Print

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

[spiralstaircase]

Regardless of the fact that it would be strictly better than Village, it would still be just simply too strong for $3. A Secluded Township whose Curse-gaining isn't optional isn't too strong for $3, so making it a choice between that and another thing which has been proven to be not too strong for $3 is fine.

There's value in having the choice, though.  None of Steward's parts are individually worth $3.

[Awaclus]

Regardless of the fact that it would be strictly better than Village, it would still be just simply too strong for $3. A Secluded Township whose Curse-gaining isn't optional isn't too strong for $3, so making it a choice between that and another thing which has been proven to be not too strong for $3 is fine.

There's value in having the choice, though.  None of Steward's parts are individually worth $3.

Steward's choice is on-play.

Even if Secluded Township didn't give you the option of being just a Village, in a kingdom with both Secluded Township and Village, you would still have the option to choose between Secluded Township and Village.

[tristan]

Yep. The card doesn't provide more options on-play so there is no reason why it has to cost more than $3.

Nope. All aspects of a card, not just what happens when you play it, have to be considered when you evaluate it. Otherwise you could easily argue that Inn should cost 4 or, even more nonsensically, that Province should cost 0$ since it is a dead card and cannot even be played.
Secluded Township provides an extra option when you buy it which is why it is strictly superior to Village. You could argue that the option is bad and will be rarely used such that its value is tiny and practically negligible and I wouldn't argue with that. But claiming that Secluded Township is not better than Village is simply wrong.

[Awaclus]

Yep. The card doesn't provide more options on-play so there is no reason why it has to cost more than $3.

Nope. All aspects of a card, not just what happens when you play it, have to be considered when you evaluate it. Otherwise you could easily argue that Inn should cost 4 or, even more nonsensically, that Province should cost 0$ since it is a dead card and cannot even be played.
Secluded Township provides an extra option when you buy it which is why it is strictly superior to Village. You could argue that the option is bad and will be rarely used such that its value is tiny and practically negligible and I wouldn't argue with that. But claiming that Secluded Township is not better than Village is simply wrong.

All aspects of how the actual game plays out, not just a bunch of rules that you have memorized without understanding why those rules exist, have to be considered when you design cards. Just because there are problems associated with cards having strictly superior on-play effects doesn't mean that cards that have strictly superior on-buy effects are at all problematic.

[tristan]

Yep. The card doesn't provide more options on-play so there is no reason why it has to cost more than $3.

Nope. All aspects of a card, not just what happens when you play it, have to be considered when you evaluate it. Otherwise you could easily argue that Inn should cost 4 or, even more nonsensically, that Province should cost 0$ since it is a dead card and cannot even be played.
Secluded Township provides an extra option when you buy it which is why it is strictly superior to Village. You could argue that the option is bad and will be rarely used such that its value is tiny and practically negligible and I wouldn't argue with that. But claiming that Secluded Township is not better than Village is simply wrong.

All aspects of how the actual game plays out, not just a bunch of rules that you have memorized without understanding why those rules exist, have to be considered when you design cards.

Huh? I haven't memorized any rules but used common sense. An extra option is always worth something, even if it is bad and only rarey used and independent on whether this extra option is on-buy, on-gain or on-play. This is why Secluded Township is worth more than Village.

Seems like an issue of projection to me as you are the one who is probably blindly following some rule which says that a card which is strictly better than another one is OK as long as it is only strictly better on-buy or on-gain. I already debunked that nonsense via pointing out that without Inn's on-gain effect the card would be worth around 4$.

[Awaclus]

Huh? I haven't memorized any rules but used common sense. An extra option is always worth something, even if it is bad and only rarey used. This is why Secluded Township is worth more than Village.

Then please explain what kind of common sense led you to the conclusion that it's not problematic if the game offers you a choice between a curse-gaining Secluded Township and a Village (in the case where curse-gaining is mandatory for Secluded Township, thus making it not strictly better than Village, in games where both are present), but it is problematic when the game offers you a choice between a curse-gaining Secluded Township and a Village (in the case where curse-gaining is optional for Secluded Township, thus making it strictly better than Village, in games where both are present).

