Print

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

[eHalcyon]

and Masterpiece definitely shouldn't be on the $3 list.

I still can't find myself convinced of this.  Masterpiece is basically a bridge that only works on silver.

I'm sorry, but this is absurd.  It plays absolutely nothing like Bridge.  It is a treasure flooder, specifically of Silver.  Bridge decks involve villages for actions, drawers to get bridges together, and someone quoting me with some comment about Bridge the card game.  Masterpiece involves none of that, and gives you a bunch of Silvers immediately (indeed, before even gaining the Masterpiece itself)!

I mean the effect of it.  Buying a Masterpiece is equivalent to having played a (noncommulative) bridge for each $1 extra you play, but you can only use the Bridge for Silver.  The mechanics of how you get to that point are entirely different.  So maybe I spoke poorly.  My point wasn't that Masterpiece plays like Bridge, it was that we can evaluate Masterpiece as a $3 card by taking the overpayment into account. 

But your point is kind of what I'm trying to say.  For Bridge to be a sensible card to buy, you have to be buying cards that draw and cards that give extra actions (and have a deck of playing cards lying around).  These things you take into account when you rank Bridge as a $4 card.  When you buy Masterpiece, you have to spend some extra money, or else you bought a $3 Copper.  You need to spend more money and get more cards to make it worthwhile, but you have to do that for almost every other card as well (possibly on different turns).  This you would take into account when you rank it as a $3 card. 

The basic question is what kind of analysis would you go through to rank overpay cards.  I'm saying you can guide yourself by thinking of overpay cards in a similar way as cards that require you to buy other cards to make that purchase not useless (FG, Bridge, Villages, etc.)

"The mechanics of how you get to that point are entirely different."  You act like it doesn't matter, but it does.  It is an extremely complicated way to compare the cards, especially because you are now bringing in a restricted version of a $4 terminal action card to help you evaluate a $3 treasure.  That's a lot of hoops to jump through and it makes it more difficult to evaluate, not less.  I mean, I'm not going to evaluate Workshop by saying, "Workshop is like playing Contraband with $1 extra value except you have to use the extra Buy with only the money you get from Contraband and any coin left over from it can't be used with other buys".  It's nominally true, but it is not a useful poin of comparison.

[WanderingWinder]

But again, no matter where you put the card, you have to keep in mind that you could pay more for it (or less for it, if it goes on a higher list) to get a proportionally better (or worse) ability.  Given this, you could put it pretty much anywhere.  But the best place to put it is, I think, the cost at which the card is most commonly purchased.  By doing so, we would minimize the impact of all that extra stuff we have to account for.  We compare the cards to their usual competition.

I agree with most of what you are saying. But the bolded bit is incorrect, largely because... well, okay, herald and doctor probably will most commonly be bought right on their cost (well, maybe doctor more often for 4, but it will be close), and the real question is the other two, where the on-buy is the heart of the card. So to finish my sentence, the bolded bit is largely incorrect for those cards because there is *no* cost where they will be bought particularly often, or more than 50% or anything (also keeping in mind that e.g. 2s are usually bought for more than 2, 5s are often bought for more than 5, etc. even though that gives you no extra power). I think trying to determine these costs is not only practically difficult but actually impossible. Masterpiece won't play like a 5, it will play like a sometimes-5, sometimes-6, sometimes-7. You can't eliminate that out, so you stick it somewhere and have to deal.

I also don't think that these cards suddenly skyrocket to the top of their lists, because you take the price into account. Masterpiece isn't inherently stronger than masquerade because it CAN have a stronger effect, because to have that stronger effect, you have to pay more, which is something you take into account based on evaluation.

