Print

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

[ThetaSigma12]

Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.

By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.

This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.

Hmm, my logic could be wrong. Whether or not it was, (which it could easily be), the conclusion was right. This is probably a fine card for 3, if on the weaker side. I suggest you re-read the whole thread.

[eHalcyon]

Being delayed is generally worse, but not even close to strictly worse. Dinghy is probably better at $2 but it might be OK at $3.

[AdrianHealey]

Dinghy is not a market square next turn.
Dingy turns your next turn into 6 cards, 2 actions and a buy. (Or a lost city + Market square.) That's reasonable at 3, I think. Or, to put it different: a (now) terminal caravan and one additional buy next turn. It could also be a $2 card, I think.

Dingy would be a delayed market square if it just said: +1 Buy next turn. (And then it should probably cost $1 or be an event or something.) The beauty, btw, is that you can play market square AND Dingy.

[LastFootnote]

Whether an effect is better now or at the start of your next turn depends on what the effect is, and also on the situation. I believe that most effects are better if you get them now. Terminal draw is often better later because it doesn't draw cards dead. Some simulations were done for Adventures which show that [+3 Cards next turn]-BM slightly edges out Smithy-BM. That doesn't mean that it's always better than Smithy, but certainly situations exist where it is.

Effects that want a larger hand size (like Warehouse/Dungeon) are better now if you have a good way to non-terminally increase your hand size, but are better at the start of your next turn otherwise.

[tristan]

Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.

By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.

This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.

Hmm, my logic could be wrong. Whether or not it was, (which it could easily be), the conclusion was right. This is probably a fine card for 3, if on the weaker side. I suggest you re-read the whole thread.

Lab is better than Caravan and Caravan is better than a card which says "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards +1 Action. That's not my opinion but hyperobvious and reflected by the cost of Caravan and Lab.
Same with Market Square and Dingy. The former beats the latter in every respect (no delay, plus the Reaction).

Of course there are rare circumstances in which you might prefer delaying. Suppose there is an Action card which provides 4 coins. Obviously it is better than Merchant Ship but in a particular situation in which you have 6 Coins and no extra buy you would prefer playing a Merchant Ship over the hypothetical "+4 Coins".
The cases in which this happens are trivial compared to the number of cases in which the immediate 4 Coins are far better. Oh, and obviously such a card would probably be balanced around 6$.

[AdrianHealey]

Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.

By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.

This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.

Hmm, my logic could be wrong. Whether or not it was, (which it could easily be), the conclusion was right. This is probably a fine card for 3, if on the weaker side. I suggest you re-read the whole thread.

Lab is better than Caravan and Caravan is better than a card which says "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards +1 Action. That's not my opinion but hyperobvious and reflected by the cost of Caravan and Lab.
Same with Market Square and Dingy. The former beats the latter in every respect (no delay, plus the Reaction).

Of course there are rare circumstances in which you might prefer delaying. Suppose there is an Action card which provides 4 coins. Obviously it is better than Merchant Ship but in a particular situation in which you have 6 Coins and no extra buy you would prefer playing a Merchant Ship over the hypothetical "+4 Coins".
The cases in which this happens are trivial compared to the number of cases in which the immediate 4 Coins are far better. Oh, and obviously such a card would probably be balanced around 6$.

Wait, a lab next turn is 'obviously' better than a terminal now-lab+lost village next turn? I don't think that's so obviously true.

Dingy is a terminal-next turn lab+market square. This is, again, not obviously that much worse than a market square now. In games with sufficient actions but no trashing, I might prefer dingy to make sure my engine can go off again next turn.

You are aware that Dingy is *not* a delayed market square, right? A delayed market square would be: 'at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy'. That's a delayed market square.

[tristan]

Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.

By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.

This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.

Hmm, my logic could be wrong. Whether or not it was, (which it could easily be), the conclusion was right. This is probably a fine card for 3, if on the weaker side. I suggest you re-read the whole thread.

Lab is better than Caravan and Caravan is better than a card which says "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards +1 Action. That's not my opinion but hyperobvious and reflected by the cost of Caravan and Lab.
Same with Market Square and Dingy. The former beats the latter in every respect (no delay, plus the Reaction).

