Print

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

[AdrianHealey]

For precisely the thing you consider irrelevant. Not sure how to convince you of a point of view that is essentially quite subjective and as reasonable as the opposite one.

If there are two cards: one that can do everything the other one does and more, it would be weird to not always by the stronger one (but in this case: the effect is weak enough that there are moments that it won't matter). But there are situations that it will matter. And then it's weird that they cost the same: there is literally never a choice involved in that case. (Unless maybe for 'I want to save the card for later' but that's also true if they have different prices.)

If cards don't have the 'everything you can and more', there are choices to be made.

[AdrianHealey]

Either way: I have mad scientist at $3 so yeah. (It's strictly better than warehouse.)

[Destry]

Just because a card does everything and more (or less) than another card, the price point shouldn't automatically moves up or down one coin.

Consider the following three cards:

Village
Action $3
+1 Card; +2 actions

Lightly-Walled Village
Action $?
+1 Card; +2 actions
At the start of Clean-up, if you have this and no more than one other Action card in play, you may gain a Curse. If you do, you may put this on top of your deck.

Walled Village
Action $4
+1 Card; +2 Actions
At the start of Clean-up, if you have this and no more than one other Action card in play, you may put this on top of your deck.

Taking a Curse is a cost in all but a few edge cases, so Lightly-Walled Village should cost $3, even though, because it gives you a choice, it's strictly better than Village. I was being facetious earlier then I said Walled Village is strictly better than Secluded Township. Still, gaining a Curse is almost always bad, and you're likely to topdeck a Walled Village more often than Secluded Township. I'm confident Walled Village is better, and Walled Village is a weak 4.

Personally, if Secluded Township and Village were both out, I'd probably buy both. I don't think I'd topdeck it without a good trasher though.

[AdrianHealey]

I'll grant that with the principles I have: slightly walled village is impossible to price.

Not sure that means those principles are bad, though.

[Awaclus]

Come on, this is starting to get old.

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 there to address besides what's already been said in direct response to it?

[AdrianHealey]

I am ok with agreeing to disagree. This clause is independent from others being ok or not ok with it. Hopefully the discussion was useful for the TS.

[Awaclus]

What's there to address besides what's already been said in direct response to it?

Nobody has said anything in direct response to it. You have not explained how choosing between Village and Secluded Township gaining a Curse is somehow problematic while choosing between Village and Secluded Township gaining a Curse is completely fine.

[AdrianHealey]

Is there a typo in that paragrahp?

The first post on this page, second paragraph, was my intention on responding to the challenge.

Here is the difference.

Side A: All cards should be evaluated and priced according to relative strenght unless: if X can do everything Y can and more, X should always cost more than Y.
Side B: All cards should be evaluated and priced according to relative strength. -period-

So maybe secluded village is a 3,1 in value. Side A makes it cost 4. Side B makes it cost 3.

Both views seem reasonable and defensible. I tend to favor side A. Given that both sides to me look reasonable, I am not sure how to convince anyone of the other position. I also don't think it's very important or game changing.

[wachsmuth]

Come on, this is starting to get old.

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.

This is fine because none of them are strictly better than the other (one of them is not a very good card though, which is another issue). Satisfied or are you going to keep on trolling?

[Awaclus]

Is there a typo in that paragrahp?

The first post on this page, second paragraph, was my intention on responding to the challenge.

If there are two cards: one that can do everything the other one does and more, it would be weird to not always by the stronger one (but in this case: the effect is weak enough that there are moments that it won't matter). But there are situations that it will matter. And then it's weird that they cost the same: there is literally never a choice involved in that case. (Unless maybe for 'I want to save the card for later' but that's also true if they have different prices.)

There is literally always a choice involved when you're buying Secluded Township. That choice is the choice between buying Secluded Township gaining a Curse and buying Secluded Township not gaining a Curse, the latter of which is exactly identical to buying Village. Therefore, you're choosing between buying Secluded Township gaining a Curse and buying Village. It's exactly the same situation as it would be if the Curse-gaining was mandatory.

This is fine because none of them are strictly better than the other (one of them is not a very good card though, which is another issue). Satisfied or are you going to keep on trolling?

Secluded Township whose Curse-gaining is optional is strictly better than Village.

[AdrianHealey]

Is there a typo in that paragrahp?

The first post on this page, second paragraph, was my intention on responding to the challenge.

If there are two cards: one that can do everything the other one does and more, it would be weird to not always by the stronger one (but in this case: the effect is weak enough that there are moments that it won't matter). But there are situations that it will matter. And then it's weird that they cost the same: there is literally never a choice involved in that case. (Unless maybe for 'I want to save the card for later' but that's also true if they have different prices.)

There is literally always a choice involved when you're buying Secluded Township. That choice is the choice between buying Secluded Township gaining a Curse and buying Secluded Township not gaining a Curse, the latter of which is exactly identical to buying Village. Therefore, you're choosing between buying Secluded Township gaining a Curse and buying Village. It's exactly the same situation as it would be if the Curse-gaining was mandatory.

This is fine because none of them are strictly better than the other (one of them is not a very good card though, which is another issue). Satisfied or are you going to keep on trolling?

Secluded Township whose Curse-gaining is optional is strictly better than Village.

This post reads as an excellent argument for why SV should cost more than village! The curse gaining is optional; hence it should cost more.

[AdrianHealey]

Aaah, I get your point now.

When V and SV are both in the kingdom, wether or not you are taking SV from the kingdom pile (and not gaining curse) or village is *identical*; hence it shouldn't cost more. Is this correct?

[singletee]

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.

What you said is true, but it creates what is essentially a 9-card kingdom any time those 2 cards are out together. Unlike Fortress-and-no-trashing, there are no additional conditions required.

[Awaclus]

Aaah, I get your point now.

When V and SV are both in the kingdom, wether or not you are taking SV from the kingdom pile (and not gaining curse) or village is *identical*; hence it shouldn't cost more. Is this correct?

Yes.

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.

What you said is true, but it creates what is essentially a 9-card kingdom any time those 2 cards are out together. Unlike Fortress-and-no-trashing, there are no additional conditions required.

It's still not any different from the Curse-gaining being mandatory in that regard, either. Except that compared to that, making it optional essentially creates an 11-card kingdom whenever Village is not there.

[singletee]

It's still not any different from the Curse-gaining being mandatory in that regard, either. Except that compared to that, making it optional essentially creates an 11-card kingdom whenever Village is not there.

Hmm, I suppose the 9-card-kingdomness is not any more or less with Mandatory SV and Village, since the options are the same as when you have Optional SV and Village. It might still create an unwanted amount of AP as players decide whether they want to buy Village from the Optional SV pile or from the Village pile.

[GendoIkari]

I have to do things that some people hate (in order to have anything anyone loves), but I only do hated things when they are in fact otherwise loved. The hate for strictly better cards is a basic thing I should just avoid, "being strictly better" has no upside. If I am at the point where I can't make cards without doing strictly better cards, again, why haven't I switched to spin-offs already.

So, you are verifying once and for all what an incredible waste of time it is for anyone to try to argue about this with you.

[Awaclus]

I have to do things that some people hate (in order to have anything anyone loves), but I only do hated things when they are in fact otherwise loved. The hate for strictly better cards is a basic thing I should just avoid, "being strictly better" has no upside. If I am at the point where I can't make cards without doing strictly better cards, again, why haven't I switched to spin-offs already.

In this quote, Donald X. was talking specifically about cards

where an old card is simply considered obsolete because of a new card

as you put it. Secluded Township being strictly better than Village doesn't make Village obsolete.