Again, we largely agree here, and I think it doesn't make so much a difference. And when I say that Masterpiece costs 3 coin and Stonemason costs 2, I am the best kind of correct - technically correct

[SirPeebles]

But again, no matter where you put the card, you have to keep in mind that you could pay more for it (or less for it, if it goes on a higher list) to get a proportionally better (or worse) ability.  Given this, you could put it pretty much anywhere.  But the best place to put it is, I think, the cost at which the card is most commonly purchased.  By doing so, we would minimize the impact of all that extra stuff we have to account for.  We compare the cards to their usual competition.

I agree with most of what you are saying. But the bolded bit is incorrect, largely because... well, okay, herald and doctor probably will most commonly be bought right on their cost (well, maybe doctor more often for 4, but it will be close), and the real question is the other two, where the on-buy is the heart of the card. So to finish my sentence, the bolded bit is largely incorrect for those cards because there is *no* cost where they will be bought particularly often, or more than 50% or anything (also keeping in mind that e.g. 2s are usually bought for more than 2, 5s are often bought for more than 5, etc. even though that gives you no extra power). I think trying to determine these costs is not only practically difficult but actually impossible. Masterpiece won't play like a 5, it will play like a sometimes-5, sometimes-6, sometimes-7. You can't eliminate that out, so you stick it somewhere and have to deal.

I also don't think that these cards suddenly skyrocket to the top of their lists, because you take the price into account. Masterpiece isn't inherently stronger than masquerade because it CAN have a stronger effect, because to have that stronger effect, you have to pay more, which is something you take into account based on evaluation.

Again, we largely agree here, and I think it doesn't make so much a difference. And when I say that Masterpiece costs 3 coin and Stonemason costs 2, I am the best kind of correct - technically correct

You have a good point that there probably isn't a particularly good "usual" cost for these cards, most especially for Stonemason.  Stonemason to pick up double $2s and double $3s definitely happens, as well as double $2Ps and double $3Ps.  However, consider that we currently have $6+ as a category.  I think sticking Stonemason there is fine (so, going double $4+).  Is it perfect?  No.  But I think it's a better representation of Stonemason than $2.

[Witherweaver]

and Masterpiece definitely shouldn't be on the $3 list.

I still can't find myself convinced of this.  Masterpiece is basically a bridge that only works on silver.

I'm sorry, but this is absurd.  It plays absolutely nothing like Bridge.  It is a treasure flooder, specifically of Silver.  Bridge decks involve villages for actions, drawers to get bridges together, and someone quoting me with some comment about Bridge the card game.  Masterpiece involves none of that, and gives you a bunch of Silvers immediately (indeed, before even gaining the Masterpiece itself)!

I mean the effect of it.  Buying a Masterpiece is equivalent to having played a (noncommulative) bridge for each $1 extra you play, but you can only use the Bridge for Silver.  The mechanics of how you get to that point are entirely different.  So maybe I spoke poorly.  My point wasn't that Masterpiece plays like Bridge, it was that we can evaluate Masterpiece as a $3 card by taking the overpayment into account. 

But your point is kind of what I'm trying to say.  For Bridge to be a sensible card to buy, you have to be buying cards that draw and cards that give extra actions (and have a deck of playing cards lying around).  These things you take into account when you rank Bridge as a $4 card.  When you buy Masterpiece, you have to spend some extra money, or else you bought a $3 Copper.  You need to spend more money and get more cards to make it worthwhile, but you have to do that for almost every other card as well (possibly on different turns).  This you would take into account when you rank it as a $3 card. 

The basic question is what kind of analysis would you go through to rank overpay cards.  I'm saying you can guide yourself by thinking of overpay cards in a similar way as cards that require you to buy other cards to make that purchase not useless (FG, Bridge, Villages, etc.)

"The mechanics of how you get to that point are entirely different."  You act like it doesn't matter, but it does.  It is an extremely complicated way to compare the cards, especially because you are now bringing in a restricted version of a $4 terminal action card to help you evaluate a $3 treasure.  That's a lot of hoops to jump through and it makes it more difficult to evaluate, not less.  I mean, I'm not going to evaluate Workshop by saying, "Workshop is like playing Contraband with $1 extra value except you have to use the extra Buy with only the money you get from Contraband and any coin left over from it can't be used with other buys".  It's nominally true, but it is not a useful poin of comparison.