Of course there are rare circumstances in which you might prefer delaying. Suppose there is an Action card which provides 4 coins. Obviously it is better than Merchant Ship but in a particular situation in which you have 6 Coins and no extra buy you would prefer playing a Merchant Ship over the hypothetical "+4 Coins".
The cases in which this happens are trivial compared to the number of cases in which the immediate 4 Coins are far better. Oh, and obviously such a card would probably be balanced around 6$.

Wait, a lab next turn is 'obviously' better than a terminal now-lab+lost village next turn? I don't think that's so obviously true.

Dingy is a terminal-next turn lab+market square. This is, again, not obviously that much worse than a market square now. In games with sufficient actions but no trashing, I might prefer dingy to make sure my engine can go off again next turn.

You are aware that Dingy is *not* a delayed market square, right? A delayed market square would be: 'at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy'. That's a delayed market square.

Yeah, it is dead card now and a Market Square sans reaction next turn, making it worse in every way than a Market Square.

That extra Action and Card which the hyperdelayed Market Square provides are not a supervaluable asset that it makes it stronger than a normal Market Square. It is the very stuff which a normal Market Square would provide in the FIRST instead of just the second turn.

Surely I don't have to explain to an economist that you gotta discount the future, especially in a game which runs around 15-30 turns.

[ThetaSigma12]

Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.

By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.

This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.

Hmm, my logic could be wrong. Whether or not it was, (which it could easily be), the conclusion was right. This is probably a fine card for 3, if on the weaker side. I suggest you re-read the whole thread.

Lab is better than Caravan and Caravan is better than a card which says "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards +1 Action. That's not my opinion but hyperobvious and reflected by the cost of Caravan and Lab.
Same with Market Square and Dingy. The former beats the latter in every respect (no delay, plus the Reaction).

Of course there are rare circumstances in which you might prefer delaying. Suppose there is an Action card which provides 4 coins. Obviously it is better than Merchant Ship but in a particular situation in which you have 6 Coins and no extra buy you would prefer playing a Merchant Ship over the hypothetical "+4 Coins".
The cases in which this happens are trivial compared to the number of cases in which the immediate 4 Coins are far better. Oh, and obviously such a card would probably be balanced around 6$.

Wait, a lab next turn is 'obviously' better than a terminal now-lab+lost village next turn? I don't think that's so obviously true.

Dingy is a terminal-next turn lab+market square. This is, again, not obviously that much worse than a market square now. In games with sufficient actions but no trashing, I might prefer dingy to make sure my engine can go off again next turn.

You are aware that Dingy is *not* a delayed market square, right? A delayed market square would be: 'at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy'. That's a delayed market square.

Yeah, it is dead card now and a Market Square sans reaction next turn, making it worse in every way than a Market Square
Surely I don't have to explain to an economist that you gotta discount the future, especially in a game which runs around 15-30 turns, do I?

IT"S NOT A MARKET SQUARE NEXT TURN, IT'S A LOST CITY + MARKET SQUARE

sorry for the caps, just trying to make a point.

[tristan]

Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.

By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.

This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.

Hmm, my logic could be wrong. Whether or not it was, (which it could easily be), the conclusion was right. This is probably a fine card for 3, if on the weaker side. I suggest you re-read the whole thread.

Lab is better than Caravan and Caravan is better than a card which says "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards +1 Action. That's not my opinion but hyperobvious and reflected by the cost of Caravan and Lab.
Same with Market Square and Dingy. The former beats the latter in every respect (no delay, plus the Reaction).

Of course there are rare circumstances in which you might prefer delaying. Suppose there is an Action card which provides 4 coins. Obviously it is better than Merchant Ship but in a particular situation in which you have 6 Coins and no extra buy you would prefer playing a Merchant Ship over the hypothetical "+4 Coins".
The cases in which this happens are trivial compared to the number of cases in which the immediate 4 Coins are far better. Oh, and obviously such a card would probably be balanced around 6$.

Wait, a lab next turn is 'obviously' better than a terminal now-lab+lost village next turn? I don't think that's so obviously true.

Dingy is a terminal-next turn lab+market square. This is, again, not obviously that much worse than a market square now. In games with sufficient actions but no trashing, I might prefer dingy to make sure my engine can go off again next turn.

