you don't know an expansion very well you can choose to leave it out. But be sure that if you want to include a card of a specific expansion, you have ro rank all cards of the expansion. There are no restriction with Promo cards, so if you don't know Summon very well, you can leave it out.

Cards are only counted if they are kingdom cards, so no Copper, Silver, Gold, Platinum, Potion, Estate, Duchy, Province, Colony, Curse, Prizes, Shelters, Ruins, Spoils, Madman, Mercenary, individual Knights, Treasure Hunter, Warrior, Hero, Champion, Soldier, Fugitive, Disciple or Teacher are allowed. If you want to look up the card texts and also the last year's lists, just go to our wiki. http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com
If you submit your list, you also agree that I may give this to third party, like theory or rrenaud. If you don't agree send me a PM.

If you've submitted last year, I will not take your last submission into account.
But if you didn't save your last year's submission and you need it, feel free to PM me and I will send it to you.
Just arrange the cards for your ranking with the best card going first and the worst on the last position.

I included extra lists for Prizes, individual Knights, Ruins and Events. These are optional, you don't have to rank them if you don't want.
You can also if you want rank all the kingdom cards in one big list, just like Wandering Winder did. This is also optional as this takes a lot of time.
If you want PM me, this list should be subdivided into several lists, containing:
33 $0-$2 cards, 43 $3 cards, 66 $4 cards, 83 $5 cards, 22 $6+ cards, 10 Potion cards = 257

Usual disclaimer: This list should cause discussion not hassle. Of course it's difficult to compare some of the cards because pretty much every card has some situations where it shines and situations where it doesn't. This isn't a scientific list, just a compiled list of the community's opinion of the best cards.

Card List:

Code: [Select]

33 $0-$2 cards
Cellar (Base)
Chapel (Base)
Moat (Base)
Courtyard (Intrigue)
Pawn (Intrigue)
Secret Chamber (Intrigue)
Embargo (Seaside)
Haven (Seaside)
Lighthouse (Seaside)
Native Village (Seaside)
Pearl Diver (Seaside)
Herbalist (Alchemy)
Hamlet (Cornucopia)
Crossroads (Hinterlands)
Duchess (Hinterlands)
Fool's Gold (Hinterlands)
Beggar (Dark Ages)
Poor House (Dark Ages)
Squire (Dark Ages)
Vagrant (Dark Ages)
Candlestick Maker (Guilds)
Stonemason (Guilds)
Coin of the Realm (Adventures)
Page (Adventures)
Peasant (Adventures)
Ratcatcher (Adventures)
Raze (Adventures)
Alms (Adventures)
Borrow (Adventures)
Quest (Adventures)
Save (Adventures)
Scouting Party (Adventures)
Travelling Fair (Adventures)


43 $3 cards
Chancellor (Base)
Village (Base)
Woodcutter (Base)
Workshop (Base)
Great Hall (Intrigue)
Masquerade (Intrigue)
Shanty Town (Intrigue)
Steward (Intrigue)
Swindler (Intrigue)
Wishing Well (Intrigue)
Ambassador (Seaside)
Fishing Village (Seaside)
Lookout (Seaside)
Smugglers (Seaside)
Warehouse (Seaside)
Loan (Prosperity)
Trade Route (Prosperity)
Watchtower (Prosperity)
Fortune Teller (Cornucopia)
Menagerie (Cornucopia)
Develop (Hinterlands)
Oasis (Hinterlands)
Oracle (Hinterlands)
Scheme (Hinterlands)
Tunnel (Hinterlands)
Forager (Dark Ages)
Hermit/Madman (Dark Ages)
Market Square (Dark Ages)
Sage (Dark Ages)
Storeroom (Dark Ages)
Urchin/Mercenary (Dark Ages)
Doctor (Guilds)
Masterpiece (Guilds)
Amulet (Adventures)
Caravan Guard (Adventures)
Dungeon (Adventures)
Gear (Adventures)
Guide (Adventures)
Bonfire (Adventures)
Expedition (Adventures)
Ferry (Adventures)
Plan (Adventures)
Black Market (Promo)

66 $4 cards
Bureaucrat (Base)
Feast (Base)
Gardens (Base)
Militia (Base)
Moneylender (Base)
Remodel (Base)
Smithy (Base)
Spy (Base)
Thief (Base)
Throne Room (Base)
Baron (Intrigue)
Bridge (Intrigue)
Conspirator (Intrigue)
Coppersmith (Intrigue)
Ironworks (Intrigue)
Mining Village (Intrigue)
Scout (Intrigue)
Caravan (Seaside)
Cutpurse (Seaside)
Island (Seaside)
Navigator (Seaside)
Pirate Ship (Seaside)
Salvager (Seaside)
Sea Hag (Seaside)
Treasure Map (Seaside)
Bishop (Prosperity)
Monument (Prosperity)
Quarry (Prosperity)
Talisman (Prosperity)
Worker's Village (Prosperity)
Farming Village (Cornucopia)
Horse Traders (Cornucopia)
Remake (Cornucopia)
Tournament (Cornucopia)
Young Witch (Cornucopia)
Jack of all Trades (Hinterlands)
Noble Brigand (Hinterlands)
Nomad Camp (Hinterlands)
Silk Road (Hinterlands)
Spice Merchant (Hinterlands)
Trader (Hinterlands)
Armory (Dark Ages)
Death Cart (Dark Ages)
Feodum (Dark Ages)
Fortress (Dark Ages)
Ironmonger (Dark Ages)
Marauder (Dark Ages)
Procession (Dark Ages)
Rats (Dark Ages)
Scavenger (Dark Ages)
Wandering Minstrel (Dark Ages)
Advisor (Guilds)
Herald (Guilds)
Plaza (Guilds)
Taxman (Guilds)
Duplicate (Adventures)
Magpie (Adventures)
Messenger (Adventures)
Miser (Adventures)
Port (Adventures)
Ranger (Adventures)
Transmogrify (Adventures)
Mission (Adventures)
Pilgrimage (Adventures)
Envoy (Promo)
Walled Village (Promo)


83 $5 cards
Council Room (Base)
Festival (Base)
Laboratory (Base)
Library (Base)
Market (Base)
Mine (Base)
Witch (Base)
Duke (Intrigue)
Minion (Intrigue)
Saboteur (Intrigue)
Torturer (Intrigue)
Trading Post (Intrigue)
Tribute (Intrigue)
Upgrade (Intrigue)
Bazaar (Seaside)
Explorer (Seaside)
Ghost Ship (Seaside)
Merchant Ship (Seaside)
Outpost (Seaside)
Tactician (Seaside)
Treasury (Seaside)
Wharf (Seaside)
Apprentice (Alchemy)
City (Prosperity)
Contraband (Prosperity)
Counting House (Prosperity)
Mint (Prosperity)
Mountebank (Prosperity)
Rabble (Prosperity)
Royal Seal (Prosperity)
Vault (Prosperity)
Venture (Prosperity)
Harvest (Cornucopia)
Horn of Plenty (Cornucopia)
Hunting Party (Cornucopia)
Jester (Cornucopia)
Cache (Hinterlands)
Cartographer (Hinterlands)
Embassy (Hinterlands)
Haggler (Hinterlands)
Highway (Hinterlands)
Ill-Gotten Gains (Hinterlands)
Inn (Hinterlands)
Mandarin (Hinterlands)
Margrave (Hinterlands)
Stables (Hinterlands)
Bandit Camp (Dark Ages)
Band of Misfits (Dark Ages)
Catacombs (Dark Ages)
Counterfeit (Dark Ages)
Count (Dark Ages)
Cultist (Dark Ages)
Graverobber (Dark Ages)
Junk Dealer (Dark Ages)
Knights (Dark Ages)
Mystic (Dark Ages)
Pillage (Dark Ages)
Rebuild (Dark Ages)
Rogue (Dark Ages)
Baker (Guilds)
Butcher (Guilds)
Journeyman (Guilds)
Merchant Guild (Guilds)
Soothsayer (Guilds)
Artificer (Adventures)
Bridge Troll (Adventures)
Distant Lands (Adventures)
Giant (Adventures)
Haunted Woods (Adventures)
Lost City (Adventures)
Relic (Adventures)
Royal Carriage (Adventures)
Storyteller (Adventures)
Swamp Hag (Adventures)
Treasure Trove (Adventures)
Wine Merchant (Adventures)
Ball (Adventures)
Raid (Adventures)
Seaway (Adventures)
Trade (Adventures)
Governor (Promo)
Stash (Promo)
Summon (Promo)


21 $6+ cards
Adventurer (Base)
Harem (Intrigue)
Nobles (Intrigue)
Goons (Prosperity)
Grand Market (Prosperity)
Hoard (Prosperity)
Bank (Prosperity)
Expand (Prosperity)
Forge (Prosperity)
King's Court (Prosperity)
Peddler (Prosperity)
Fairgrounds (Cornucopia)
Border Village (Hinterlands)
Farmland (Hinterlands)
Altar (Dark Ages)
Hunting Grounds (Dark Ages)
Hireling (Adventures)
Lost Arts (Adventures)
Training (Adventures)
Inheritance (Adventures)
Pathfinding (Adventures)
Prince (Promo)


10 Potion cards
Transmute (Alchemy)
Vineyard (Alchemy)
Apothecary (Alchemy)
Scrying Pool (Alchemy)
University (Alchemy)
Alchemist (Alchemy)
Familiar (Alchemy)
Philosopher's Stone (Alchemy)
Golem (Alchemy)
Possession (Alchemy)

What else?
Submission deadline is the 31st of October 11:59pm UTC.
Each card will get a percentage value based on the rank. So your best card gets 100% and your worst gets 0%. This will result in a compiled list of all of your lists.
When I post the results, I will also include the ususal statistic data. I will leave out my comments this time to not let you wait that long between posting my results.
If you encounter some bugs, just send me a PM and I'll fix them ASAP.

Let's see how many submissions we get this time. The more we get the better the rankings will be. I can't wait to get your submissions. If you have any questions, ask them here.


Results:

Ruins
$0-$2 cards
$3 cards
$4 cards
Prizes
$5 cards
Knights
$6+ cards
Potion cost cards
Events

[assemble_me]

Mad props to you. First time I'm contributing to this list

(my newly chosen avatar shows which card I probably overrated by a lot compared to others )

[werothegreat]

Just got done voting!

[Aleimon Thimble]

Awesome!

One important note: it seems you forgot Prince!

I'm over halfway done I think, only need to do the two longest lists, $4 and $5 (and update $6+ once Prince is included).

[drsteelhammer]

Prince is indeed not included yet.

But I really like the "duelling", it makes it a lot easier for me to rank the cards I'm unsure about.

[assemble_me]

Yeah I've recognized that as well, but I just logged in again and it appears to be there now.

[Qvist]

One important note: it seems you forgot Prince!

Fixed

[yuma]

"Ein Ladung" (one of the events) is in German. It was the only one that I saw that wasn't in English

[werothegreat]

"Ein Ladung" (one of the events) is in German. It was the only one that I saw that wasn't in English

That's because it hasn't been released in English yet.

Also, NOW I'm done voting - just dropped Prince in my list.

[Qvist]

"Ein Ladung" (one of the events) is in German. It was the only one that I saw that wasn't in English

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

If you don't know the card, just click on the respective link.

[Roadrunner7671]

Thanks a ton Qvist! I assume these will go on your YouTube channel like before, correct?

Now I have a question. If you only do a partial rank, will you still include that? And is there a button to turn in your results, or can you view it?

[singletee]

Wow, this is neat! I seem to have found a small bug, though - I clicked "don't know" on Messenger when it was up against Trader, and this happened:

[ehunt]

thanks! for those of us who don't know algorithms, how many comparisons do we expect to have to make before the whole thing is sorted?

[Qvist]

Wow, this is neat! I seem to have found a small bug, though - I clicked "don't know" on Messenger when it was up against Trader, and this happened:

Weird, that shouldn't happen. I will look into it.

thanks! for those of us who don't know algorithms, how many comparisons do we expect to have to make before the whole thing is sorted?

It should be in average n * log (n) although my code might certainly not be optimal. That's roughly 160 comparisms for the biggest list ($5).

[Voltaire]

I too had that same error after ignoring an Event, fyi.

[jsh357]

I have finished all of my lists except the cumulative one. Not sure if I'll go all the way through with it or not. Here's hoping people have seen the light and Sea Hag is no longer #1 for $4.

[faust]

It should be in average n * log (n) although my code might certainly not be optimal. That's roughly 160 comparisms for the biggest list ($5).

I don't think that's correct (because only comparisons are important, we don't need to account for the merging). It should be exactly as many comparisons as there are cards in the list.

Nevermind, I'm stupid.

[A Drowned Kernel]

I have finished all of my lists except the cumulative one. Not sure if I'll go all the way through with it or not. Here's hoping people have seen the light and Sea Hag is no longer #1 for $4.

I did mine as the cumulative one, and Sea Hag somehow ended up at #29 on my $4 list. Maybe I'm overcompensating and underestimating it now...

[jsh357]

I have finished all of my lists except the cumulative one. Not sure if I'll go all the way through with it or not. Here's hoping people have seen the light and Sea Hag is no longer #1 for $4.

I did mine as the cumulative one, and Sea Hag somehow ended up at #29 on my $4 list. Maybe I'm overcompensating and underestimating it now...

I have it at #13 myself. Yeah, 29 seems low to me. It's probably at least deserving of 15th place. Part of it is that there are so many more ways to fight Curses now.

[Hugovj]

I think it ended up 5th on mine. 

Anyway, still need to do all of the 5's, that's gonna take some time.

[werothegreat]

I ended up with Sea Hag just under Jack.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Thanks a lot for your work Qvist! This is the first time I participate in the voting and I'm excited. Takes a pretty long time but I won't rush my decisions.

Wow, this is neat! I seem to have found a small bug, though - I clicked "don't know" on Messenger when it was up against Trader, and this happened:

Weird, that shouldn't happen. I will look into it.

thanks! for those of us who don't know algorithms, how many comparisons do we expect to have to make before the whole thing is sorted?

It should be in average n * log (n) although my code might certainly not be optimal. That's roughly 160 comparisms for the biggest list ($5).

This happened to me like three times when I clicked the "don't know" button. It's a fairly consistent bug but I don't think it has any impact on the voting.