Man I didn't think it was that complicated or required that many hoops.  I just thought we could perhaps consider the overpay cost as being similar to having to purchase extra cards to make use of a given card when trying to evaluate the rank of the overpay card at its base cost.

[eHalcyon]

But again, no matter where you put the card, you have to keep in mind that you could pay more for it (or less for it, if it goes on a higher list) to get a proportionally better (or worse) ability.  Given this, you could put it pretty much anywhere.  But the best place to put it is, I think, the cost at which the card is most commonly purchased.  By doing so, we would minimize the impact of all that extra stuff we have to account for.  We compare the cards to their usual competition.

I agree with most of what you are saying. But the bolded bit is incorrect, largely because... well, okay, herald and doctor probably will most commonly be bought right on their cost (well, maybe doctor more often for 4, but it will be close), and the real question is the other two, where the on-buy is the heart of the card. So to finish my sentence, the bolded bit is largely incorrect for those cards because there is *no* cost where they will be bought particularly often, or more than 50% or anything (also keeping in mind that e.g. 2s are usually bought for more than 2, 5s are often bought for more than 5, etc. even though that gives you no extra power). I think trying to determine these costs is not only practically difficult but actually impossible. Masterpiece won't play like a 5, it will play like a sometimes-5, sometimes-6, sometimes-7. You can't eliminate that out, so you stick it somewhere and have to deal.

I also don't think that these cards suddenly skyrocket to the top of their lists, because you take the price into account. Masterpiece isn't inherently stronger than masquerade because it CAN have a stronger effect, because to have that stronger effect, you have to pay more, which is something you take into account based on evaluation.

Again, we largely agree here, and I think it doesn't make so much a difference. And when I say that Masterpiece costs 3 coin and Stonemason costs 2, I am the best kind of correct - technically correct

You have a good point that there probably isn't a particularly good "usual" cost for these cards, most especially for Stonemason.  Stonemason to pick up double $2s and double $3s definitely happens, as well as double $2Ps and double $3Ps.  However, consider that we currently have $6+ as a category.  I think sticking Stonemason there is fine (so, going double $4+).  Is it perfect?  No.  But I think it's a better representation of Stonemason than $2.

Yes, this is what I'm getting at.  There is no obvious perfect place, but $6+ is a better place for Stonemason than $2, and $5 or $6+ is a better place for Masterpiece than $3 or $4.  Like you, I would put Herald at its base $4.  Unlike you, I think Doctor would be the most difficult to find a real good place (I explained earlier), in which case I throw my hands up and say "yeah ok, just stick it with the $3s then".

[Robz888]

But again, no matter where you put the card, you have to keep in mind that you could pay more for it (or less for it, if it goes on a higher list) to get a proportionally better (or worse) ability.  Given this, you could put it pretty much anywhere.  But the best place to put it is, I think, the cost at which the card is most commonly purchased.  By doing so, we would minimize the impact of all that extra stuff we have to account for.  We compare the cards to their usual competition.

I agree with most of what you are saying. But the bolded bit is incorrect, largely because... well, okay, herald and doctor probably will most commonly be bought right on their cost (well, maybe doctor more often for 4, but it will be close), and the real question is the other two, where the on-buy is the heart of the card. So to finish my sentence, the bolded bit is largely incorrect for those cards because there is *no* cost where they will be bought particularly often, or more than 50% or anything (also keeping in mind that e.g. 2s are usually bought for more than 2, 5s are often bought for more than 5, etc. even though that gives you no extra power). I think trying to determine these costs is not only practically difficult but actually impossible. Masterpiece won't play like a 5, it will play like a sometimes-5, sometimes-6, sometimes-7. You can't eliminate that out, so you stick it somewhere and have to deal.