You are aware that Dingy is *not* a delayed market square, right? A delayed market square would be: 'at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy'. That's a delayed market square.

Yeah, it is dead card now and a Market Square sans reaction next turn, making it worse in every way than a Market Square
Surely I don't have to explain to an economist that you gotta discount the future, especially in a game which runs around 15-30 turns, do I?

IT"S NOT A MARKET SQUARE NEXT TURN, IT'S A LOST CITY + MARKET SQUARE

sorry for the caps, just trying to make a point.

Yep and it is a dead card this turn.
Anything non-terminal that is dead this turn and does the stuff which card XYZ does on turn 1 instead on turn 2 is worse than card XYZ.

By your weird logic Fishing Village is better than Bazaar. It is a Bazaar next turn which makes it in your opinion better than Bazaar but instead of being a deed card it even does something this turn. Hell, Fishing Village should cost 6!

[AdrianHealey]

Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.

By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.

This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.

Hmm, my logic could be wrong. Whether or not it was, (which it could easily be), the conclusion was right. This is probably a fine card for 3, if on the weaker side. I suggest you re-read the whole thread.

Lab is better than Caravan and Caravan is better than a card which says "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards +1 Action. That's not my opinion but hyperobvious and reflected by the cost of Caravan and Lab.
Same with Market Square and Dingy. The former beats the latter in every respect (no delay, plus the Reaction).

Of course there are rare circumstances in which you might prefer delaying. Suppose there is an Action card which provides 4 coins. Obviously it is better than Merchant Ship but in a particular situation in which you have 6 Coins and no extra buy you would prefer playing a Merchant Ship over the hypothetical "+4 Coins".
The cases in which this happens are trivial compared to the number of cases in which the immediate 4 Coins are far better. Oh, and obviously such a card would probably be balanced around 6$.

Wait, a lab next turn is 'obviously' better than a terminal now-lab+lost village next turn? I don't think that's so obviously true.

Dingy is a terminal-next turn lab+market square. This is, again, not obviously that much worse than a market square now. In games with sufficient actions but no trashing, I might prefer dingy to make sure my engine can go off again next turn.

You are aware that Dingy is *not* a delayed market square, right? A delayed market square would be: 'at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy'. That's a delayed market square.

Yeah, it is dead card now and a Market Square sans reaction next turn, making it worse in every way than a Market Square
Surely I don't have to explain to an economist that you gotta discount the future, especially in a game which runs around 15-30 turns, do I?

IT"S NOT A MARKET SQUARE NEXT TURN, IT'S A LOST CITY + MARKET SQUARE

sorry for the caps, just trying to make a point.

Yes, this.

A market square replaces itself in your hand. So you start the turn with 5 cards. You play market square. You have 5 cards, 1 action and 2 buys, one more than you started with.

You play a dingy. You have 4 cards. Next turn: you have 6 cards, 2 actions and 2buys. That's pretty good. That's like, like Theta says, playing a lost village *and* a market square. And you get both of those effects... by playing one card in the previous turn. Not as good as tactician, but pretty good for a $3, I'd say.

[ThetaSigma12]

Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.

By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.

This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.

Hmm, my logic could be wrong. Whether or not it was, (which it could easily be), the conclusion was right. This is probably a fine card for 3, if on the weaker side. I suggest you re-read the whole thread.

Lab is better than Caravan and Caravan is better than a card which says "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards +1 Action. That's not my opinion but hyperobvious and reflected by the cost of Caravan and Lab.
Same with Market Square and Dingy. The former beats the latter in every respect (no delay, plus the Reaction).

Of course there are rare circumstances in which you might prefer delaying. Suppose there is an Action card which provides 4 coins. Obviously it is better than Merchant Ship but in a particular situation in which you have 6 Coins and no extra buy you would prefer playing a Merchant Ship over the hypothetical "+4 Coins".
The cases in which this happens are trivial compared to the number of cases in which the immediate 4 Coins are far better. Oh, and obviously such a card would probably be balanced around 6$.

Wait, a lab next turn is 'obviously' better than a terminal now-lab+lost village next turn? I don't think that's so obviously true.