[Beyond Awesome]

Something screwy is going on. I went to check my ratings and everything was all jumbled up. Like on my $3 cards Loan is towards the top. My ratings were finalized. After I rated through the duel system, I then went and made any corrections via the list method and saved it. I have no idea what happened.

Edit: I think what happened is that I rated the events and this caused some of my other ratings to get unseated.

[Qvist]

Something screwy is going on. I went to check my ratings and everything was all jumbled up. Like on my $3 cards Loan is towards the top. My ratings were finalized. After I rated through the duel system, I then went and made any corrections via the list method and saved it. I have no idea what happened.

Edit: I think what happened is that I rated the events and this caused some of my other ratings to get unseated.

You probably created a loop (A>B, B>C, C>A) after reranking some of the Events. I solve that by deleting A>B after voting C>A. That means that you have to revote for only B to solve the problem. B was probably Loan in your case.

[assemble_me]

I think having the events in both the $$ lists and a seperate Events list causes some problems. Every time I'm rating the Events it destroys my $$ ratings and vice versa.
If we want to have both I think they should be rated without dependencies. Or we should either vote for them separeted as Events only or in the $$ ranges only.
Rating consistently isn't easy, it appears.

/Edit: After going over all $$ lists again, the Events list looks just fine despite it's saying there are ratings to do, but I guess I just don't touch it.

[Qvist]

Okay, now you are having problems too, that's weird. I will look into it. Did you rerank Events by clicking on individual cards on the right? As said before that may cause problems, but that's by design.

But the dependencies are necessary. If you rate Event A>B in the $3 list for example and then you do it vice versa in the Events list, then there is inconsistency. Also you don't have to vote the $3 Events in relation to each other after you voted them in the $3 list. That makes it easier for you.

[assemble_me]

Okay, now you are having problems too, that's weird. I will look into it. Did you rerank Events by clicking on individual cards on the right? As said before that may cause problems, but that's by design.

But the dependencies are necessary. If you rate Event A>B in the $3 list for example and then you do it vice versa in the Events list, then there is inconsistency. Also you don't have to vote the $3 Events in relation to each other after you voted them in the $3 list. That makes it easier for you.

I can't tell exactly how I destroyed things. I usually work through the card duels, then I take a look at the list and check if it's satisfying. For the most part the results are fine but then I often think I have to tweak the order of one or two cards and then I go to that list drag/drop mode.

[Qvist]

I debugged and tested the application and I found an error in the drag/drop code if a card is on multiple lists, e.g. Events.
So please, just don't use the drag/drop function on the Events list for now. I'll fix it as fast as I can.

[Aleimon Thimble]

I'm done with everything but the cumulative list! The duel system worked fine for me. I think I got more accurate rankings (for my own taste) than when I tried it manually a couple of weeks ago.

Some of my more controversial choices:

$2-: Chapel at #2
$3: Ferry at #5, Amulet at #6, Workshop at #27, Caravan Guard at #42
$4: Herald at #1, Throne Room at #6, Sea Hag at #14, Young Witch at #26, Miser at #31, Feast at #45, Rats at #65
$5: Cultist at #1, Haunted Woods at #3, Minion at #4, Count at #6, Rebuild at #10, Margrave at #12, Swamp Hag at #40, Counting House at #63, Council Room at #76
$6+: Forge at #7

[drsteelhammer]

I'm done with everything but the cumulative list! The duel system worked fine for me. I think I got more accurate rankings (for my own taste) than when I tried it manually a couple of weeks ago.

Some of my more controversial choices:

$2-: Chapel at #2
$3: Ferry at #5, Amulet at #6, Workshop at #27, Caravan Guard at #42
$4: Herald at #1, Throne Room at #6, Sea Hag at #14, Young Witch at #26, Miser at #31, Feast at #45, Rats at #65
$5: Cultist at #1, Haunted Woods at #3, Minion at #4, Count at #6, Rebuild at #10, Margrave at #12, Swamp Hag at #40, Counting House at #63, Council Room at #76
$6+: Forge at #7

What did you put on #1 at the two cost? also council room and herald seem quite mind boggling aswell, the others are not very controversial, in my opinion

[Aleimon Thimble]

I'm done with everything but the cumulative list! The duel system worked fine for me. I think I got more accurate rankings (for my own taste) than when I tried it manually a couple of weeks ago.

Some of my more controversial choices:

$2-: Chapel at #2
$3: Ferry at #5, Amulet at #6, Workshop at #27, Caravan Guard at #42
$4: Herald at #1, Throne Room at #6, Sea Hag at #14, Young Witch at #26, Miser at #31, Feast at #45, Rats at #65
$5: Cultist at #1, Haunted Woods at #3, Minion at #4, Count at #6, Rebuild at #10, Margrave at #12, Swamp Hag at #40, Counting House at #63, Council Room at #76
$6+: Forge at #7

What did you put on #1 at the two cost? also council room and herald seem quite mind boggling aswell, the others are not very controversial, in my opinion

Page is my #1. Champion just warps the game so much that Page had to go there, no matter how strong Chapel is and always has been.

Herald is basically +2 cards +2 actions most of the time when you have an action-heavy deck, and with today's engine-centered metagame you will often have one. That's crazy for $4. And even if you miss it's still a cantrip, so you can buy them in bulk and try again. Even better: when they cascade into each other it's like a Golem on steroids. So basically, like Cultist, they're awesome on their own but absolutely rape when you have a lot of them.

Council Room's penalty REALLY hurts. You just have to be so damn careful with them all the time it's just not funny anymore. Lost City is a way stronger card with a less bad penalty. Also it's terribly close to strictly inferior to Margrave. I'll probably never buy Council Room unless there's an engine with a discard attack at the end or if it's the only source of good draw AND the only source of +Buy.

[Chris is me]

Chapel has way more of an effect on the game than Champion, and I think people massively understate the opportunity cost of getting a Champion up and running. It takes five shuffles to get it going, and before then you either need villages, a deck clogged with terminals, or mostly money. On some boards it's absolutely dominating, but it's not nearly as universally useful as Chapel. It's a card that looks crazy on paper but is a lot more balanced in reality. I suspect in the 2016 lists, Page will just barely make the top 5 $2's.

Now, if the argument was how Soldier makes upgrading to Champion as risky as winning a Tournament mirror, I'd give that more credence.

[drsteelhammer]

Don't get me wrong, I love herald, it's one of my favourite cards. I just don't think it deserves the first place.

Regarding CR, #76 sounds like last place or almost last place to me, meaning that there are quite a few very bad cards in front of it which I can't quite understand, considering how many bad card there are. I agree that both Governor and Lost City are stronger for the same penalty, but +4cards is still really strong and if it's the only draw, you probably lose ignoring it, which can not be said about other 5costs

[werothegreat]

Sounds like most of the trouble is coming from skipping ranking cards - I ranked everything, and haven't seen any problems with my lists.

[Qvist]

I debugged and tested the application and I found an error in the drag/drop code if a card is on multiple lists, e.g. Events.
So please, just don't use the drag/drop function on the Events list for now. I'll fix it as fast as I can.

So, I think I fixed it as best I could in the short time frame.
But what I cannot change is the following example:

I rate the $3 list and put Bonfire above Expedition.
Then later I rate the Events list either in drag/drop mode or by clicking on the right on a specific card and put Expedition above Bonfire.
You then have to go back to the $3 list and vote a few times to adapt to the recent change.

[Aleimon Thimble]

Regarding CR, #76 sounds like last place or almost last place to me, meaning that there are quite a few very bad cards in front of it which I can't quite understand, considering how many bad card there are. I agree that both Governor and Lost City are stronger for the same penalty, but +4cards is still really strong and if it's the only draw, you probably lose ignoring it, which can not be said about other 5costs

I disagree with the idea that there are many bad cards on the $5 card list. Most $5 cards are really strong and only a select few of them are relatively mediocre. I think Council Room is one of them. That doesn't mean it's weak; it's still stronger than most $4 cards, but at the $5 price point there are so many better cards.

(For the record, #76 is seventh worst. Meh, it may be just slightly too low, I don't know.)

[funkdoc]

my counterpoint re: council room - if there's any viable draw engine that requires it, both players will likely be drawing their whole deck every turn anyway.  governor was underrated a few years ago because people were scared of the penalty on its draw, but it turns out that most of the time it's worth it.

i mean sure, if there's another big terminal draw card alongside council room, i would mainly get those and like 1-2 council rooms for the buys if you need that. but it's still an important enough engine enabler that i can easily name ten $5s worse than it:

harvest
counting house
mine
stash
royal seal (sorry mic~)
cache
contraband
saboteur
mandarin
explorer (actually a bit underrated as engine payload with the likes of salvager/bishop/remodel-types, but eh)

this isn't even getting into perhaps more controversial cases like trading post or treasury, which i would also comfortably rank below council room. the $5s have their fair share of crappy cards, for sure.

[Aleimon Thimble]

Some of those are actually not that weak.

Counting House is one of the most underrated cards in the game imo. Sure, on some boards it's terrible, but on others it's absolutely amazing. Especially in slogs, combos and in Colony games, Counting House is a force to be reckoned with. Even in some engines with good sifters/discarders it can be pretty useful. I have never understood why it is so universally accepted as the worst $5 card.

Mine is also a somewhat underrated payload card that shines when there is a good engine, but no good Copper trashing. The most common example is the First Game engine, where it is definitely the star of the show.

The other cards are indeed some of the weaker $5's, I rated most of them below Council Room and some slightly above it.

[Beyond Awesome]

You are entitled to your opinion Aleimon, although, I do think we should wait until after everyone has finished ranking before discussing what we voted.


However, Council Room is good not just because it draws, but it also provides +Buy. It accomplishes two goals that an engine needs. The extra card draw really is not that bad for what you get.

Also, Champion is good, but Chapel changes the game dramatically. It may very well be the most powerful card in Dominion. The Page line doesn't come close to the power of Chapel.

[terminalCopper]

You are entitled to your opinion Aleimon, although, I do think we should wait until after everyone has finished ranking before discussing what we voted.

I don't think we have to close this forum until everyone has finished ranking.

[Awaclus]

Counting House is one of the most underrated cards in the game imo. Sure, on some boards it's terrible, but on others it's absolutely amazing. Especially in slogs, combos and in Colony games, Counting House is a force to be reckoned with. Even in some engines with good sifters/discarders it can be pretty useful. I have never understood why it is so universally accepted as the worst $5 card.

While technically true, "on some boards it's terrible, but on others it's absolutely amazing" is pretty misleading. A better way to put it would be something like "on almost every board it's terrible, but on the rest, it's absolutely amazing". The "engines with good sifters" is the main way the card is useful, and it doesn't sound like you're underestimating how often that happens either.

[werothegreat]

If I have a board with Worker's Village, Coppersmith, Vault, Counting House, no really strong cards otherwise, and maybe a couple more Villages, for sure I'm buying a Counting House.  But you need to line all that stuff up.  And there are usually Attacks and things that are more worth your time.

Counting House/Travelling Fair is a BEAST.  It is a legitimate combo.

[LastFootnote]

If I have a board with Worker's Village, Coppersmith, Vault, Counting House, no really strong cards otherwise, and maybe a couple more Villages, for sure I'm buying a Counting House.  But you need to line all that stuff up.  And there are usually Attacks and things that are more worth your time.

Counting House/Travelling Fair is a BEAST.  It is a legitimate combo.

I think trying to combo Counting House and Coppersmith is usually a losing proposition, even with Workers' Village. Better to just use Counting House.

The "engines with good sifters" is the main way [Counting House] is useful

I don't buy that for a minute.

[Mic Qsenoch]

I think the only really good Counting House things are Mountebank + Colonies (or some similarly junky Colony game) or the Travelling Fair thing (which I have only solitaired, never tried against a competing strategy). The enginey stuff takes a lot (a lot) of support and Counting House engines are usually horribly inconsistent unless you also have Scheme or other trickery, I don't think I have ever played one (excepting designed kingdoms). When you have that kind of support it's difficult for Counting House to be the best thing to do.

If you are using Counting House for $, it's really hard for Silvers/Golds (or actions with +$) not to be better.

[Hugovj]

I have tried Travelling Fair, but I don't remember the results with CH  I only remember finding it really fun to play, so.. Yeah...

[werothegreat]

If I have a board with Worker's Village, Coppersmith, Vault, Counting House, no really strong cards otherwise, and maybe a couple more Villages, for sure I'm buying a Counting House.  But you need to line all that stuff up.  And there are usually Attacks and things that are more worth your time.

Counting House/Travelling Fair is a BEAST.  It is a legitimate combo.

I think trying to combo Counting House and Coppersmith is usually a losing proposition, even with Workers' Village. Better to just use Counting House.

Vault is the key addition here - drop all the Coppers, redraw them with CH, etc.  Though even that might not be enough.

[Awaclus]

The enginey stuff takes a lot (a lot) of support and Counting House engines are usually horribly inconsistent unless you also have Scheme or other trickery, I don't think I have ever played one (excepting designed kingdoms). When you have that kind of support it's difficult for Counting House to be the best thing to do.

Not really, you just need awesome payload (awesome enough that it doesn't matter how inconsistent your engine is) and no other draw. Sometimes you might even want Counting House without any sifting just to remove Coppers from your discard pile.

[Aleimon Thimble]

You are entitled to your opinion Aleimon, although, I do think we should wait until after everyone has finished ranking before discussing what we voted.

I actually posted some of my more controversial opinions with the sole intention to spark some discussion, because nobody else did it but I find the discussion interesting. I do not specifically intend to actually influence other people's votes with this. For all I care everyone can vote Council Room in the top half and Counting House dead last again, if they think that's more accurate. But isn't discussing about the cards' strength part of the fun?

[iguanaiguana]

You are entitled to your opinion Aleimon, although, I do think we should wait until after everyone has finished ranking before discussing what we voted.

I actually posted some of my more controversial opinions with the sole intention to spark some discussion, because nobody else did it but I find the discussion interesting. I do not specifically intend to actually influence other people's votes with this. For all I care everyone can vote Council Room in the top half and Counting House dead last again, if they think that's more accurate. But isn't discussing about the cards' strength part of the fun?

Personally I don't see any reason to put counting house dead last as long as stash still technically exists.