I also don't think that these cards suddenly skyrocket to the top of their lists, because you take the price into account. Masterpiece isn't inherently stronger than masquerade because it CAN have a stronger effect, because to have that stronger effect, you have to pay more, which is something you take into account based on evaluation.

Again, we largely agree here, and I think it doesn't make so much a difference. And when I say that Masterpiece costs 3 coin and Stonemason costs 2, I am the best kind of correct - technically correct

You have a good point that there probably isn't a particularly good "usual" cost for these cards, most especially for Stonemason.  Stonemason to pick up double $2s and double $3s definitely happens, as well as double $2Ps and double $3Ps.  However, consider that we currently have $6+ as a category.  I think sticking Stonemason there is fine (so, going double $4+).  Is it perfect?  No.  But I think it's a better representation of Stonemason than $2.

Yes, this is what I'm getting at.  There is no obvious perfect place, but $6+ is a better place for Stonemason than $2, and $5 or $6+ is a better place for Masterpiece than $3 or $4.  Like you, I would put Herald at its base $4.  Unlike you, I think Doctor would be the most difficult to find a real good place (I explained earlier), in which case I throw my hands up and say "yeah ok, just stick it with the $3s then".

I disagree absolutely. On the "Cards Ranked By Cost" List, there IS an obvious perfect place. Stonemason belongs with his friends Chapel, Courtyard, Hamlet, et al on the $2 cards list. This is because he is a $2 cost card. The instruction manual, and common sense, make this overwhelmingly clear. You can overpay for him, and get some benefit, and it's a function of his cost, but it's not the essence of his cost.

Now you could also ask "Is cost the best way to arrange card rankings?" Perhaps it isn't. It's the one theory and Qvist used, and I happen to like, and I do think it's helped improve our understanding of the cards more so than the "Best Villages" list, which was also a lot of fun, so more lists is always good. A straight list (1. King's Court 2. Goons ? 3. Chapel?? 4. Witch? Masquerade? Wharf? Rebuild? tough stuff) might be interesting, or even better, sure.

[eHalcyon]

But again, no matter where you put the card, you have to keep in mind that you could pay more for it (or less for it, if it goes on a higher list) to get a proportionally better (or worse) ability.  Given this, you could put it pretty much anywhere.  But the best place to put it is, I think, the cost at which the card is most commonly purchased.  By doing so, we would minimize the impact of all that extra stuff we have to account for.  We compare the cards to their usual competition.

I agree with most of what you are saying. But the bolded bit is incorrect, largely because... well, okay, herald and doctor probably will most commonly be bought right on their cost (well, maybe doctor more often for 4, but it will be close), and the real question is the other two, where the on-buy is the heart of the card. So to finish my sentence, the bolded bit is largely incorrect for those cards because there is *no* cost where they will be bought particularly often, or more than 50% or anything (also keeping in mind that e.g. 2s are usually bought for more than 2, 5s are often bought for more than 5, etc. even though that gives you no extra power). I think trying to determine these costs is not only practically difficult but actually impossible. Masterpiece won't play like a 5, it will play like a sometimes-5, sometimes-6, sometimes-7. You can't eliminate that out, so you stick it somewhere and have to deal.

I also don't think that these cards suddenly skyrocket to the top of their lists, because you take the price into account. Masterpiece isn't inherently stronger than masquerade because it CAN have a stronger effect, because to have that stronger effect, you have to pay more, which is something you take into account based on evaluation.

Again, we largely agree here, and I think it doesn't make so much a difference. And when I say that Masterpiece costs 3 coin and Stonemason costs 2, I am the best kind of correct - technically correct

You have a good point that there probably isn't a particularly good "usual" cost for these cards, most especially for Stonemason.  Stonemason to pick up double $2s and double $3s definitely happens, as well as double $2Ps and double $3Ps.  However, consider that we currently have $6+ as a category.  I think sticking Stonemason there is fine (so, going double $4+).  Is it perfect?  No.  But I think it's a better representation of Stonemason than $2.