[tristan]

I already debunked that nonsense via Inn. A hypothetical Inn without the on-gain effect that costs 5$ is strictly worse than the real Inn. So your rule which says that on-gain and on-buy effect are irrelevant is obvious nonsense. Try again.

As others have already pointed out, this is not a big deal though. Just auto top-deck it on-gain and price it at 4$ to evade this price between 3$ and 4$ issue.

[Awaclus]

I already debunked that nonsense via Inn. A hypothetical Inn without the on-gain effect that costs 5$ is strictly worse than the real Inn.
So your rule which says that on-gain and on-buy effect are irrelevant is obvious nonsense.

No, you did not. A hypothetical Inn without the on-gain effect that costs $5 is not detrimental to the game because it's strictly worse than the real Inn, it's just a pretty boring and weak card in a vacuum. It also doesn't address the facts that:

1) In games where only one of the cards is present, it doesn't matter if Village is strictly worse than Secluded Township
2) In games where both of the cards are present, for $3, players can choose to gain a card which just says +1 card, +2 actions, or a card which says +1 card, +2 actions and makes you gain a curse and topdeck itself on-buy. This remains true regardless of if Secluded Township can also act as a regular Village or not.

"On-gain and on-buy effect are irrelevant" is not a rule. It is the lack thereof. "Cards being strictly better than other cards is relevant" is a rule.

[Awaclus]

Address this:

2) In games where both of the cards are present, for $3, players can choose to gain a card which just says +1 card, +2 actions, or a card which says +1 card, +2 actions and makes you gain a curse and topdeck itself on-buy. This remains true regardless of if Secluded Township can also act as a regular Village or not.

[tristan]

"Cards being strictly better than other cards is relevant" is a rule.

Totally agree. But you don't seem to get that a card does not just consist of stuff that happens when you play it.
By your evaluation Province is worse than Copper because you cannot play the former.

A hypothetical Inn without the on-gain effect that costs $5 is not detrimental to the game because it's strictly worse than the real Inn, it's just a pretty boring and weak card in a vacuum

In a Kingdom with both Inns the weaker one will never be gained (until the normal Inn is out). The hypothetical Inn is strictly inferior to the normal Inn. It would probably OK at a price of 4$ but it can never ever cost 5$.

I am sorry but this Inn example really illustrates well that you do not seem to understand why two cards should not be priced identically if the one is always better than the other.

[Awaclus]

Address this:

2) In games where both of the cards are present, for $3, players can choose to gain a card which just says +1 card, +2 actions, or a card which says +1 card, +2 actions and makes you gain a curse and topdeck itself on-buy. This remains true regardless of if Secluded Township can also act as a regular Village or not.

[AdrianHealey]

What's wrong with this point:'secluded village can do everything what village can do, therefore secluded village has to cost more'?

[spiralstaircase]

What's wrong with this point:'secluded village can do everything what village can do, therefore secluded village has to cost more'?

It's missing an "and more"?

[GendoIkari]

Yep. The card doesn't provide more options on-play so there is no reason why it has to cost more than $3.

Port is a village that doesn't provide more options on-play, but it can't cost $3.

Port also isn't strictly better than Village, it's just simply too strong for $3.

With Port I agree because the extra gain isn't optional. If it were, it would be strictly better. It doesn't matter if the extra thing is on play or not.

[AdrianHealey]

What's wrong with this point:'secluded village can do everything what village can do, therefore secluded village has to cost more'?

It's missing an "and more"?

You are correct

[GendoIkari]

(Unnamed)
Action-Reaction $4
+$2
               
When you would trash a card, you may reveal this card in your hand. If you do, discard that card instead. Then discard this card.

We wanted something different that hadn't been done. So here it is. I think the top could be better to warrant the $4, though.

The problem with this is that without trash-for-benefit the reaction is useless, and with it it's potentially crazy. It's a concept that I think a couple of people have tried to do before. You probably want some kind of trash for benefit involved in the card action, and also some limiter on the reaction (eg trashing the card itself instead of the card that was trashed).