[markusin]

Regarding CR, #76 sounds like last place or almost last place to me, meaning that there are quite a few very bad cards in front of it which I can't quite understand, considering how many bad card there are. I agree that both Governor and Lost City are stronger for the same penalty, but +4cards is still really strong and if it's the only draw, you probably lose ignoring it, which can not be said about other 5costs

I disagree with the idea that there are many bad cards on the $5 card list. Most $5 cards are really strong and only a select few of them are relatively mediocre. I think Council Room is one of them. That doesn't mean it's weak; it's still stronger than most $4 cards, but at the $5 price point there are so many better cards.

(For the record, #76 is seventh worst. Meh, it may be just slightly too low, I don't know.)

Looks like you need to play some more Base Set Adventures on Dominion Online with Council Room.

But seriously, Council Room provides lots of draw and +buy. It helps your opponent do so as well though. The idea is that your extra +buy and cards makes your payload stronger than that of your opponent who doesn't use Council Room.

Oh yeah Lost City is probably better, so simply rate Lost City higher.

Also Mine is funny because the first game engine shows how it's good, but in practice it's one of the only boards where it's good, or rather better than your other options.

I wouldn't put Counting House last on the $5's.

[funkdoc]

also, i think the $4s may be the most interesting group to debate. a good number of cards that have fallen (sea hag) or risen (remake, herald, ironmonger) as the game's evolved.

personally i don't see much of an argument for herald over wandering minstrel. WM just does so much to accelerate your deck in the early going (whereas herald struggles with the junk cards), and it's *especially* key for engines without trashing.  the latter is big in my mind, as i've come to see those as some of the main games that separate top players from the rest.  heck, i'd probably put ironmonger above herald just because of how much better it is at the beginning - i'm finding that the early game matters more than the end, more often than not.

[wachsmuth]

Can you vote if you play only on Making Fun and not Goko? (I guess Making Fun doesn't have a proper search function yet, so actually finding one's username is difficult...)

I started playing only recently, and seeing as Goko is shutting down, not much point in starting that 

[Qvist]

Can you vote if you play only on Making Fun and not Goko? (I guess Making Fun doesn't have a proper search function yet, so actually finding one's username is difficult...)

I started playing only recently, and seeing as Goko is shutting down, not much point in starting that 

You can, I have to just assume Level 0 then, because the rating is weighted based on the level.

[Aleimon Thimble]

Can you vote if you play only on Making Fun and not Goko? (I guess Making Fun doesn't have a proper search function yet, so actually finding one's username is difficult...)

I started playing only recently, and seeing as Goko is shutting down, not much point in starting that 

You can, I have to just assume Level 0 then, because the rating is weighted based on the level.

I've never really played competitive on Goko either, but I'm rated 4300ish on Making Fun..

Maybe I should play some games on Goko before the end of the month..

[Roadrunner7671]

Can you vote if you play only on Making Fun and not Goko? (I guess Making Fun doesn't have a proper search function yet, so actually finding one's username is difficult...)

I started playing only recently, and seeing as Goko is shutting down, not much point in starting that 

You can, I have to just assume Level 0 then, because the rating is weighted based on the level.

I've never really played competitive on Goko either, but I'm rated 4300ish on Making Fun..

Maybe I should play some games on Goko before the end of the month..

Before tomorrow you mean 

RIP Goko

[funkdoc]

my early prediction of sea hag as the card that will drop the most from the previous ranking is looking good so far

wonder if i'll be the high vote on urchin.  hint: i have it sandwiched in between ambassador & steward

[assemble_me]

my early prediction of sea hag as the card that will drop the most from the previous ranking is looking good so far

wonder if i'll be the high vote on urchin.  hint: i have it sandwiched in between ambassador & steward

It's not so clear. Guilds was still pretty new when the last voting came out, and the newer cards tend to be more over/underrated. I think I have Doctor a lot lower than it was in the last rating.
Also some Dark Ages cards may make big jumps up- or downwards. I also expect Urchin to be much higher than last time. I also have it right after Ambassador . I think I stated somewhere else that I expect it in the top 5, and I still do so despite Adventures.

... and I still have Sea Hag quite high.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Now I feel dumb because I've ranked Sea Hag #1 among -cards  Could anyone explain to me please why it's not that good anymore? Which recent developments have caused its drop in ranking?

[Burning Skull]

Now I feel dumb because I've ranked Sea Hag #1 among -cards  Could anyone explain to me please why it's not that good anymore? Which recent developments have caused its drop in ranking?

It's still pretty brutal and often must buy. But with more and more expansions there are more and more ways of dealing with its attack. Since it doesn't provide you any profit except hurting your opponent, it is often faster to go for trashing instead of Hag, in case such trashing is available.

[funkdoc]

Now I feel dumb because I've ranked Sea Hag #1 among -cards  Could anyone explain to me please why it's not that good anymore? Which recent developments have caused its drop in ranking?

in addition to what burning skull said, there are also more cards that can sift through curses, e.g. journeyman.  and i think part of it is that, as i've alluded to earlier here, people have gotten better at making engines work with some junk in their deck.  if the only trashing available is something like trade route or develop or expand, then sea hag is definitely still strong.  it's just not uncommon to have decent enough trashing to deal with it.

i'd say young witch is clearly better because that +2 cards is such a big deal, especially since the discard is barely a punishment early in the game.  i think newer players tend to think the bane element is more of a problem than it really is.

i almost certainly have young witch too high and sea hag too low in my current rankings, though - i did the card-dueling thing to make all of my lists and the $4s ended up a bit wacky.  guess i could just switch to manual listing to fix those few things!

[AdamH]

I believe I did a great job of explaining it here (I am me, though, so I'm probably biased).

It's still pretty brutal and often must buy.

"Often" doesn't seem like the word for me. I think she's ignorable on over 50% of boards.

OK, OK, she's not "ignorable". I mean, look at that pink hair in the moonlight; really, how do you ignore that? She's so hott. Oh baby oh.

[Burning Skull]

It's still pretty brutal and often must buy.

"Often" doesn't seem like the word for me. I think she's ignorable on over 50% of boards.

I am not a native English speaker, but always thought that 50% pretty mush falls into "often" category

[LastFootnote]

It's still pretty brutal and often must buy.

"Often" doesn't seem like the word for me. I think she's ignorable on over 50% of boards.

I am not a native English speaker, but always thought that 50% pretty mush falls into "often" category

Well that depends on the context. If you usually buy more than half the Kingdom cards in a Kingdom, then a card that you only buy in 50% of the games it appears in is pretty weak. But if you buy less than half of the Kingdom cards, then a card you buy in 50% of games is strong.

[AdamH]

It's still pretty brutal and often must buy.

"Often" doesn't seem like the word for me. I think she's ignorable on over 50% of boards.

I am not a native English speaker, but always thought that 50% pretty mush falls into "often" category

Touché

I have my own clear definitions in my head of lots of nonsense terms that probably don't help anyone except for me. I've heard they're entertaining to listen to. Allow me to present an abbreviated, ordered list of some of these terms:

Super-wak
Totes lame-o
SUPER-annoying
Worst thing ever
Wak
Super-lame
Irritating
Nombo
Unfortunate
Annoying
Lame
Not a thing
Mildly unfortunate
Suboptimal
Mildly annoying
Meh
Whatevs
Kbrah
Play well together
Cute
Marginal
Bros for life
Synergy
Actually good
Bros 4lyfe
BWAAAAAHHHHH!!!!
Super-Neato
Combo
Totes amazeballs
Combo-rific
Best thing ever
Bonkers-sauce
Super-ridic
[unintelligible squeeing]

[werothegreat]

I unthinkingly rated Ghost Ship higher than Wharf and I think that may have skewed my ratings.

[Beyond Awesome]

also, i think the $4s may be the most interesting group to debate. a good number of cards that have fallen (sea hag) or risen (remake, herald, ironmonger) as the game's evolved.

personally i don't see much of an argument for herald over wandering minstrel. WM just does so much to accelerate your deck in the early going (whereas herald struggles with the junk cards), and it's *especially* key for engines without trashing.  the latter is big in my mind, as i've come to see those as some of the main games that separate top players from the rest.  heck, i'd probably put ironmonger above herald just because of how much better it is at the beginning - i'm finding that the early game matters more than the end, more often than not.

I'm going to put this out there. Despite what AdamH says about Sea Hag, I still ranked it #1 for $4 cards. Contrary to popular belief, cursing is still really good even with good trashing. Now, I know Adam shares an opinion different than mine, but my experience with Sea Hag is that the card is really good unless MB or Witch or something else that costs $5 is on the board.

[GwinnR]

First: Thanks a lot again for this great job!

Second: Some questions...
1) If I am only doing the duells with all cards, does it get the other lists automaticly?
2) Is there a rule, which card is on the left or right site? E.g. the card, which is now higher ranked is on the right site?
3) When I do a duell, there is sometimes a big change in the whole list. How does this work? Is there a thing like Buchholz (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feinwertung#Buchholz-Wertung)?

[Qvist]

First: Thanks a lot again for this great job!

Second: Some questions...
1) If I am only doing the duells with all cards, does it get the other lists automaticly?
2) Is there a rule, which card is on the left or right site? E.g. the card, which is now higher ranked is on the right site?
3) When I do a duell, there is sometimes a big change in the whole list. How does this work? Is there a thing like Buchholz (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feinwertung#Buchholz-Wertung)?

1) Yes, but of course only the kingdom cards. You have to rank Ruins, Knights and Prizes individually.
2) The left card is the card with the highest "uncertainty value" and the right card is its fitting duel partner based on several criteria.
3) Not sure how to explain it. It calculates a percentage value based on how many cards are above and how many cards are below that card. If you rank now A>B and B is already better than C, D, E and F, then it adds all the cards B-F to the list of cards which are below the card and therefore the percentage value is much higher and it rises in the list.

[Roadrunner7671]

Did mine go through? I didn't see a 'turn in' button, so I just left my rankings as they were.

[Qvist]

Did mine go through? I didn't see a 'turn in' button, so I just left my rankings as they were.

It's fine. There isn't a "turn in" button. You can adjust your rating until the deadline.

[Roadrunner7671]

Did mine go through? I didn't see a 'turn in' button, so I just left my rankings as they were.

It's fine. There isn't a "turn in" button. You can adjust your rating until the deadline.

Thanks!

[assemble_me]

3) When I do a duell, there is sometimes a big change in the whole list. How does this work? Is there a thing like Buchholz (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feinwertung#Buchholz-Wertung)?

3) Not sure how to explain it. It calculates a percentage value based on how many cards are above and how many cards are below that card. If you rank now A>B and B is already better than C, D, E and F, then it adds all the cards B-F to the list of cards which are below the card and therefore the percentage value is much higher and it rises in the list.

It should be in average n * log (n) although my code might certainly not be optimal. That's roughly 160 comparisms for the biggest list ($5).

You said n*log(n) comparisons, so I guess the duels just work like a Quicksort.

[terminalCopper]

Did mine go through? I didn't see a 'turn in' button, so I just left my rankings as they were.

Rankings with Scout above the bottom 3 are automatically refused.

[Roadrunner7671]

Did mine go through? I didn't see a 'turn in' button, so I just left my rankings as they were.

Rankings with Scout above the bottom 3 are automatically refused.

 

[Hugovj]

Scout is awesome in Intrigue- Act 1, game 4, I believe. You'll like it.

[werothegreat]

If you want to see a "Scout" that actually works, look no further than Cartographer.

[Roadrunner7671]

Okay, I have another question. I am doing the head to head rank mode, but I have also clicked on the 'switch rank mode' button. How do you rank the cards using the list rank mode?

[drsteelhammer]

drag and drop

[Roadrunner7671]

drag and drop

Oh. Thanks. Now I feel a tad stupid, let's see how it works.

And drsteelhammer, you have given me the power to rank Scout #1 effortlessly. You have created a monster.

[GwinnR]

Doing the duells, I feel, that I'd like to compare Silver, Gold etc. as well. Especially for the 3$-list it would be interesting to know, which cards are ranked below Silver.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Doing the duells, I feel, that I'd like to compare Silver, Gold etc. as well. Especially for the 3$-list it would be interesting to know, which cards are ranked below Silver.

You cannot compare individual Kingdom cards to basic cards like Silver without context. You evaluate each card in a hypothetical average Kingdom and then compare with other cards in the same average Kingdom. Since Silver is in EVERY Kingdom, it influences hypothetical Kingdoms in no way.

[Beyond Awesome]

Maybe next time we will vote silver. Silver is a tricky card to rate though. It would be interesting though if everyone gave it a similar rank.

[GwinnR]

Doing the duells, I feel, that I'd like to compare Silver, Gold etc. as well. Especially for the 3$-list it would be interesting to know, which cards are ranked below Silver.

You cannot compare individual Kingdom cards to basic cards like Silver without context. You evaluate each card in a hypothetical average Kingdom and then compare with other cards in the same average Kingdom. Since Silver is in EVERY Kingdom, it influences hypothetical Kingdoms in no way.

I think you can see the duell as the question: "In the average Kingdom, do you want a Silver or the other card?" And I think this is a legitimate question, because it is the same question, we ask yet ("In the average Kingdom, do you want card X or card Y?".

[Tables]

You said on the website that you won't use our results if we you can't find our names on Goko... is that old Goko or new Goko? And either way I'm not 100% certain I'll be found, considering I haven't played multiplayer online in a while. Can I just get some reassurance that my results are going to at least count the minimum amount regardless of this? Username is Tables on both old and new client.

[iguanaiguana]

You said on the website that you won't use our results if we you can't find our names on Goko... is that old Goko or new Goko? And either way I'm not 100% certain I'll be found, considering I haven't played multiplayer online in a while. Can I just get some reassurance that my results are going to at least count the minimum amount regardless of this? Username is Tables on both old and new client.

Isotropish rankings on the old client never decayed or forgot about anyone who played a game.

This sort of thing doesn't exist for making fun as they don't seem to be aware of why anyone would want a leaderboard like that.

[Tables]

Oh, okay, great.

One more quick question, then. Can I still submit rankings even if I don't go all the way to the very end? I know it means a few cards might be slightly out of position, but really I think once I get far enough through that the duels are deciding where Village is in the range from 81 to 85*, it barely matters any more.