Yes, this is what I'm getting at.  There is no obvious perfect place, but $6+ is a better place for Stonemason than $2, and $5 or $6+ is a better place for Masterpiece than $3 or $4.  Like you, I would put Herald at its base $4.  Unlike you, I think Doctor would be the most difficult to find a real good place (I explained earlier), in which case I throw my hands up and say "yeah ok, just stick it with the $3s then".

I disagree absolutely. On the "Cards Ranked By Cost" List, there IS an obvious perfect place. Stonemason belongs with his friends Chapel, Courtyard, Hamlet, et al on the $2 cards list. This is because he is a $2 cost card. The instruction manual, and common sense, make this overwhelmingly clear. You can overpay for him, and get some benefit, and it's a function of his cost, but it's not the essence of his cost.

Now you could also ask "Is cost the best way to arrange card rankings?" Perhaps it isn't. It's the one theory and Qvist used, and I happen to like, and I do think it's helped improve our understanding of the cards more so than the "Best Villages" list, which was also a lot of fun, so more lists is always good. A straight list (1. King's Court 2. Goons ? 3. Chapel?? 4. Witch? Masquerade? Wharf? Rebuild? tough stuff) might be interesting, or even better, sure.

What is the difference between "essence of cost" and "function of cost" as you define them?  They are the same to me. 

Why do you like ranking by cost?  I have discussed this above, and the only conclusion I can draw is that, if categorizing by cost is to have any meaning, then overpay cards like Masterpiece and Stonemason need to be put in higher cost lists.

The only real counterargument I see is, "Stonemason costs $2 according to the little number in the corner, therefore it should be with other $2 cards".  That's just stubborn.

I invite you to try the exercise I proposed.  The only one who has is Witherweaver.

[Witherweaver]

The only real counterargument I see is, "Stonemason costs $2 according to the little number in the corner, therefore it should be with other $2 cards".  That's just stubborn.

It's also technically correct    Because "cost" is defined in the rulebook.  It has a precise meaning in the mechanics of the game.  You simply can't argue that Stonemason does not cost $2, because it does.  You'd have to rewrite the card, or the rules, to change that.  You can argue that the cost of a card isn't the best way to rank them.  You can also argue through an "effective cost," but that's different than the cost.

[Robz888]

What is the difference between "essence of cost" and "function of cost" as you define them?  They are the same to me. 

Why do you like ranking by cost?  I have discussed this above, and the only conclusion I can draw is that, if categorizing by cost is to have any meaning, then overpay cards like Masterpiece and Stonemason need to be put in higher cost lists.

The only real counterargument I see is, "Stonemason costs $2 according to the little number in the corner, therefore it should be with other $2 cards".  That's just stubborn.

I invite you to try the exercise I proposed.  The only one who has is Witherweaver.

By "essence of cost" I mean the cost itself. Masterpiece costs $3. Grand Market costs $6. Peddler costs $8.

By "function of cost" I mean something else that happens that is related to the cost. Masterpiece gains you Silver per coin you overpaid. Grand Market can't be bought if you have Copper in play. Peddler costs less if you have actions in play.

When I rank Peddler, I consider the fact that intelligent players will only buy it under conditions where the "function" aspect makes it more appealing. It's still an $8 card that we can rank against the other $6+ cards.

[Robz888]

What exercise?

[eHalcyon]

What exercise?

Top of page 7, here.

[eHalcyon]

The only real counterargument I see is, "Stonemason costs $2 according to the little number in the corner, therefore it should be with other $2 cards".  That's just stubborn.

It's also technically correct    Because "cost" is defined in the rulebook.  It has a precise meaning in the mechanics of the game.  You simply can't argue that Stonemason does not cost $2, because it does.  You'd have to rewrite the card, or the rules, to change that.  You can argue that the cost of a card isn't the best way to rank them.  You can also argue through an "effective cost," but that's different than the cost.