I don't think this works with TFB like you're thinking. If you reveal this in response to Remodel, you shouldn't gain any card from Remodel, as there's no "trashed card" to get a cost from. This card should basically just protect you from trashing attacks and that's all.

I looked into this and not all TFBs are worded the same.

The following refer to "the trashed card":
Remodel, Expand, Remake, Farmland

while the following refer to "it":
Upgrade, Rebuild, Bishop, Apprentice, Graverobber, Develop, Trader, Salvager, Transmogrify, Stonemason, Procession, Transmute

Taxman uses both. There's also Governor, which is so verbally dense that space could not be spared for even a "than it", and Mine, which isn't, but omits "than it" anyway, so uh I guess it's implied. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But with all of those except Rebuild and Procession, the wording is like Ironworks so the gain should still fail. With Rebuild and Procession, however, "it" seems to refer to "the Victory card you revealed" and "the Action card you played" respectively, so you should be able to gain without trashing in those two cases.

Finally, the ever-careful Butcher watches and makes sure you really did trash a card so there's no room for funny business there.

In fact, he watches you right now reading this post. His cleaver is ready. It hungers for flesh.

That shouldn't matter, as "it" is a pronoun standing in for "the trashed card".

[singletee]

That shouldn't matter, as "it" is a pronoun standing in for "the trashed card".

Yes, I agree that this is consistent with the ruling on blue dog situations, except in the case of Rebuild and Procession, where the card is identified by other means before you are instructed to trash it.

[GendoIkari]

That shouldn't matter, as "it" is a pronoun standing in for "the trashed card".

Yes, I agree that this is consistent with the ruling on blue dog situations, except in the case of Rebuild and Procession, where the card is identified by other means before you are instructed to trash it.

Yeah, I replied without having read the full post yet.

[Awaclus]

What's wrong with this point:'secluded village can do everything what village can do, therefore secluded village has to cost more'?

There is no reason why a card that can do everything what Village can do should inherently cost more than Village. It should if it causes problems. Secluded Township doesn't.

With Port I agree because the extra gain isn't optional. If it were, it would be strictly better. It doesn't matter if the extra thing is on play or not.

It doesn't matter if it's strictly better. It has to cost $4 because it's too strong for $3. Secluded Township is not too strong for $3.

This also applies to both of you:

Address this:

2) In games where both of the cards are present, for $3, players can choose to gain a card which just says +1 card, +2 actions, or a card which says +1 card, +2 actions and makes you gain a curse and topdeck itself on-buy. This remains true regardless of if Secluded Township can also act as a regular Village or not.

[Destry]

Secluded Township is strictly worse than Walled Village, so it cannot cost $4

[AdrianHealey]

Does walled village have a on buy top deck possibility?

[AdrianHealey]

I find it weird that a card that does everything what another card can do and more *wouldn't* cost more. Is there a Donald quote on this issue??

[Deadlock39]

It seems to me that the cost you pay to gain this ability that makes it better than Village is gaining a Curse.  Why would you need to pay $1 more too?


Obviously there are edge cases where you want the Curse or you can Watchtower it, but in my opinion, that is just Dominion being Dominion.

[AdrianHealey]

It would be interesting when a card would be strictly better than another card AND strictly worse than another card (and those cards have a cost difference of one.)

Either way: my interpretation is that a card that is strictly bettet than another card should always cost more. (Or have some sort of buy restriction.)

Secluded village can cost 3 if it had a clause like 'when you buy, reveal your hand. If you have no reaction cards, you don't gain secluded village' or whatever.

[Awaclus]

I find it weird that a card that does everything what another card can do and more *wouldn't* cost more.

Address this:

2) In games where both of the cards are present, for $3, players can choose to gain a card which just says +1 card, +2 actions, or a card which says +1 card, +2 actions and makes you gain a curse and topdeck itself on-buy. This remains true regardless of if Secluded Township can also act as a regular Village or not.

Either way: my interpretation is that a card that is strictly bettet than another card should always cost more. (Or have some sort of buy restriction.)

Why?