*Not implying that's where Village would end up, just an example.

[Qvist]

You said on the website that you won't use our results if we you can't find our names on Goko... is that old Goko or new Goko? And either way I'm not 100% certain I'll be found, considering I haven't played multiplayer online in a while. Can I just get some reassurance that my results are going to at least count the minimum amount regardless of this? Username is Tables on both old and new client.

I'm using the old Goko, since it has the most significant leaderboard and I'm using the full leaderboard where everyone is in no matter how long you haven't played.

Oh, okay, great.

One more quick question, then. Can I still submit rankings even if I don't go all the way to the very end? I know it means a few cards might be slightly out of position, but really I think once I get far enough through that the duels are deciding where Village is in the range from 81 to 85*, it barely matters any more.

*Not implying that's where Village would end up, just an example.

Sure.

[iamsparticus]

Thanks for setting this up. A minor question, why did you decide to include the event cards in with the kingdom cards? I would personally prefer them to have separate rankings, though them having comparable cost points with kingdom cards makes sense as to why you could include them as a whole.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I'm sad because I want to do this but I don't know if I'll have a chance to finish by the end of the month (it's a busy month and I don't have a working computer at the moment).

[Qvist]

Thanks for setting this up. A minor question, why did you decide to include the event cards in with the kingdom cards? I would personally prefer them to have separate rankings, though them having comparable cost points with kingdom cards makes sense as to why you could include them as a whole.

It was the general consensus to both have them included and have them separate.

[Tables]

Erm, I broke the site (for myself). I clicked on the events tab after having ignored all events, and now I'm stuck on a page that just says:

Fatal error: Call to a member function getPrev() on a non-object in /kunden/418812_74740/webseiten/dommesh/class.Graph.php on line 175

Or basically, it doesn't know what to do because there's no events to get.

[Qvist]

Erm, I broke the site (for myself). I clicked on the events tab after having ignored all events, and now I'm stuck on a page that just says:

Fatal error: Call to a member function getPrev() on a non-object in /kunden/418812_74740/webseiten/dommesh/class.Graph.php on line 175

Or basically, it doesn't know what to do because there's no events to get.

Should be fixed. Try it again.

[Beyond Awesome]

Thanks for setting this up. A minor question, why did you decide to include the event cards in with the kingdom cards? I would personally prefer them to have separate rankings, though them having comparable cost points with kingdom cards makes sense as to why you could include them as a whole.

A list can always be compiled thai just subtracts them. So no real reason not to vote them

[aku_chi]

Hi, Qvist.  I have been enjoying myself recently ranking cards; thank you for the website.  I've used the card duels to start my rankings and then massaged the remaining list manually.  I did this for each cost and then the Events and complete lists.

Recently, however, I've encountered a frustration that I don't know how to deal with.  I wanted to re-arrange a couple cards in the 5-cost list.  So, I switched to the list-based rank mode, made my change, and saved.  However, now I see several cards in the wrong position (radically wrong, in some cases).  Every time I try to remedy this with the list-based form, something else gets messed up?  I thought that the list-based rank mode would be authoritative.  What can I do to get the rankings I prefer?

[Qvist]

I tried several hours to fix this, it's not easy without changing a lot of general code. Not sure how to explain it, but you apparently voted for cards under "All Kingdom Cards" and now that you reorder cards under the $5 list you created loops (e.g. you voted A>B>C where A and C are $5 cards and B is a card with a different cost, and then you vote C>D and D>A). My code solves this by deleting an old vote. The problem here is that it deletes a vote that is part of the newly submitted ordered list (in the example it deletes C>D) instead of an even older vote. As I said, I think about it a bit how to solve it, so sorry I can't offer an immediate fix. You either 1.) have to only use the duel mode, or 2.) delete all previous votes of a list and submit only the ordered list in list-based rank mode or 3.) not use the app if it's too much hassle for you and send me your vote via PM.

[Deadlock39]

Qvist,

I encountered a bug where the site asked me to rank a card against itself.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Enough with the Mine/Mint jokes already, you illiterate dimwits!

[AdamH]

Just ranked $4 cards. I'm not sure why I feel compelled to share this, but HERE I AM!!!

I sat there thinking about Throne Room vs. Ironmonger for like 4 minutes. Another few minutes for Remake vs. Jack.

I ranked Jack first. I couldn't not do it <3 <3

Sea Hag is at 35 out of 65 (I skipped Tournament obvs)

[Roadrunner7671]

Just ranked $4 cards. I'm not sure why I feel compelled to share this, but HERE I AM!!!

I sat there thinking about Throne Room vs. Ironmonger for like 4 minutes. Another few minutes for Remake vs. Jack.

I ranked Jack first. I couldn't not do it <3 <3

Sea Hag is at 35 out of 65 (I skipped Tournament obvs)

And the noble yet underused Scout?

[Hugovj]

Dead last. Only place it can have.

[Roadrunner7671]

Dead last. Only place it can have.

I wasn't asking you 

[AdamH]

Just finished my lists. Apparently King's Court is 4th in the $6+ cards. I didn't think it would be that low, but I'm happy with that. Man, Events are really stinking good.

I remember doing a list of "favorites" before, I assume that's not happening this time, so I don't think I'm going to do the all cards list -- that's going to take forever.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Do my rankings still count for something if I didn't finish all of the card duels for that category? (wondering if I should do some of each category or focus on finishing one more category, cause I got through the 2s and 3s and I think I might be past halfway on the 4s, so I wanted to do a little bit of the 5s & 6s too if they'd count.)


PS: stinkin. I've gotten the title I've been dreading. I don't wanna be a witch. I'll just have to post a lot until get the next title.

[Chris is me]

Oh shit these are due really soon. I've really got to get to work on these.

I've been playing a lot of games with Events to try and learn them all to rank them accurately, and man Events are super fucking good. Just played a game where I opened Ferry / Hireling and got a 9 card hand every turn in no time, then picked up a bunch of $5 cost Expands to make a bunch of Provinces on a megaturn. Before that I played a game with Pathfinding where I turned Magpie into a super-Laboratory that gained copies of itself. And of course there's always Lost Arts combined with any terminal draw.

[AdamH]

Oh shit these are due really soon. I've really got to get to work on these.

I've been playing a lot of games with Events to try and learn them all to rank them accurately, and man Events are super fucking good. Just played a game where I opened Ferry / Hireling and got a 9 card hand every turn in no time, then picked up a bunch of $5 cost Expands to make a bunch of Provinces on a megaturn. Before that I played a game with Pathfinding where I turned Magpie into a super-Laboratory that gained copies of itself. And of course there's always Lost Arts combined with any terminal draw.

Those token events are super strong because you only have to spend one buy on them and you get the effect for the rest of the game. With something like King's Court, you need lots of them in your deck to really start to do broken things and that's expensive, but I put two events above King's Court this time and felt pretty good about it.

I also put Goons above KC. I'm not sure if I had done that in the past...

[drsteelhammer]

I agree with Lost Arts and Pathfinding to be really, really high but do you have training up there aswell? In my ranking, it's close to the bottom so far.

And inheritance is the total wildcard for me, I'm completely unsure how to rank that one. (It's pretty far up so far)

[AdamH]

It was Inheritance and Lost Arts that were above King's Court. Pathfinding was like 60-70% and Training was towards the bottom.

[assemble_me]

Training seems good but not like "OMG broken" good which is where we're at with King's Court.
Like drsteelhammer, I had really big problems to imagine how good Inheritance is and I'm quite baffled you put it over KC.
I still have KC first - I just can't believe we'll ever have a better Dominion card - followed by Pathfinding and Lost Arts with Goons only on 4, Inheritance and Training are somewhere in the mid field.

[Limetime]

Here's my list

1.) King's Court   [X]
2.) Goons   [X]
3.) Lost Arts   [X]
4.) Pathfinding   [X]
5.) Grand Market   [X]
6.) Hunting Grounds   [X]
7.) Border Village   [X]
8.) Inheritance   [X]
9.) Training   [X]
10.) Altar   [X]
11.) Hireling   [X]
12.) Forge   [X]
13.) Nobles   [X]
14.) Expand   [X]
15.) Bank   [X]
16.) Prince   [X]
17.) Hoard   [X]
18.) Harem   [X]
19.) Peddler   [X]
20.) Adventurer   [X]

[AdamH]

OK OK, I guess I'll post my list. This list is harder than others obvo because there are differing costs in this list, so you have to take that into account. Like, Pathfinding is really good but $8 is like so many dollars, man.

1.) Lost Arts   [X]
2.) Goons   [X]
3.) Inheritance   [X]
4.) King's Court   [X]
5.) Grand Market   [X]
6.) Hunting Grounds   [X]
7.) Pathfinding   [X]
8.) Fairgrounds   [X]
9.) Hireling   [X]
10.) Peddler   [X]
11.) Forge   [X]
12.) Altar   [X]
13.) Prince   [X]
14.) Border Village   [X]
15.) Expand   [X]
16.) Bank   [X]
17.) Hoard   [X]
18.) Training   [X]
19.) Nobles   [X]
20.) Farmland   [X]
21.) Harem   [X]
22.) Adventurer   [X]

[assemble_me]

... at least we agree on the last three, Adam, although I still have Harem > Farmland

[werothegreat]

I'm sorry, Adam, but "dollars" are not a fungible asset in the land of Dominion.  Perhaps you'd like to visit the currency exchange?

[AdamH]

... at least we agree on the last three, Adam, although I still have Harem > Farmland

I sat there thinking for a long time on that particular duel, actually. I figured Harem's money is much less conditional than Farmland's (I often say that Farmland is like a Silver that's only good for buying Provinces), but Farmland's on-gain ability is more flexible than Harem's. After like 3 minutes I decided it wasn't worth thinking about any longer and went with the one that I buy more often, which is Farmland.

[BraveBear]

I signed in as my name, did my list through dueling, then adjusted a little, then saved at the bottom.  Did this for each cost.

Question is that all I have to do?  or do I need to save my complete list, or copy and paste and send it to you?  just want to make sure my rankings get added in because I have been a long time fan of your rankings Qvist and this is the first time I am ranking.  Thank you!

[microman]

Here is my list, for what it's worth.  It's interesting to see how many of us who have lots of experience playing with most of these cards, can still differ quite a bit on certain cards.  I think different playing styles and special encounters with a specific card, really factor in to that.Your ranking

1.) Goons   [X]
2.) King's Court   [X]
3.) Lost Arts   [X]
4.) Pathfinding   [X]
5.) Prince   [X]
6.) Grand Market   [X]
7.) Inheritance   [X]
8.) Nobles   [X]
9.) Border Village   [X]
10.) Hoard   [X]
11.) Hunting Grounds   [X]
12.) Hireling   [X]
13.) Peddler   [X]
14.) Training   [X]
15.) Bank   [X]
16.) Altar   [X]
17.) Forge   [X]
18.) Expand   [X]
19.) Fairgrounds   [X]
20.) Harem   [X]
21.) Farmland   [X]
22.) Adventurer   [X]

[GwinnR]

Why does nobody have Possession in the top list? I know, it is very expensive, but that shouldn't matter in this ranking. And another whole turn is great, especially, if you can get more than one of them.

[werothegreat]

Why does nobody have Possession in the top list? I know, it is very expensive, but that shouldn't matter in this ranking. And another whole turn is great, especially, if you can get more than one of them.

Possession does not cost +.  It costs .  Therefore it goes in the list.

[GwinnR]

Why does nobody have Possession in the top list? I know, it is very expensive, but that shouldn't matter in this ranking. And another whole turn is great, especially, if you can get more than one of them.

Possession does not cost +.  It costs .  Therefore it goes in the list.

Are this the 6+-lists? I thought, they were the list with all cards...

[Qvist]

Do my rankings still count for something if I didn't finish all of the card duels for that category?

Your lists count even if you didn't finish all the lists.

I signed in as my name, did my list through dueling, then adjusted a little, then saved at the bottom.  Did this for each cost.

Question is that all I have to do?  or do I need to save my complete list, or copy and paste and send it to you?  just want to make sure my rankings get added in because I have been a long time fan of your rankings Qvist and this is the first time I am ranking.  Thank you!

Yeah, that's all you have to do.

[drsteelhammer]

Why does nobody have Possession in the top list? I know, it is very expensive, but that shouldn't matter in this ranking. And another whole turn is great, especially, if you can get more than one of them.

Possession does not cost +.  It costs .  Therefore it goes in the list.

Are this the 6+-lists? I thought, they were the list with all cards...

Yes, we were discussing the 6+ list. But Possession hasn't been near the top for the potion cards the last years, so I doubt it'd be on top overall now.

[GwinnR]

Ok, if everyone posts his list, then I'll do the same ;-)

1.) King's Court   [X]
2.) Grand Market   [X]
3.) Goons   [X]
4.) Pathfinding   [X]
5.) Hireling   [X]
6.) Prince   [X]
7.) Inheritance   [X]
8.) Lost Arts   [X]
9.) Bank   [X]
10.) Altar   [X]
11.) Expand   [X]
12.) Nobles   [X]
13.) Hoard   [X]
14.) Training   [X]
15.) Hunting Grounds   [X]
16.) Forge   [X]
17.) Fairgrounds   [X]
18.) Border Village   [X]
19.) Harem   [X]
20.) Adventurer   [X]
21.) Farmland   [X]
22.) Peddler   [X]

[Chris is me]

Why does nobody have Possession in the top list? I know, it is very expensive, but that shouldn't matter in this ranking. And another whole turn is great, especially, if you can get more than one of them.

Possession does not cost +.  It costs .  Therefore it goes in the list.

To be completely pedantic, 6P is more than 6, and thus Possession does cost 6+. So for example if you bought Possession with Haggler you could gain a Gold. However, the intent of the list clearly was not to include Potion cards.

[Tables]

I think I have Possession somewhere around... 7th or 8th on my Potion list. Above Transmute and Philosopher's Stone, naturally. Not sure exactly what else is hovering around its level. It's got a few cases where it's really good, but it costs so much (especially if there's no other Potion cards) and normally isn't too crazy. Plus, most of the Potion cards are really good, so it's up against stiff competition.