Sure thing.  But I believe effective cost is what matters most.  I mean, you could take it to extremes:

Switch - Action - $2
-----------------------------------
+2 Cards
Each other player gains a Curse card.
-----------------------------------
During your Buy phase, this costs $5.

This is Witch with a Peddler spin on it.  Switch technically costs $2.  But really, come on, it costs $5.  There are a few weird cases (TfB and Blackmarket to name a couple) but, generally speaking, it is a $5 card.

And I will touch on Robz' comments here as well.  For me, the "essence of cost" is the effective cost; it's what people actually pay for a card.  It includes changes caused by the functions of the card.  This is the cost that matters.  The "technical cost" or "nominal cost" is what is written on the card, and that's what TfBs and such care about.  But generally speaking, it is less important.

Switch is technically $2.  But it is essentially and effectively $5.  It should be compared with other $5s, not $2s.

Likewise, I do think Peddler could be moved to the $2 list, but it is noteworthy that Peddler only fluctuates in cost.  The overpay cards fluctuate in cost AND power.

[LastFootnote]

It's funny that this is quickly becoming the longest thread in the Guilds subform. Funny in a very, very sad way.

[eHalcyon]

It's funny that this is quickly becoming the longest thread in the Guilds subform. Funny in a very, very sad way.

Well, I find it an interesting discussion.

[Robz888]

The only real counterargument I see is, "Stonemason costs $2 according to the little number in the corner, therefore it should be with other $2 cards".  That's just stubborn.

It's also technically correct    Because "cost" is defined in the rulebook.  It has a precise meaning in the mechanics of the game.  You simply can't argue that Stonemason does not cost $2, because it does.  You'd have to rewrite the card, or the rules, to change that.  You can argue that the cost of a card isn't the best way to rank them.  You can also argue through an "effective cost," but that's different than the cost.

Sure thing.  But I believe effective cost is what matters most.  I mean, you could take it to extremes:

Switch - Action - $2
-----------------------------------
+2 Cards
Each other player gains a Curse card.
-----------------------------------
During your Buy phase, this costs $5.

This is Witch with a Peddler spin on it.  Switch technically costs $2.  But really, come on, it costs $5.  There are a few weird cases (TfB and Blackmarket to name a couple) but, generally speaking, it is a $5 card.

And I will touch on Robz' comments here as well.  For me, the "essence of cost" is the effective cost; it's what people actually pay for a card.  It includes changes caused by the functions of the card.  This is the cost that matters.  The "technical cost" or "nominal cost" is what is written on the card, and that's what TfBs and such care about.  But generally speaking, it is less important.

Switch is technically $2.  But it is essentially and effectively $5.  It should be compared with other $5s, not $2s.

Likewise, I do think Peddler could be moved to the $2 list, but it is noteworthy that Peddler only fluctuates in cost.  The overpay cards fluctuate in cost AND power.

Switch should be on the $2 list. It would be, by far, the Best $2 Card. As such, it's heinously unbalanced and should never exist. Still, it's a $2 card.

[eHalcyon]

Bah, OK, loophole with gainers.  Let's try a slightly more complicated version that is closer to what I wanted:

Switch - Action - $2*
-----------------------------------
+2 Cards
Each other player gains a Curse card.
-----------------------------------
During your Buy phase, this costs $5.
When you would gain this other than during your Buy phase, gain a Curse instead.

Now what?  Still a bit crazy with HoP, but I could finagle it even more to get rid of that if necessary.  The point is, this will only ever be bought for $5.  It technically costs $2 because that's what it says on the card.  It essentially costs $5 because that's what you'll pay.

[SirPeebles]

So for those who are concerned with which price is technically correct, why isn't Possession ranked alongside its fellow $6+ cards?