Dingy is a terminal-next turn lab+market square. This is, again, not obviously that much worse than a market square now. In games with sufficient actions but no trashing, I might prefer dingy to make sure my engine can go off again next turn.

You are aware that Dingy is *not* a delayed market square, right? A delayed market square would be: 'at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy'. That's a delayed market square.

Yeah, it is dead card now and a Market Square sans reaction next turn, making it worse in every way than a Market Square
Surely I don't have to explain to an economist that you gotta discount the future, especially in a game which runs around 15-30 turns, do I?

IT"S NOT A MARKET SQUARE NEXT TURN, IT'S A LOST CITY + MARKET SQUARE

sorry for the caps, just trying to make a point.

Yep and it is a dead card this turn.
Anything non-terminal that is dead this turn and does the stuff which card XYZ does on turn 1 instead on turn 2 is worse than card XYZ.

By your weird logic Fishing Village is better than Bazaar. It is a Bazaar next turn which makes it in your opinion better than Bazaar but instead of being a deed card it even does something this turn. Hell, Fishing Village should cost 6!

No it's not. You can't just say that. Didn't you read what LFN posted?

Whether an effect is better now or at the start of your next turn depends on what the effect is, and also on the situation. I believe that most effects are better if you get them now. Terminal draw is often better later because it doesn't draw cards dead. Some simulations were done for Adventures which show that [+3 Cards next turn]-BM slightly edges out Smithy-BM. That doesn't mean that it's always better than Smithy, but certainly situations exist where it is.

Effects that want a larger hand size (like Warehouse/Dungeon) are better now if you have a good way to non-terminally increase your hand size, but are better at the start of your next turn otherwise.

I can understand Dinghy being weak, rinworks said it was.

[AdrianHealey]

Okay, I'm a little confused on what you are trying to prove. I think we can both agree that this isn't strictly worse, but it could be worse. And yes, at the start of your next turn: 1 Card, +2 Actions is probably better than village.

By your weird logic Fishing Village would be better than Bazaar as it is a Bazaar next turn and something now. Obviously this is preposterous.
By your logic Swamp Hag would be WORSE if it provided the 3 coins right now because IT IS A TRIPLE PEDDLER NEXT TURN !!!.

This is not a matter of opinion. A delayed effect is simply worse than the immediate effect. I want my stuff now, not next year when I am dead or next turn when the game might be already over.

Hmm, my logic could be wrong. Whether or not it was, (which it could easily be), the conclusion was right. This is probably a fine card for 3, if on the weaker side. I suggest you re-read the whole thread.

Lab is better than Caravan and Caravan is better than a card which says "At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards +1 Action. That's not my opinion but hyperobvious and reflected by the cost of Caravan and Lab.
Same with Market Square and Dingy. The former beats the latter in every respect (no delay, plus the Reaction).

Of course there are rare circumstances in which you might prefer delaying. Suppose there is an Action card which provides 4 coins. Obviously it is better than Merchant Ship but in a particular situation in which you have 6 Coins and no extra buy you would prefer playing a Merchant Ship over the hypothetical "+4 Coins".
The cases in which this happens are trivial compared to the number of cases in which the immediate 4 Coins are far better. Oh, and obviously such a card would probably be balanced around 6$.

Wait, a lab next turn is 'obviously' better than a terminal now-lab+lost village next turn? I don't think that's so obviously true.

Dingy is a terminal-next turn lab+market square. This is, again, not obviously that much worse than a market square now. In games with sufficient actions but no trashing, I might prefer dingy to make sure my engine can go off again next turn.

You are aware that Dingy is *not* a delayed market square, right? A delayed market square would be: 'at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy'. That's a delayed market square.

Yeah, it is dead card now and a Market Square sans reaction next turn, making it worse in every way than a Market Square
Surely I don't have to explain to an economist that you gotta discount the future, especially in a game which runs around 15-30 turns, do I?

IT"S NOT A MARKET SQUARE NEXT TURN, IT'S A LOST CITY + MARKET SQUARE

sorry for the caps, just trying to make a point.

Yep and it is a dead card this turn.
Anything non-terminal that is dead this turn and does the stuff which card XYZ does on turn 1 instead on turn 2 is worse than card XYZ.