[Beyond Awesome]

I think I have Possession somewhere around... 7th or 8th on my Potion list. Above Transmute and Philosopher's Stone, naturally. Not sure exactly what else is hovering around its level. It's got a few cases where it's really good, but it costs so much (especially if there's no other Potion cards) and normally isn't too crazy. Plus, most of the Potion cards are really good, so it's up against stiff competition.

I think the biggest issue is that when Possession tends to be good, it is also super swingy like KC Possession or having Amb. out. For example, yesterday, I played an Ambassador game with lots of engine components, got Possession, but my opponent managed to Amb. my Possession to him, and I kept rebuying it, but he accumulated enough Possessions to stop me from doing anything. Essentially, I am saying the card is not worth buying at all, or can be a very swingy card. Although KC games with Possession or with Amb. I guess aren't too common.

[assemble_me]

Yes, the other potion cards are just too good. I have Possession on #7, too, right before Golem. But I can see a point in doing it the other way around. The gap between 6 and 7 is quite big in my mind, though.

Just checked 2013 and 2014: Possession was on #8 in both years.

[SCSN]

I have it on 5:

Code: [Select]

1.) Scrying Pool
2.) Familiar
3.) Vineyard
4.) Apothecary
5.) Possession
6.) Golem
7.) Alchemist
8.) University
9.) Philosopher's Stone
10.) Transmute
I find that ranking the 5s is a big chore... the top and bottom is fun, but all those cards in the middle, man, I'm almost inclined to just let them be where they are.

[iguanaiguana]

I have it on 5:

Code: [Select]

1.) Scrying Pool
2.) Familiar
3.) Vineyard
4.) Apothecary
5.) Possession
6.) Golem
7.) Alchemist
8.) University
9.) Philosopher's Stone
10.) Transmute
I find that ranking the 5s is a big chore... the top and bottom is fun, but all those cards in the middle, man, I'm almost inclined to just let them be where they are.

How can I best provoke you into saying something sardonic and witty about why you have university so low?

[Awaclus]

I find that ranking the 5s is a big chore... the top and bottom is fun, but all those cards in the middle, man, I'm almost inclined to just let them be where they are.

That's pretty much what I did. I switched to the drag and drop mode, carefully thought about the top and the bottom, and then just dragged the rest of the cards somewhere close enough.

[jsh357]

I have it on 5:

Code: [Select]

1.) Scrying Pool
2.) Familiar
3.) Vineyard
4.) Apothecary
5.) Possession
6.) Golem
7.) Alchemist
8.) University
9.) Philosopher's Stone
10.) Transmute
I find that ranking the 5s is a big chore... the top and bottom is fun, but all those cards in the middle, man, I'm almost inclined to just let them be where they are.

How can I best provoke you into saying something sardonic and witty about why you have university so low?

It's that low because it's less good than the cards above it most of the time

[iguanaiguana]

I have it on 5:

Code: [Select]

1.) Scrying Pool
2.) Familiar
3.) Vineyard
4.) Apothecary
5.) Possession
6.) Golem
7.) Alchemist
8.) University
9.) Philosopher's Stone
10.) Transmute
I find that ranking the 5s is a big chore... the top and bottom is fun, but all those cards in the middle, man, I'm almost inclined to just let them be where they are.

How can I best provoke you into saying something sardonic and witty about why you have university so low?

It's that low because it's less good than the cards above it most of the time

So is Uni an overrated card? I feel like most people put it above possession/alchemist/golem.

The more I play with golem the more I don't like it. The only way I'm getting one is because it made an engine possible where otherwise I was just going to be playing big money and that's it.

So yeah I'm pretty confident having uni on 5 and golem on 8

[assemble_me]

The more I play with golem the more I don't like it. The only way I'm getting one is because it made an engine possible where otherwise I was just going to be playing big money and that's it.

Sometimes the Golem + two terminals deck is a thing. These days I had one with two Mountebanks and I'm convinced it was better than trying to build an engine (because that didn't really work out)

[jsh357]

I certainly think University is good sometimes, but it's a bad village without draw to X and takes several turns before you can actually gain cards with it since you need to buy a potion, buy University, draw University, then play it, then you can eventually play the gained cards. That takes several turns most of the time. You can see how it's slow. Alchemist and Golem give you a direct benefit right away; Alchemist can be the backbone of your draw engine, which is often better than having a gainer; Golem can be a better village than University and allows you to play more cards guaranteed as long as there are enough actions in your deck. Possession has a huge effect on how the game is played, even if nobody actually buys it. Pool, Apo, Vineyard, and Familiar to me are all obviously in a higher tier. These are the types of reasoning I used in placing University in the same spot SCSN did. I see a lot of players go for University without good reason to. It definitely looks more useful than it often is.

[SCSN]

How can I best provoke you into saying something sardonic and witty about why you have university so low?

I don't have much to say other than that University is a good card but those above it are even better!

Thinking a bit more: the best thing in Dominion is generally to reliably draw your deck each turn and play all actions you have (which should also be the best actions you could have). Cards that really help you do this (Wharf, Chapel) or prevent your opponent from doing this (Cultist, Witch) are very strong; cards that sit in the way without doing much of anything (Harvest, Cache) are very weak.

University lets you gain 5 costs, which is obviously great, but unless these 5-costs are spammable and actively help you to increase deck-drawing reliability (say Wharf, Lab, Governor, Minion—when these are on the board University is fantastic) you don't want to gain a bunch of 5 costs indiscriminately, and then there is the underestimated cost of University itself, which doesn't just require getting a Potion and having it floating around in your deck, but the University itself prevents you from drawing other cards. Sure it's a village, but you don't go around spamming Squires either (well, some people do, but it's generally very bad).

To give an example: if you start your hand with University-Smithy, you end up increasing its size by 1, whereas this would have been 2 had the University been an ordinary Village. So another way to look at it—a way I imagine Mic will absolutely love—is that every time you play University, you cost yourself an immediate lab-effect relative to playing a normal village.

Of course there are some solid counter-arguments that I'd happily agree with, but I'm not claiming that I'd rather have a Village than a University, I'm just saying that this is a factor you'd easily overlook if you haven't built a ton of engines and developed an awareness for the different building speeds these cards bring with them.

[markusin]

I have it on 5:

Code: [Select]

1.) Scrying Pool
2.) Familiar
3.) Vineyard
4.) Apothecary
5.) Possession
6.) Golem
7.) Alchemist
8.) University
9.) Philosopher's Stone
10.) Transmute
I find that ranking the 5s is a big chore... the top and bottom is fun, but all those cards in the middle, man, I'm almost inclined to just let them be where they are.

How can I best provoke you into saying something sardonic and witty about why you have university so low?

It's that low because it's less good than the cards above it most of the time

So is Uni an overrated card? I feel like most people put it above possession/alchemist/golem.

The more I play with golem the more I don't like it. The only way I'm getting one is because it made an engine possible where otherwise I was just going to be playing big money and that's it.

So yeah I'm pretty confident having uni on 5 and golem on 8

Is University overrated? For me, the short answer is yes.

You have to add the Potion and the Necropolis Universities to your deck while getting those action cards. You have to ask if it would just be better to, you know, buy the cards you want to spam. Important piles are often contested, so if there is only 1 pile of cards that you lots of copies from then University might not give you a big enough split to offset the extra Potion and Necro University in your deck.

The more I play with golem the more I don't like it. The only way I'm getting one is because it made an engine possible where otherwise I was just going to be playing big money and that's it.

Sometimes the Golem + two terminals deck is a thing. These days I had one with two Mountebanks and I'm convinced it was better than trying to build an engine (because that didn't really work out)

I remember making a Scheme Golem Mountebank deck once. That seemed okay. And sometimes you really do want Golem so that you can play 2 terminal actions in your engine deck instead of one.

I still have to submit my list for this. I haven't played Adventures though so I'm skipping it in the rankings.

Edit: sorta Ninja'd by SCSN here.

[markusin]

Yes, the other potion cards are just too good. I have Possession on #7, too, right before Golem. But I can see a point in doing it the other way around. The gap between 6 and 7 is quite big in my mind, though.

Just checked 2013 and 2014: Possession was on #8 in both years.

It's hard for me to rank Possession properly. The games where it's so strong stick out in my memory, but I can't remember how often it ends up being totally ignorable. Like, when it's not good we're talking 9-card kingdom here so I won't even notice it.

It's a real game changer though and one you do have to carefully consider whenever it's out. Definitely a card I need to get used to thinking about more carefully before making a total blunder.

[iguanaiguana]

Well I got what I wanted and now I can change my ranking with confidence.

[Beyond Awesome]

Hey qvist. I never finished my list for taking all the cards and events. Can you please not count those two. I was going to write the list out, but never got around to it. All my other lists are good to go. If you give me an extension for those two lists, I could try and get them out to you by Tuesday.

[Qvist]

Hey qvist. I never finished my list for taking all the cards and events. Can you please not count those two. I was going to write the list out, but never got around to it. All my other lists are good to go. If you give me an extension for those two lists, I could try and get them out to you by Tuesday.

Leave me a PM when you're finished as I start posting the results for the $2 and $3 lists anyway.

[funkdoc]

please don't count my all-cards ranking. everything else i did should be good now, thanks!

[ehunt]

all week long, nagging left brain goes:
"there's something really important that i HAVE to get done by halloween, what is it, what is it?? ugh, what is it??"
and right brain is all
"eh it's probably just something on the internet"

[scott_pilgrim]

Are the lists that have common elements with other lists (and therefore are automatically semi-ranked as you ranked those other lists) automatically counted?  What I'm really asking is, if I haven't touched the "all cards" list, but have sorted everything else so that the all cards list is semi-sorted, do I need to tell you not to count it?  I'm asking because I'm guessing other people are in this situation too.

Of course, if it wasn't clear, I don't want you to count my all cards list.  Also don't count my events list, as I don't think I sorted that one either.  Thanks!

[singletee]

Are the lists that have common elements with other lists (and therefore are automatically semi-ranked as you ranked those other lists) automatically counted?  What I'm really asking is, if I haven't touched the "all cards" list, but have sorted everything else so that the all cards list is semi-sorted, do I need to tell you not to count it?  I'm asking because I'm guessing other people are in this situation too.

Of course, if it wasn't clear, I don't want you to count my all cards list.  Also don't count my events list, as I don't think I sorted that one either.  Thanks!

Same here, I haven't touched my all cards list and it's likely to be very silly. But I ranked each cost class fully.

[Deadlock39]

I tried to work on the all cards list, but I don't think I put enough time into it for it to be very complete.

[ehunt]

I didn't sort the "events" list for fear that doing so would mess up my sorting on all the other lists if I accidentally created a paradox. (in the OP it's optional to sort the extra lists)

I thought this would be obvious but now that I think about it, how can you tell that the chaos that's there now isn't what I wanted?

[assemble_me]

Huh, I thougt the all cards list was just some kind of gimmick anyways? It's never been "published" before, right? I didn't put any effort in getting it in the right order after the other lists were fine.

[Roadrunner7671]

Besides YouTube, where will the finished rankings be posted?

[werothegreat]

Besides YouTube, where will the finished rankings be posted?

Here, then the wiki.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Glad I'm not the only one; please do not count my all-cards and events list either.

[GwinnR]

Uh... I'd really like to see the "all cards ranking". I think it is really interesting, which card is so good (so bad) that it is higher (lower) ranked than cards with higher (lower) costs.

Would it be much work, to do the whole list too?

[schadd]

i understood all cards ranking as (quality of card)/(avg quality of card cost), notwithstanding that $3s might be stronger than $4s in general or whatever which is sort of another reason not to have the results posted

[Tables]

Uh... I'd really like to see the "all cards ranking". I think it is really interesting, which card is so good (so bad) that it is higher (lower) ranked than cards with higher (lower) costs.

Would it be much work, to do the whole list too?

If enough people have ranked everything, I think it shouldn't be too hard to at least post the list, even if no stats or analysis is done on it.

[assemble_me]

I know it's still very early, but can you already guess when the the first results are starting to be posted?

[Qvist]

Are the lists that have common elements with other lists (and therefore are automatically semi-ranked as you ranked those other lists) automatically counted?  What I'm really asking is, if I haven't touched the "all cards" list, but have sorted everything else so that the all cards list is semi-sorted, do I need to tell you not to count it?  I'm asking because I'm guessing other people are in this situation too.

Of course, if it wasn't clear, I don't want you to count my all cards list.  Also don't count my events list, as I don't think I sorted that one either.  Thanks!

For next year I should probably include a "finished" button so that I know which lists to count.

I didn't sort the "events" list for fear that doing so would mess up my sorting on all the other lists if I accidentally created a paradox. (in the OP it's optional to sort the extra lists)

In case it wasn't clear: If you use the duel mode there is no way that it messes up the other lists. You can only create paradoxes if you use the ordering method.

Besides YouTube, where will the finished rankings be posted?

I'm not sure if I post it on YouTube, but I will post it here and on the wiki.

Huh, I thougt the all cards list was just some kind of gimmick anyways? It's never been "published" before, right? I didn't put any effort in getting it in the right order after the other lists were fine.

If enough people have ranked everything, I think it shouldn't be too hard to at least post the list, even if no stats or analysis is done on it.

I'm planning to post a list for all cards, I just never got around to do it last time.

I know it's still very early, but can you already guess when the the first results are starting to be posted?

I'm currently inputting the lists that I got via PM. Tomorrow I start with the real work. The first list should be online on Wednesday.

[Chris is me]

I didn't finish my lists - I assume it's too late now? If so, you should probably remove my lists from consideration, except for I think the $2 cost one

[Dingan]

Ignore my list.  I finished only like 1% of it.

[Gubump]

My results:

$0-$2 Cost:
1.) Hamlet   
2.) Squire   
3.) Chapel   
4.) Alms   
5.) Candlestick Maker   
6.) Herbalist   
7.) Quest   
8.) Page   
9.) Embargo   
10.) Cellar   
11.) Travelling Fair   
12.) Raze   
13.) Peasant   
14.) Haven   
15.) Ratcatcher   
16.) Lighthouse   
17.) Courtyard   
18.) Moat   
19.) Save   
20.) Fool's Gold   
21.) Crossroads   
22.) Coin of the Realm   
23.) Vagrant   
24.) Pawn   
25.) Beggar   
26.) Borrow   
27.) Duchess   
28.) Secret Chamber   
29.) Poor House 
30.) Stonemason 
31.) Pearl Diver   
32.) Scouting Party   
33.) Native Village

Squire should be below Chapel. I miss-clicked on the duel between Squire and Chapel.