[Robz888]

Bah, OK, loophole with gainers.  Let's try a slightly more complicated version that is closer to what I wanted:

Switch - Action - $2*
-----------------------------------
+2 Cards
Each other player gains a Curse card.
-----------------------------------
During your Buy phase, this costs $5.
When you would gain this other than during your Buy phase, gain a Curse instead.

Now what?  Still a bit crazy with HoP, but I could finagle it even more to get rid of that if necessary.  The point is, this will only ever be bought for $5.  It technically costs $2 because that's what it says on the card.  It essentially costs $5 because that's what you'll pay.

I agree that it functionally costs $5. Just liked Peddler is functionally unbuyable, decent, or lucrative depending on how many actions you have played. Grand Market "functionally" costs virtual coin, Silver, and Gold.

If there were a ton of cards like Switch, my guess is cost would end up being a faulty way of basing these rankings.

As for your thought exercise, LGG is almost identical to IGG, so it's just slightly worse on the $5s list. On the $2s list... you manage to underscore the reason we organize things by cost Because it's really hard to rank it there. I mean, it's just IGG. Let's design a new list, "The Best Cards That Either Cost $2 or Are IGG." Is IGG number 1? Well, it's not better than Chapel, right we all say that. Maybe not Courtyard either? I don't know, it's like top 3 or 4 probably definitely. But it ends up being kind of hard to compare the relative goodness of IGG vs. the relative goodness of, say Squire, because you also have to say, well IGG is so much harder to buy than Squire, because of cost. Is Goons better than Masquerade? Is Ambassador better than Cultist? Is Margrave better than Fishing Village? Are Nobles better than Silk Roads? There are objective answers to these questions. One of Goons/Masquerade IS better than the other. However, I think it's hard to tell, and more importantly, I think in a community-based ranking the community would be more likely to commit errors (possibly just always ranking the stronger cards better despite their steeper costs).

So we remove cost as a consideration, by only comparing like-costed things. In doing so, we can make intelligent considerations on the margins, for cards like Peddler and Duchess and such. And I think it's perfectly reasonable to do the same for Masterpiece. It's also technically correct. So I stand by it.

[Witherweaver]

So for those who are concerned with which price is technically correct, why isn't Possession ranked alongside its fellow $6+ cards?

Huh?  I took 6+ to mean it has a cost that is an element of (x,0) for x>=6, where (x,y) is the (coin,potion) cost of a card.  The $X card lists only rank cards with costs of the form (X,0).  Cards of costs (x,y) for nonzero y are on their own list, right?

[SirPeebles]

One of Goons/Masquerade IS better than the other.

 

[eHalcyon]

Bah, OK, loophole with gainers.  Let's try a slightly more complicated version that is closer to what I wanted:

Switch - Action - $2*
-----------------------------------
+2 Cards
Each other player gains a Curse card.
-----------------------------------
During your Buy phase, this costs $5.
When you would gain this other than during your Buy phase, gain a Curse instead.

Now what?  Still a bit crazy with HoP, but I could finagle it even more to get rid of that if necessary.  The point is, this will only ever be bought for $5.  It technically costs $2 because that's what it says on the card.  It essentially costs $5 because that's what you'll pay.

I agree that it functionally costs $5. Just liked Peddler is functionally unbuyable, decent, or lucrative depending on how many actions you have played. Grand Market "functionally" costs virtual coin, Silver, and Gold.

If there were a ton of cards like Switch, my guess is cost would end up being a faulty way of basing these rankings.