By your weird logic Fishing Village is better than Bazaar. It is a Bazaar next turn which makes it in your opinion better than Bazaar but instead of being a deed card it even does something this turn. Hell, Fishing Village should cost 6!

Lost city + Market square = $8.
Fishing village costs $2 less than bazaar, so the discounted value of an effect is around $2. So dingy can reliably cost $6 and still be worthwile!



Any case, a delayed market square's costs would be: '+1 Buy next turn'. That's a delayed market square. A delayed lost city-market square is a whole different card, and pretty good. $3 sounds like a plausible number. You can probably even make it $5 if it's +1 Action now, which would make it a better card, imo.

[tristan]

You play a dingy. You have 4 cards. Next turn: you have 6 cards, 2 actions and 2buys. That's pretty good. That's like, like Theta says, playing a lost village *and* a market square. And you get both of those effects... by playing one card in the previous turn. Not as good as tactician, but pretty good for a $3, I'd say.

Man, Enchantress kicks ass. It is a Double Lab next turn! For a mere 3! And with an attack on top! Totally overpowered!

Ignoring that a card is dead and just focusing on the duration effect leads you to totally misjudging any Duration card. Swamp Hag is a triple Peddler. Wharf is a Double Lab with a Market Square on top! Fishing Village is a Bazaar! Lighthouse is a Peddler!

[tristan]

No it's not. You can't just say that. Didn't you read what LFN posted?

I did. You seemingly didn't.
He made good point about terminal draw being potentially good when delayed which is why I explicitly said non-terminals.

[trivialknot]

What if we simply had a delayed cantrip?

Delayed Cantrip - $2 Action/Duration
At the beginning of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action.

Obviously this is extremely weak.  But is it so weak that you would prefer not to have it at all?  Or are there situations where you'd want it if you can get it for free?  Maybe it could be combined with some other weak effects:

Delayed Scoutess - $2 Action/Duration
At the beginning of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action.
Then reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put the revealed Victory cards into your hand. Put the other cards on top of your deck in any order.
In games using this, when you gain a Duchy, you may gain a Delayed Scoutess.

[AdrianHealey]

You play a dingy. You have 4 cards. Next turn: you have 6 cards, 2 actions and 2buys. That's pretty good. That's like, like Theta says, playing a lost village *and* a market square. And you get both of those effects... by playing one card in the previous turn. Not as good as tactician, but pretty good for a $3, I'd say.

Man, Enchantress kicks ass. It is a Double Lab next turn! For a mere 3! And with an attack on top! Totally overpowered!

Ignoring that a card is dead and just focusing on the duration effect leads you to totally misjudging any Duration card. Swamp Hag is a triple Peddler. Wharf is a Double Lab with a Market Square on top! Fishing Village is a Bazaar! Lighthouse is a Peddler!

And they all cost accordingly less. Fishing village costs $2 less, lighthouse costs $2 less, swamp hag costs $7 less ($12 as benchmark), wharf $8 less ($13 as benchmark) We notice a trend: non-terminals cost about $2 less and terminals costs a lot (around 7-8) more less.

So lost city + market square = $8. Delayed, it would be fine at $5-$6 if non-terminal and $3 ($5 less) if terminal seem ok. Although $2 ($6 less) might also work. Wharf is considered pretty good. Sea hag needs the +$3 bonus because it's mere presence makes it less likely you buy a lot of cards, so what you buy needs to be *good*.

[tristan]

What if we simply had a delayed cantrip?

Delayed Cantrip - $2 Action/Duration
At the beginning of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action.

Obviously this is extremely weak.  But is it so weak that you would prefer not to have it at all?  Or are there situations where you'd want it if you can get it for free?

If you want that extra Action the card provides you play with many Action cards. If you play with many Action cards it hurts that the Delayed Cantrip is dead this turn. So the only useful thing it does for you is providing one card. But instead of getting it immediately you get it next turn.
So most of the times it is worse than a cantrip. AdrianHealey is right that it does transfer resources if you play with only one or two copies. But if you play with several it is worse than a normal cantrip as stuff is simply delayed.