$3 Cost:
1.) Scheme   
2.) Masquerade   
3.) Ferry   
4.) Gear   
5.) Caravan Guard   
6.) Dungeon   
7.) Shanty Town   
8.) Fishing Village   
9.) Amulet   
10.) Warehouse   
11.) Urchin   
12.) Village   
13.) Ambassador   
14.) Market Square   
15.) Swindler   
16.) Menagerie   
17.) Masterpiece   
18.) Guide   
19.) Hermit   
20.) Develop   
21.) Oasis   
22.) Workshop   
23.) Sage   
24.) Tunnel   
25.) Steward   
26.) Smugglers   
27.) Great Hall   
28.) Wishing Well   
29.) Storeroom   
30.) Watchtower   
31.) Fortune Teller   
32.) Forager   
33.) Expedition   
34.) Chancellor   
35.) Trade Route   
36.) Doctor   
37.) Oracle   
38.) Woodcutter   
39.) Plan   
40.) Bonfire   
41.) Loan   
42.) Lookout   
43.) Black Market 

The only reason Black Market is below Lookout is because I've never played with BM. I hate Lookout with a burning passion. I think I'd sooner buy a card that read, "+1 Action. Gain a Curse" and nothing else. I also hate Loan, but not as much. I've never bought either card in my entire life.

$4 Costs and the rest after dinner.

[Donald X.]

The only reason Black Market is below Lookout is because I've never played with BM. I hate Lookout with a burning passion. I think I'd sooner buy a card that read, "+1 Action. Gain a Curse" and nothing else. I also hate Loan, but not as much. I've never bought either card in my entire life.

Would you buy them in a box? Would you buy them with a fox?

[Gubump]

The only reason Black Market is below Lookout is because I've never played with BM. I hate Lookout with a burning passion. I think I'd sooner buy a card that read, "+1 Action. Gain a Curse" and nothing else. I also hate Loan, but not as much. I've never bought either card in my entire life.

Would you buy them in a box? Would you buy them with a fox?

BTW, I only dislike both cards because of being too luck-based (and Lookout has forced blind trashing). If Lookout made the trashing optional, I would probably buy it.

[sudgy]

The only reason Black Market is below Lookout is because I've never played with BM. I hate Lookout with a burning passion. I think I'd sooner buy a card that read, "+1 Action. Gain a Curse" and nothing else. I also hate Loan, but not as much. I've never bought either card in my entire life.

Would you buy them in a box? Would you buy them with a fox?

[Awaclus]

The only reason Black Market is below Lookout is because I've never played with BM. I hate Lookout with a burning passion. I think I'd sooner buy a card that read, "+1 Action. Gain a Curse" and nothing else. I also hate Loan, but not as much. I've never bought either card in my entire life.

Would you buy them in a box? Would you buy them with a fox?

BTW, I only dislike both cards because of being too luck-based (and Lookout has forced blind trashing). If Lookout made the trashing optional, I would probably buy it.

They aren't luck-based, you just need to know when to not play them.

[Qvist]

The only reason Black Market is below Lookout is because I've never played with BM.

You know, there is a button "I don't know this card" for exactly this case, so it doesn't mess up with the ratings.

[Beyond Awesome]

The only reason Black Market is below Lookout is because I've never played with BM. I hate Lookout with a burning passion. I think I'd sooner buy a card that read, "+1 Action. Gain a Curse" and nothing else. I also hate Loan, but not as much. I've never bought either card in my entire life.

Would you buy them in a box? Would you buy them with a fox?

BTW, I only dislike both cards because of being too luck-based (and Lookout has forced blind trashing). If Lookout made the trashing optional, I would probably buy it.

They aren't luck-based, you just need to know when to not play them.

BM is a bit of a luck-based card. However, Lookout really is not. Early on, you know your hitting coppers and estates. Its on later turns that it requires some level of deck tracking.

[Qvist]

I'm currently inputting the lists that I got via PM. Tomorrow I start with the real work. The first list should be online on Wednesday.

The Ruins list is short, so I post it today already.
First part of $2- list tomorrow or Thursday.

[Awaclus]

BM is a bit of a luck-based card. However, Lookout really is not. Early on, you know your hitting coppers and estates. Its on later turns that it requires some level of deck tracking.

I was talking about Lookout and Loan, not Lookout and BM. BM actually involves a significant RNG element, but I wouldn't exactly call it luck-based because the more skilled player still usually gets more advantage out of it than the luckier player.

[Davio]

I'm curious about changes over the years, especially across different costs.

Has anyone ever tried to categorize cards and plug in some numbers?
As in, maybe there are more trashers available now than 1, 2 years, ago, did this make the junkers go down?

Something like that.

[drsteelhammer]

Do we get the average numbers for each expansion again? Would be nice to see how Adventures did in general

[Qvist]

Do we get the average numbers for each expansion again? Would be nice to see how Adventures did in general

Yeah, I remember doing that a few years ago. I totally forgot to do that the last couple iterations. I can do that.

First I want to release the "All cards" list. I have the problem though that I have a hard time to tell apart who finished doing that. I have to check each submission separately which is a lot of work. Also, what I didn't consider is that if I exclude the not finished lists, the order of the cards don't match the order of the individual lists anymore. Because of those two reasons I will count each user's list. I think this will yield a better result as the actual order of a card in a not finished list is probably in average not more than 10 ranks away as the cards are spread out evenly of all lists. In a list of over 250 cards that won't affect a lot. Only cards in lists with few cards (like the Potion list) may end up not exactly where they belong. For next year I definitely have to remember to add a "finished" button to prevent this again.

[aku_chi]

Also, what I didn't consider is that if I exclude the not finished lists, the order of the cards don't match the order of the individual lists anymore. Because of those two reasons I will count each user's list.

This problem ("the order of the cards [in the All Cards list] don't match the order of the individual lists anymore") might still exist because of those who submitted their lists by PM but chose not to submit an All Cards list, right?

I would suggest that you don't spend too much time or energy on the All Cards list; I suspect most people didn't complete the daunting task of sorting all 200+ cards.  I expect that algorithmic assumptions/biases and white noise will dominate actual deliberated sorting.  Like drsteelhammer, I would be curious to get stats on the cards as grouped by expansion.

Thank you again for organizing this, Qvist!  It has generated a lot of productive discussion.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I think it makes little sense to bother people ordering all cards in a single list (which is ridiculous work if done seriously) nor can you be expected to evaluate each user's list individually (also a lot of work). For the future, I suggest you offer a top 30 list instead of a complete ranking for each user. One would assume most people only care about the top cards of the complete list anyway and it's the only area where such fine differences in card rank are actually interesting.

[LastFootnote]

I think it makes little sense to bother people ordering all cards in a single list (which is ridiculous work if done seriously) nor can you be expected to evaluate each user's list individually (also a lot of work). For the future, I suggest you offer a top 30 list instead of a complete ranking for each user. One would assume most people only care about the top cards of the complete list anyway and it's the only area where such fine differences in card rank are actually interesting.

For me, the entire benefit of the lists is to promote discussion, and I find discussion about the middle and bottom of the lists more interesting than the discussion about the top few cards in each list.

I do agree that ranking all the cards in one big list is a huge undertaking. I didn't even finish my cost-based lists.

[Beyond Awesome]

Sorry Qvist. I did not finish my list, but I meant to. I think a Done button would go a far way next time like you suggested.

Honestly though, I am more curious about the average expansion ranking moreso than the top 250 card list (mainly because I think it will end up inaccurate although it should give a decent baseline for the power level of cards when compared across costs).

[jsh357]

My results:

$0-$2 Cost:
1.) Hamlet   
2.) Squire   
3.) Chapel   
4.) Alms   
5.) Candlestick Maker   
6.) Herbalist   
7.) Quest   
8.) Page   
9.) Embargo   
10.) Cellar   
11.) Travelling Fair   
12.) Raze   
13.) Peasant   
14.) Haven   
15.) Ratcatcher   
16.) Lighthouse   
17.) Courtyard   
18.) Moat   
19.) Save   
20.) Fool's Gold   
21.) Crossroads   
22.) Coin of the Realm   
23.) Vagrant   
24.) Pawn   
25.) Beggar   
26.) Borrow   
27.) Duchess   
28.) Secret Chamber   
29.) Poor House 
30.) Stonemason 
31.) Pearl Diver   
32.) Scouting Party   
33.) Native Village

Squire should be below Chapel. I miss-clicked on the duel between Squire and Chapel.

$3 Cost:
1.) Scheme   
2.) Masquerade   
3.) Ferry   
4.) Gear   
5.) Caravan Guard   
6.) Dungeon   
7.) Shanty Town   
8.) Fishing Village   
9.) Amulet   
10.) Warehouse   
11.) Urchin   
12.) Village   
13.) Ambassador   
14.) Market Square   
15.) Swindler   
16.) Menagerie   
17.) Masterpiece   
18.) Guide   
19.) Hermit   
20.) Develop   
21.) Oasis   
22.) Workshop   
23.) Sage   
24.) Tunnel   
25.) Steward   
26.) Smugglers   
27.) Great Hall   
28.) Wishing Well   
29.) Storeroom   
30.) Watchtower   
31.) Fortune Teller   
32.) Forager   
33.) Expedition   
34.) Chancellor   
35.) Trade Route   
36.) Doctor   
37.) Oracle   
38.) Woodcutter   
39.) Plan   
40.) Bonfire   
41.) Loan   
42.) Lookout   
43.) Black Market 

The only reason Black Market is below Lookout is because I've never played with BM. I hate Lookout with a burning passion. I think I'd sooner buy a card that read, "+1 Action. Gain a Curse" and nothing else. I also hate Loan, but not as much. I've never bought either card in my entire life.

$4 Costs and the rest after dinner.

I hope nobody poisoned Gubump at that dinner.

[Sten-Åke]

Qvist, could you make these lists available in some easy to parse format like csv?

One thing I would like to sort the lists on is the difference between the weighted and the unweighted rating. Or calculate the similarity between my lists and the official ones using say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearman's_rank_correlation_coefficient.

[jsh357]

Qvist, could you make these lists available in some easy to parse format like csv?

One thing I would like to sort the lists on is the difference between the weighted and the unweighted rating. Or calculate the similarity between my lists and the official ones using say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearman's_rank_correlation_coefficient.

I would also like to see the lists using only the rankings of the top 20 or so players, though that seems like a lot more work.

[Qvist]

It might be easy to do, but I don't think I have currently time for that, sorry.

[Chris is me]

So it's 2016! I've got some ideas and suggestions and thoughts for lists this year. Of course everything here is at best just a suggestion, as Qvist does all the work (thank you!) but I'm bored and want to share some thoughts.

This year's list situation is similar to last year's - a new expansion has been out for a whole summer, but isn't out online yet and won't be this calendar year. Additionally we have gotten a lot more experience with the previous expansion since the last lists came out! Would it be valuable to make a list of our impressions of the cards before the game comes out online? I sure think so.

Especially because, we will never have a gap between online and offline releases again! Stef and SCSN "will never be late with an expansion". So it would be cool to get one last snapshot of this gap in our stats, so we should do one in 2016.

I'd also be for starting the lists a wee bit earlier next year, because, and this is pure speculation, if a new expansion comes out in 2017, at around the same time of year Adventures and Empires did, we'll have a few months of experience with it online by this time next year. I find value in getting a list done before we are all experts on the new cards, and I think others do too, so in order to do this with actually timely online releases lists would get started sooner after their release than we otherwise do.

This is rambley and doesn't make much sense, I know. Just throwing things out there.

[werothegreat]

That just leaves us with two (and a bit) questions:
-How to rank cards
-How to rank split piles
** How to rank the Castles

I think it's pretty obvious that Landmarks should just get their own list.

[ThetaSigma12]

That just leaves us with two (and a bit) questions:
-How to rank cards
-How to rank split piles
** How to rank the Castles

I think it's pretty obvious that Landmarks should just get their own list.

How do landmarks get ranked? Since it's mostly equal opportunity, is it a ranking of how many VP you can get from it?
should be converted to coin costs IMO. Split piles should be seperate, and so should castles. I also would love it if the base cards were thrown in for comparison.

[Chris is me]

Landmarks shouldn't even get a list, in my opinion. What exactly are you ranking? What is strength in terms of a landmark? It's like saying what is stronger, Province games or Colony games. Any Landmark ranking would not strength, it would be preference.

Debt conversion to Coin isn't stellar, because Debt and coin costs are totally different. You wouldn't buy an $8 and a D8 at the same time in the game, you'd buy the D8 sooner. I would prefer eithe ranking debt cards at their Coin cost (mostly $0) or divide their debt by 2 maybe I guess?

There was a debate about this, Split piles, and also Potion cards in another thread I can't immediately find. I would be fine with separate rankings for split pile halves and I would also support including potions in coin lists by converting P to $2 (not even close to perfect or equivalent but whatever)

[Deadlock39]

I agree with ranking Engineer with the $4s, and The <8>s with the $8s, because that fits them from a power level standpoint in my opinion.

[traces Around]

Debt cards: add up coins and debt, call it that price. The fact that you can pay in debt may be accounted for just as the fact that you can pay 0 for Peddler or as overpay is accounted for.

Split Piles (the type with 2 cards): rank each card individually. Obtaining the bottom is not contingent on you having gained the top (somebody maybe, but not you). What goes under or what is on top is accounted for by the voter, though I think with one (or two) exceptions is not exactly necessary.

Castles: put them at 4 or 5 (probably 5) to compare to other major alt-VP cards. Then rank them individually like is done for Knights. If this means it takes effort to properly interpret their rankings, oh well.

Landmarks shouldn't be ranked.

[Chris is me]

I agree with ranking Engineer with the $4s, and The <8>s with the $8s, because that fits them from a power level standpoint in my opinion.

Totally disagree. Overlord would be pretty shitty if it cost $8, and Royal Blacksmith is not significantly different from Hunting Grounds. City Quarter sure is ridiculous, yeah.

If you consider the list "what is the strongest buy I can make on average with $X?", then Debt cards should be 0 cost, because you can buy them with nothing.

[drsteelhammer]

I agree with ranking Engineer with the $4s, and The <8>s with the $8s, because that fits them from a power level standpoint in my opinion.

Totally disagree. Overlord would be pretty shitty if it cost $8, and Royal Blacksmith is not significantly different from Hunting Grounds. City Quarter sure is ridiculous, yeah.

If you consider the list "what is the strongest buy I can make on average with $X?", then Debt cards should be 0 cost, because you can buy them with nothing.

so you agree that they'd be $6+ , right?

[werothegreat]

I think the lists started off being "What should I get if I have $X", but I think now they serve more as convenient categories, because costs serve other functions as well.  You'll never buy Peddler for , but we rank it with Prince and Pathfinding.  And while is orthogonal to when you're using, say, Remodel, at the end of the turn you're still paying for these cards.  So while it makes sense to rank cards separately since you're actually spending a separate resource, I think it does make sense to put cards on the list of their converted cost.  So Engineer at , Triumph at , and the rest at +.  Even though you're buying half of your Wedding on layaway, it's not a ; it's clearly a .

[Dingan]

Similar discussion:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=15652.0

My vote is also to rank x cards as x, and to rank xy cards as (x+y), etc.  We can always revisit if, say, the data doesn't make sense or shows obvious correlations distinguishing debt vs. non-debt.

Also, to my understanding, the card strengths are "normalized" with respect to their cost, right?  So like what werothegreat said about Peddler, or how Grand Market is slightly weaker than it otherwise would be if it didn't have the no-Coppers part, etc.  I would think people would similarly take debt into account.  At least I would.

[ben_king]

I think a ranking for landmarks could make sense if you think of it from the perspective of "How much do I change my strategy because of this landmark?"

For example, I've found that Palace rarely factors into either my strategy or the outcome of the game, whereas Wall forces me to rethink whatever I was doing and is almost always a factor in final scoring.

[Deadlock39]

I agree with ranking Engineer with the $4s, and The <8>s with the $8s, because that fits them from a power level standpoint in my opinion.

Totally disagree. Overlord would be pretty shitty if it cost $8, and Royal Blacksmith is not significantly different from Hunting Grounds. City Quarter sure is ridiculous, yeah.

If you consider the list "what is the strongest buy I can make on average with $X?", then Debt cards should be 0 cost, because you can buy them with nothing.

so you agree that they'd be $6+ , right?

Yeah, this was a mistake in my post.  I meant to say $6+ since that is the category they would be in.

[Donald X.]

I think the lists started off being "What should I get if I have $X", but I think now they serve more as convenient categories, because costs serve other functions as well.  You'll never buy Peddler for , but we rank it with Prince and Pathfinding.  And while is orthogonal to when you're using, say, Remodel, at the end of the turn you're still paying for these cards.  So while it makes sense to rank cards separately since you're actually spending a separate resource, I think it does make sense to put cards on the list of their converted cost.  So Engineer at , Triumph at , and the rest at +.  Even though you're buying half of your Wedding on layaway, it's not a ; it's clearly a .

I mostly agree.

You aren't ranking $2's on the $4 list, though $2's get bought with $4 all the time. The idea is to compare stuff in a way that's easier than having everything in one big list. To do overpay or debt justice by considering them at every cost is too much work.

However, I personally would rank overpay cards twice - at cost and at $6+. I'm not sure it's worth it to rank debt cards twice; the other entry would be $0-$2 and well that ranking probably won't mean much.

I would rank Peddler in the $0-$2 category, that's right. The main reason not to is "but we want simple rules for where the cards are listed and Peddler says $8 on it." Man there's an asterisk there.

I would rank both cards separately for each two-card split pile; that seems pretty clear. I would not separately rank Knights; they'd clutter up the list a lot, just so you can point out that trashing two cards is better than 2 VP.

Castles are a question. I might just stick them at $6+ as one pile, since the majority cost $6+. It's more work to separately rank them, and many of them you only want if you're going for Castles.

I like ben_king's notion of ranking Landmarks by impact on the game.

[Seprix]

I'm going to be making a tier system for ranking cards soon, because I am not sure ranking cards by cardinal order is very useful anymore.

[Chris is me]

I'm going to be making a tier system for ranking cards soon, because I am not sure ranking cards by cardinal order is very useful anymore.

There already is that old card grades thread that's basically what tiers are.

Tigers are just Cardinal order plus arbitrary cutoffs anyway.

[Seprix]

I'm going to be making a tier system for ranking cards soon, because I am not sure ranking cards by cardinal order is very useful anymore.

There already is that old card grades thread that's basically what tiers are.

Tigers are just Cardinal order plus arbitrary cutoffs anyway.

Not quite. The tier system I would propose wouldn't have a cardinal order. Cards in a tier list aren't better or worse than another. The tier list would merely be measuring relative card strength and how often it was used in comparison to other cards.

[AJD]

Tigers are just Cardinal order plus arbitrary cutoffs anyway.

St. Louis team moves to Detroit, wears denim shorts

[Aleimon Thimble]

I would support card tier lists. It would be somewhat similar to what Smogon does with competitive Pokemon (for the people who know what I'm talking about: the viability rankings, not the actual OU/UU/etc tiers).

[Seprix]

I would support card tier lists. It would be somewhat similar to what Smogon does with competitive Pokemon (for the people who know what I'm talking about: the viability rankings, not the actual OU/UU/etc tiers).

Yes, that would be the idea. Except no dumb bans. It would be more like SSB tiers actually, but without ordered rankings within the tiers. If anyone wants to volunteer to help, let me know. I start tomorrow. I'll probably organize the cards into Events, Landmarks, and Kingdom Cards as their own entities. I'll have rules for consideration and stuff. There won't be tiers until later, but rather a numbered system. Cards will be grouped into tiers after that.

[Qvist]

Seprix, if you want to you can start another list, but I just don't see the point.

My list starts probably in October and you can do tiers as I stated earlier in one of the threads. You can assign values (like 1-5, 1-10, 1-20, 1-100, whatever you like) to the cards or rank them just like before.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Can we have more time than last year to do our rankings? I barely got through the $3s and $4s last year. I didn't have time do much at all with the others, and now we have even more cards.

[Seprix]

Seprix, if you want to you can start another list, but I just don't see the point.

My list starts probably in October and you can do tiers as I stated earlier in one of the threads. You can assign values (like 1-5, 1-10, 1-20, 1-100, whatever you like) to the cards or rank them just like before.

Not that I needed your blessing to go off and do my own thing, but it does mean a lot. I think that more than anything else, it will be a learning experience for me. Even if nothing comes of it for anyone else, I will become a better player for it.

[Qvist]

Can we have more time than last year to do our rankings? I barely got through the $3s and $4s last year. I didn't have time do much at all with the others, and now we have even more cards.

Is 3-4 weeks enough?

[LibraryAdventurer]

Can we have more time than last year to do our rankings? I barely got through the $3s and $4s last year. I didn't have time do much at all with the others, and now we have even more cards.

Is 3-4 weeks enough?

hopefully

How much time did we have last year? I only remember that it wasn't enough.

[Beyond Awesome]

I know my lists are mostly ready to go. Last year, I made a word document, so all I really need to do is adjust some cards on the list. I most likely won't be ranking any Empires cards since I've played less than 10 ganes with them.

[Qvist]

Can we have more time than last year to do our rankings? I barely got through the $3s and $4s last year. I didn't have time do much at all with the others, and now we have even more cards.

Is 3-4 weeks enough?

hopefully

How much time did we have last year? I only remember that it wasn't enough.

You can look it up in the starting post of this thread, it was around 19 days, nearly 3 weeks.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Can we have more time than last year to do our rankings? I barely got through the $3s and $4s last year. I didn't have time do much at all with the others, and now we have even more cards.

Is 3-4 weeks enough?

hopefully. How much time did we have last year? I only remember that it wasn't enough.

You can look it up in the starting post of this thread, it was around 19 days, nearly 3 weeks.

So probably a month would be a good amount of time IMO.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I'm in favor of tier lists but I'll contribute to the more popular cardinal list, anyway.

I'd also like a ranking for Landmarks that ranks them by their relative impact on the game, i.e. how likely you are to go for them in a vacuum.

[Marcory]

The thing about Landmarks is, that there's only one card-shaped thing per Landmark. It's probably better to just pick it up yourself rather than aim your vacuum at it.

[Chris is me]

As for time to leave it open: I'm fine with any span of time that is inclusive of three weekends. I figure 1/3 of all weekends I'm too busy to do anything, so this would let me split the work up between two weekends. This makes it not a lot longer than it was last year but probably better in terms of non-work time allotted.

Or I'll just do it at work this year, w/e

[J Reggie]

The thing about Landmarks is, that there's only one card-shaped thing per Landmark. It's probably better to just pick it up yourself rather than aim your vacuum at it.

I think "how likely you are to go for them in a vacuum" means if you accidentally vacuum one up while cleaning, how motivated would you be to open up the vacuum bag and try to find it, or would you just not care because it wasn't a great landmark anyway?

[Chris is me]

The thing about Landmarks is, that there's only one card-shaped thing per Landmark. It's probably better to just pick it up yourself rather than aim your vacuum at it.

I think "how likely you are to go for them in a vacuum" means if you accidentally vacuum one up while cleaning, how motivated would you be to open up the vacuum bag and try to find it, or would you just not care because it wasn't a great landmark anyway?

Or you could just make a proxy landmark using any piece of paper and it would be functionally the same.

[AdrianHealey]

The thing about Landmarks is, that there's only one card-shaped thing per Landmark. It's probably better to just pick it up yourself rather than aim your vacuum at it.

I think "how likely you are to go for them in a vacuum" means if you accidentally vacuum one up while cleaning, how motivated would you be to open up the vacuum bag and try to find it, or would you just not care because it wasn't a great landmark anyway?

Or you could just make a proxy landmark using any piece of paper and it would be functionally the same.

Pictures (of the original landmarks) on your phone.

[drsteelhammer]

I'd say it's easy to rank the Landmarks aswell.

The question "Which card is better?" was never useful anyway for the rankings and should be replaced by "Which card is most likely to change my play in a meaningful way". It's easy to argue that it is more likely that Wolf Den changes your card buys more significantly than Baths changes the cards you gain. That's as good a comparison as Village and Chancellor is.

Also, Qvist have you decided on split piles already? Otherwise I'd like to make a case for ranking them together again.

[Qvist]

Also, Qvist have you decided on split piles already? Otherwise I'd like to make a case for ranking them together again.

Well there was a poll a while ago.

So based on the results it seems that split cards should definitely be ranked separately.

Also, someone who gets like 51% of the votes agrees.

I would rank both cards separately for each two-card split pile; that seems pretty clear.

The only thing I'm not sure are the Castles. Obviously they are not ranked separately just like Knights, but to which list should I add them? Any suggestions?

[Mr Anderson]

If I am still able to handle a calculator, the average cost of Castles is 6.5$, so I would put them in the $6+ list.

[drsteelhammer]

The only thing I'm not sure are the Castles. Obviously they are not ranked separately just like Knights, but to which list should I add them? Any suggestions?

Why is that obvious, then? How many different cards are allowed to be in a pile for them to be ranked seperately? The Knights have the same attack, the Castles are all different?

[Qvist]

Sorry, I meant it seemed obvious to me. I'm open for another poll soon for the Castles.

[Beyond Awesome]

I think $6+ makes the most sense since unlike other alt VP, you need a plan to hit higher increments. Heck, the last Castle costs almost as much as a Colony. Also, 5/8ths of the Castles cost $6+.

[Seprix]

Seems quite easy and obvious to put the Castles as a Kingdom card. What else would you put it into? They also don't need their own ranking. Obviously the more expensive ones are better.

[Chris is me]

Making the Castles separately ranked is ridiculous.

I'm fine with the decision to rank piles separate or together as a "I know it when I see it" thing, and like, duh, Castles should be ranked together. They're a unit. They synergize strongly with each other and aren't worth it in a vacuum - split pile cards are for the most part totally fine standing alone.

[jsh357]

I'm an advocate of making accommodations for the underrepresented. All ten Chancellors should be ranked individually, and the clefts of their chins should not be a factor.

[AdrianHealey]

I am uncertain that castles really need to be in the ranking. I mean, they are weird enough to just leave them out.

[Beyond Awesome]

I stand by my $6+. If you're going for them, you need a way to rack up to higher price points. But, yeah Castles are weird.

[Seprix]

There are two schools of thought when it comes to rankings: Ranking by Price Point, and Ranking by Kingdom types. Both have their pros and cons, but the pros of the price point rankings far outweigh the cons of ranking by kingdom types. However, there is a third system, which myself and jsh have wanted to do, which is a tier system. Forget all of these difficult ways put certain cards over there or over in that corner, and just rate them based on strength and utility alone, in a vacuum. We don't have to worry about prices and what goes where, because they're all card shaped things.

[jsh357]

There are two schools of thought when it comes to rankings: Ranking by Price Point, and Ranking by Kingdom types. Both have their pros and cons, but the pros of the price point rankings far outweigh the cons of ranking by kingdom types. However, there is a third system, which myself and jsh have wanted to do, which is a tier system. Forget all of these difficult ways put certain cards over there or over in that corner, and just rate them based on strength and utility alone, in a vacuum. We don't have to worry about prices and what goes where, because they're all card shaped things.

The system your thread is advocating is actually different from the one I would use. Too lazy to explain, just trying to get my name removed from this association.

[Beyond Awesome]

This really shouldn't pertain to this years rankings, but seeing how cards are being removed and odds are no one will play with the removed cards ever again, will we still rank them in the future?

[werothegreat]

This really shouldn't pertain to this years rankings, but seeing how cards are being removed and odds are no one will play with the removed cards ever again, will we still rank them in the future?

I would honestly suggesting holding off the rankings for a couple of weeks to let people play with the new cards first, and then rank with the new and without the removed.

[Chris is me]

This really shouldn't pertain to this years rankings, but seeing how cards are being removed and odds are no one will play with the removed cards ever again, will we still rank them in the future?

I would honestly suggesting holding off the rankings for a couple of weeks to let people play with the new cards first, and then rank with the new and without the removed.

The window of time where people have IRL experience with the new cards but no online experience with Empires (if someone other than me cares about collecting that data) would be like, - month long tops.