Take Market Square and hyperdelayed Market Square. If I just need the buys I want some normal Market Squares. If I want some Minitacticians hyperdelayed Market Square is OK-ish. But if I want these Minitacticians to hit every turn I fool myself as I need the extra Action and extra Card just to play another hyperdelayed Market Square so I would be better off with the normal Market Square that hits earlier and doesn't miss reshuffles.

[LastFootnote]

I do agree with tristan that Hyperdelayed Market Square is probably much weaker than normal Market Square (even without factoring in the Reaction). The cost of getting nothing on the turn you play it is very steep. And I think "mini-Tactician" is overselling the next-turn effect; +1 Card vs. +5 Cards is just too great a gulf.

EDIT: So to circle back to the original argument, although I don't think it makes sense to call Dinghy "strictly worse" than Market Square, it does seem really weak. Probably too weak to be a Kingdom card that you buy by normal means. Duchess would probably fall into this category too if it didn't have the "when you gain a Duchy" clause.

[AdrianHealey]

I stand by my jusgement: dingy seems decent in a non-trashing engine deck, with spare +actions. Those happen. I think it should be $2, for opening purposes.
Or make it non-terminal for 5. That would be abtter card imo.

Also, if it's the only +buy, it gets really interesting.

[ThetaSigma12]

Better?

[LastFootnote]

I stand by my jusgement: dingy seems decent in a non-trashing engine deck, with spare +actions. Those happen.

Also, if it's the only +buy, it gets really interesting.

I think if Dinghy is the only +Buy, you're sad that there isn't another +Buy and grudgingly buy two Dinghies for your engine. I wouldn't call it interesting.

Non-trashing engine decks are hard to build and need powerful draw. I think Dinghy actively sabotages such a deck as much as it helps it. If a Dinghy in your hand had been a cantrip (or nothing), you'd have a much better chance to draw the Village/Smithy/whatever you needed to draw your deck that turn. The fact that it gives you +1 Card and +1 Action on your next turn is at best a wash and quite often worse.

EDIT: And you can't forget that an engine that draws your deck needs two Dinghies just to get the same value of one Market Square, since you can only play each one every other turn.

[LastFootnote]

Better?

Yes-ish? I mean it's certainly stronger, but I'm not sure it's enough better. You might try it at $2 first.

[LastFootnote]

It's interesting to see WanderingWinder's analyses in the old posts of this thread. I think he misses the mark by a lot, and it just goes to show that even the best players are not infallible, especially when trying to estimate the power of cards they've never played with. This is nothing against WW specifically; nobody's perfect and everybody learns over time.

In particular, I think the myth of "one bad turn and one good turn beats two normal turns" needs to be debunked. In the absence of combos, Tactician is a pretty poor card! Giving up a turn really hurts! It's just that there usually are combos, ways to get value out of a turn before you play Tactician.

[Deadlock39]

I think a card that just gives +1 card/+1 action on the next turn could give a good action reliability boost to the right type of engine and would be worth getting two of in a lot of cases. With one of these in play each turn, you don't need to draw a Village in your starting hand, and can have better reliability in a deck that doesn't have a ton of excess actions.  Since you are playing this "Village" on the previous turn, it doesn't matter if your other one is the last card in your deck.

In the right context, this type of effect is stronger, the problem is, you need twice as many cards to get that effect every turn, so to compare it to the regular version of the card, you have to double the price and use 2 buys. (This considers only the drawing your deck case.)  If I have a deck setup that draws itself entirely from duration effects, and then just plays new durations to set up the next turn, then it is 100% reliable. The same cards that take effect this turn lose some reliability, but the cost is much lower because I don't have to buy 2 copies of everything.

[LastFootnote]

I think a card that just gives +1 card/+1 action on the next turn could give a good action reliability boost to the right type of engine and would be worth getting two of in a lot of cases. With one of these in play each turn, you don't need to draw a Village in your starting hand, and can have better reliability in a deck that doesn't have a ton of excess actions.  Since you are playing this "Village" on the previous turn, it doesn't matter if your other one is the last card in your deck.

But it does matter if it isn't the last card in your deck because it's a stop card. The +1 Card and +1 Action you gain, you also lose when you have to play it.

[At the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action] is Ruins-bad. I mean it might be the strongest Ruins, but it's still in that ballpark.