[AJD]

This really shouldn't pertain to this years rankings, but seeing how cards are being removed and odds are no one will play with the removed cards ever again, will we still rank them in the future?

I would honestly suggesting holding off the rankings for a couple of weeks to let people play with the new cards first, and then rank with the new and without the removed.

The ones being removed are still Dominion cards; I don't see any reason not to include them in the rankings. (They will probably be ranked low.)

[Seprix]

I'd still be playing with the old Dominion cards, even if they are awful. I'd still rank them too.

[LastFootnote]

I'd still be playing with the old Dominion cards, even if they are awful. I'd still rank them too.

It saddens me that so many people will still be playing with the removed cards just because. Removing the dud cards was more important for improving those sets than adding the new cards. If you play with all of them, you still have a bunch of almost-useless cards clogging up your Dominion games.

[Chris is me]

It would be funny to have Removed Cards as their own ranking list lol

[Awaclus]

It saddens me that so many people will still be playing with the removed cards just because. Removing the dud cards was more important for improving those sets than adding the new cards. If you play with all of them, you still have a bunch of almost-useless cards clogging up your Dominion games.

The dud cards are a great resource for kingdom design, because sometimes you might want to restrict the power or the availability of certain strategies by filling up the board with cards that don't play any role in any strategy available in the kingdom and there's also endless possibilities for designed kingdoms to actually have the rare circumstances where the dud cards can be useful.

[LastFootnote]

It saddens me that so many people will still be playing with the removed cards just because. Removing the dud cards was more important for improving those sets than adding the new cards. If you play with all of them, you still have a bunch of almost-useless cards clogging up your Dominion games.

The dud cards are a great resource for kingdom design, because sometimes you might want to restrict the power or the availability of certain strategies by filling up the board with cards that don't play any role in any strategy available in the kingdom and there's also endless possibilities for designed kingdoms to actually have the rare circumstances where the dud cards can be useful.

Sure, but for random boards the cons of using them outweigh the pros by a mile.

[werothegreat]

It saddens me that so many people will still be playing with the removed cards just because. Removing the dud cards was more important for improving those sets than adding the new cards. If you play with all of them, you still have a bunch of almost-useless cards clogging up your Dominion games.

The dud cards are a great resource for kingdom design, because sometimes you might want to restrict the power or the availability of certain strategies by filling up the board with cards that don't play any role in any strategy available in the kingdom and there's also endless possibilities for designed kingdoms to actually have the rare circumstances where the dud cards can be useful.

Sure, but for random boards the cons of using them outweigh the pros by a mile.

It's not a fun feeling to look at a board and think "welp, looks like this is only a 7-card kingdom this game" because three shitty cards were thrown in.

[Awaclus]

It's not a fun feeling to look at a board and think "welp, looks like this is only a 7-card kingdom this game" because three shitty cards were thrown in.

Unless the remaining 7 cards make for an interesting game.

[SuperHans]

It's not a fun feeling to look at a board and think "welp, looks like this is only a 7-card kingdom this game" because three shitty cards were thrown in.

Unless the remaining 7 cards make for an interesting game.

Agreed. I can't count how many times I've said to myself, I'm glad Scout is in this kingdom instead of a potentially useful card.

[Beyond Awesome]

Assuming I buy Scout, 1 out of 100 games it shows up in, that's awful. Better to have something I buy on a more regular basis.

[AJD]

Okay but like... the same thing is true for Transmute, even though it hasn't been replaced in a new edition of the expansion it's from. That doesn't mean we should exclude Transmute from the rankings; it's still a Dominion card that people can choose to play with, and if they choose not to play with it because it's a lousy card, well, that's one legitimate way to use the information that it's a lousy card. Scout is (we presume) being replaced in a new edition of the expansion it's from, and for a good reason, but that doesn't mean it's stopped being a $4 Dominion card, and it doesn't automatically mean we should exclude it from the rankings.

[NolanA]

It depends what the cards are.  For example, several persons in the other thread guessed that Bureaucrat will be removed.  Bureaucrat can lead to some interesting and unique strategies in a Gardens game, particularly if there is Market or Festival in the Kingdom.   It's also one of the better base game Lab terminals and one of the better base game BM strategies.  I'd definitely prefer base games with Bureaucrat as a possible kingdom card over games with it removed.   However, I can see how persons who almost always go for engines would favor it being removed.   Why not wait until what may be just the end of the day to see what cards are removed before committing to keep them or not play with them?  I'd prefer to see the older cards stay in the new Qvist, as a lot of people visiting this site and reading the Qvist are not going to switch Dominion versions immediately after their release.  This is especially true for persons playing online, where the new cards probably won't be available until next year.

[drsteelhammer]

I'd say throw them out. Even Donald advised us to keep the removed cards in the box and that is saying a lot. Why bother ranking them when you're not supposed to play with them? Initially this list was made to help people, right?

Ranking them seperately seems like a cute idea, definitely better than including them.

[Qvist]

Ugh I have to think about the implications for this. My first thought is that it doesn't hurt to rank the removed cards, it's only more information.
Also I wanted to start programming the changes next week and start in about 2 weeks, not sure what to do now with the new cards. Should we wait another month?

[faust]

I mean, we should rank them. We all know them, and uh it doesn't hurt to rank them, because you know, unlike in a Kingdom, there are an unlimited amount of slots available in the ranking. Maybe they can be optional to rank, for those who would rather not go through the extra trouble.

Next year, if it turns out that nobody plays these cards anymore, we can throw them out.

[faust]

I also say we go ahead and do the rankings. There's much going on in the Dominion world right now; we can wait for stuff to happen, we can wait for people to get a copy of Sauna, we can wait for ShuffleIT's launch, but I really want to at least have the rankings in the time I am waiting for all the other cool stuff to happen.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I mean, we should rank them. We all know them, and uh it doesn't hurt to rank them, because you know, unlike in a Kingdom, there are an unlimited amount of slots available in the ranking. Maybe they can be optional to rank, for those who would rather not go through the extra trouble.

Next year, if it turns out that nobody plays these cards anymore, we can throw them out.

I agree (even though I probably won't be playing with the removed cards anymore). For one thing, it's a point of reference for the cards that are still official but which may be ranked lower than some of the removed cards.

[markusin]

I'd still be playing with the old Dominion cards, even if they are awful. I'd still rank them too.

It saddens me that so many people will still be playing with the removed cards just because. Removing the dud cards was more important for improving those sets than adding the new cards. If you play with all of them, you still have a bunch of almost-useless cards clogging up your Dominion games.

Another thing that isn't being brought up is how the new cards will affect the new player experience. How many potential Dominion fans did we lose to the idea that Dominion is basically a solved game with Big Money being the solution? I'd be fine replacing the trap cards in the Base set and Intrigue with cards that are at least as interesting except they won't drag your deck down.

I wish we can have a "removed cards" list and maybe combine them into the full cards list ranking, but then most people don't do the full ranking manually and the removed cards will creep into the high ranks of the full list due to the way they would be weighted.

[Seprix]

I'd still be playing with the old Dominion cards, even if they are awful. I'd still rank them too.

It saddens me that so many people will still be playing with the removed cards just because. Removing the dud cards was more important for improving those sets than adding the new cards. If you play with all of them, you still have a bunch of almost-useless cards clogging up your Dominion games.

Those cards sometimes have a purpose. Certainly, the new cards will likely just replace the functionality of the old cards, but I will have to wait and see what the new cards are first before deciding what old ones I'll still want to use.

[Chris is me]

I also say we go ahead and do the rankings. There's much going on in the Dominion world right now; we can wait for stuff to happen, we can wait for people to get a copy of Sauna, we can wait for ShuffleIT's launch, but I really want to at least have the rankings in the time I am waiting for all the other cool stuff to happen.

I agree with this: Let's get all the rankings started ASAP with all cards up to and including Empires. Too many changes in the next few months to time the start of this enough to give everyone experience with a change. By the time we're "ready" to rank Dominion and Intrigue new cards, Empires will be out online, and then people will want to wait to get used to that, and then probably a few months after that there could be another expansion, and so on.

[Beyond Awesome]

Honestly, I doubt many people have experience with Empires. I mean, sure, I've played some irl games, but do I honestly know the power level of the cards, not really. Well, except Donate. You only have to play one game with it to confirm it is indeed as strong as it seems

[Limetime]

Honestly, I doubt many people have experience with Empires. I mean, sure, I've played some irl games, but do I honestly know the power level of the cards, not really. Well, except Donate. You only have to play one game with it to confirm it is indeed as strong as it seems

Does it really matter that it is just speculation for most of us?

[Chris is me]

My unprofessional, unqualified opinion on how to handle things that the new reveals are out: Start ranking ASAP, use the old Base and Intrigue one more time and then never again, no cards newer than Empires, also have a separate "Removed Cards" ranking list for the lulz this time. That would be my preference; the new cards are different enough that I don't think we should rank them with no experience, and we aren't going to get enough play time with them before January to really rank them unless we do the list starting like December 1 exactly.

Honestly, I doubt many people have experience with Empires. I mean, sure, I've played some irl games, but do I honestly know the power level of the cards, not really. Well, except Donate. You only have to play one game with it to confirm it is indeed as strong as it seems

I've played a LOT of Empires, and I found a lot of value in both the ranking and discussion of Adventures cards before they appeared online. If you don't know the cards you can skip them.

[Aleimon Thimble]

My unprofessional, unqualified opinion on how to handle things that the new reveals are out: Start ranking ASAP, use the old Base and Intrigue one more time and then never again, no cards newer than Empires, also have a separate "Removed Cards" ranking list for the lulz this time. That would be my preference; the new cards are different enough that I don't think we should rank them with no experience, and we aren't going to get enough play time with them before January to really rank them unless we do the list starting like December 1 exactly.

100% agree. It's still 2016, we're still playing with the old cards online, but all that is going to change next year. For this year, just rank all the cards everyone knows and has experience with. (That does include Empires, but I'm not going to rank the Empires cards myself, for obvious reasons.)

Qvist, if you're not too busy, would you consider just starting the polls one of these days? I'm really looking forward to the new ranking, and I know many other people are as well

[Qvist]

Qvist, if you're not too busy, would you consider just starting the polls one of these days?

Yes, my goal is next week.

[Qvist]

I programmed everything, now I just need to some testing. I aim for starting it on Tuesday.

[Beyond Awesome]

Sweet!!!

[Aleimon Thimble]

So stoked

Ready for my 2 favorite things in the world, Dominion and lists!

[Seprix]

So stoked

Ready for my 2 favorite things in the world, Dominion and lists!

You mean brackets.

[Aleimon Thimble]

So stoked

Ready for my 2 favorite things in the world, Dominion and lists!

You mean brackets.

Lists are better than brackets.

If lists and brackets would be in a bracket, I would vote for lists. If they were on a list, I'd put lists above brackets.

[LaLight]

So stoked

Ready for my 2 favorite things in the world, Dominion and lists!

You mean brackets.

Lists are better than brackets.

If lists and brackets would be in a bracket, I would vote for lists. If they were on a list, I'd put lists above brackets.

Where the Dominion will be in these systems?

[Aleimon Thimble]

So stoked

Ready for my 2 favorite things in the world, Dominion and lists!

You mean brackets.

Lists are better than brackets.

If lists and brackets would be in a bracket, I would vote for lists. If they were on a list, I'd put lists above brackets.

Where the Dominion will be in these systems?

Dominion is the best game in the world, so it would be on top of that list and it would beat everything else in a bracket.

It cannot be compared to things that aren't games (such as lists and brackets) in a meaningful way, but if it could, it would be close to the top of that list too, I think.

[schadd]

Lists are better than brackets.

something something arrays

[Deadlock39]

Lists are better than brackets.

something something arrays

#HashMapsAreBetter

[Seprix]

So stoked

Ready for my 2 favorite things in the world, Dominion and lists!

You mean brackets.

Lists are better than brackets.

If lists and brackets would be in a bracket, I would vote for lists. If they were on a list, I'd put lists above brackets.

I think we need a bracket to determine whether we will go with voting for lists in a list or lists in a bracket.

[Accatitippi]

So stoked

Ready for my 2 favorite things in the world, Dominion and lists!

You mean brackets.

Lists are better than brackets.

If lists and brackets would be in a bracket, I would vote for lists. If they were on a list, I'd put lists above brackets.

I think we need a bracket to determine whether we will go with voting for lists in a list or lists in a bracket.

I'd argue that a list is a better fit to determine whether we vote for lists in a list or lists in a bracket, but that would be disagreement just for the sake of disagreement, because everyone here knows that tiers are the best for that kind of stuff.

[Dingan]

Lists are better than brackets.

something something arrays

#HashMapsAreBetter

#TheyreAllGraphsAnyways

[GwinnR]

Lists are better than brackets.

something something arrays

#HashMapsAreBetter

#TheyreAllGraphsAnyways

#MakeHashtagsGreatAgain

[Aleimon Thimble]

So stoked

Ready for my 2 favorite things in the world, Dominion and lists!

You mean brackets.

Lists are better than brackets.

If lists and brackets would be in a bracket, I would vote for lists. If they were on a list, I'd put lists above brackets.

I think we need a bracket to determine whether we will go with voting for lists in a list or lists in a bracket.

I'd argue that a list is a better fit to determine whether we vote for lists in a list or lists in a bracket, but that would be disagreement just for the sake of disagreement, because everyone here knows that tiers are the best for that kind of stuff.

Tiers are also lists. Tier lists are equally as good as normal lists. They would be in the same tier.

In a normal list, they would share the same number.

[Roadrunner7671]

Qvist's program is up. Is that news to anyone but me?
http://www.qvist.de/dommesh/index.php

[Aleimon Thimble]

Qvist's program is up. Is that news to anyone but me?
http://www.qvist.de/dommesh/index.php

Uh, the 2016 topic has been open for a while.

[Roadrunner7671]

Qvist's program is up. Is that news to anyone but me?
http://www.qvist.de/dommesh/index.php

Uh, the 2016 topic has been open for a while.

Wait did I already do this?

[Roadrunner7671]

Qvist posted a Youtube video about it 22 hours ago

[Seprix]

Qvist's program is up. Is that news to anyone but me?
http://www.qvist.de/dommesh/index.php