As for your thought exercise, LGG is almost identical to IGG, so it's just slightly worse on the $5s list. On the $2s list... you manage to underscore the reason we organize things by cost Because it's really hard to rank it there. I mean, it's just IGG. Let's design a new list, "The Best Cards That Either Cost $2 or Are IGG." Is IGG number 1? Well, it's not better than Chapel, right we all say that. Maybe not Courtyard either? I don't know, it's like top 3 or 4 probably definitely. But it ends up being kind of hard to compare the relative goodness of IGG vs. the relative goodness of, say Squire, because you also have to say, well IGG is so much harder to buy than Squire, because of cost. Is Goons better than Masquerade? Is Ambassador better than Cultist? Is Margrave better than Fishing Village? Are Nobles better than Silk Roads? There are objective answers to these questions. One of Goons/Masquerade IS better than the other. However, I think it's hard to tell, and more importantly, I think in a community-based ranking the community would be more likely to commit errors (possibly just always ranking the stronger cards better despite their steeper costs).

So we remove cost as a consideration, by only comparing like-costed things. In doing so, we can make intelligent considerations on the margins, for cards like Peddler and Duchess and such. And I think it's perfectly reasonable to do the same for Masterpiece. It's also technically correct. So I stand by it.

I don't understand how you seem to completely agree with the difficulty of ranking a card like LGG on the technically correct $2 list and still go the other way with it.  Masterpiece is just like LGG, except the benefit scales to more costs and you get Silver instead of cursing others.  It is hard to rank Masterpiece at $3 for the same reasons you say it is hard to rank LGG at $2.

What list would you put the new Switch on?  $2 or $5?  It technically costs $2 but it functionally costs $5.

Masterpiece technically costs $3 but it functionally costs more because you will almost never want to buy it at $3.

If it helps, you could say that my suggestion is to rank cards by functional cost rather than technical cost.

[Robz888]

Bah, OK, loophole with gainers.  Let's try a slightly more complicated version that is closer to what I wanted:

Switch - Action - $2*
-----------------------------------
+2 Cards
Each other player gains a Curse card.
-----------------------------------
During your Buy phase, this costs $5.
When you would gain this other than during your Buy phase, gain a Curse instead.

Now what?  Still a bit crazy with HoP, but I could finagle it even more to get rid of that if necessary.  The point is, this will only ever be bought for $5.  It technically costs $2 because that's what it says on the card.  It essentially costs $5 because that's what you'll pay.

I agree that it functionally costs $5. Just liked Peddler is functionally unbuyable, decent, or lucrative depending on how many actions you have played. Grand Market "functionally" costs virtual coin, Silver, and Gold.

If there were a ton of cards like Switch, my guess is cost would end up being a faulty way of basing these rankings.

As for your thought exercise, LGG is almost identical to IGG, so it's just slightly worse on the $5s list. On the $2s list... you manage to underscore the reason we organize things by cost Because it's really hard to rank it there. I mean, it's just IGG. Let's design a new list, "The Best Cards That Either Cost $2 or Are IGG." Is IGG number 1? Well, it's not better than Chapel, right we all say that. Maybe not Courtyard either? I don't know, it's like top 3 or 4 probably definitely. But it ends up being kind of hard to compare the relative goodness of IGG vs. the relative goodness of, say Squire, because you also have to say, well IGG is so much harder to buy than Squire, because of cost. Is Goons better than Masquerade? Is Ambassador better than Cultist? Is Margrave better than Fishing Village? Are Nobles better than Silk Roads? There are objective answers to these questions. One of Goons/Masquerade IS better than the other. However, I think it's hard to tell, and more importantly, I think in a community-based ranking the community would be more likely to commit errors (possibly just always ranking the stronger cards better despite their steeper costs).

So we remove cost as a consideration, by only comparing like-costed things. In doing so, we can make intelligent considerations on the margins, for cards like Peddler and Duchess and such. And I think it's perfectly reasonable to do the same for Masterpiece. It's also technically correct. So I stand by it.

I don't understand how you seem to completely agree with the difficulty of ranking a card like LGG on the technically correct $2 list and still go the other way with it.  Masterpiece is just like LGG, except the benefit scales to more costs and you get Silver instead of cursing others.  It is hard to rank Masterpiece at $3 for the same reasons you say it is hard to rank LGG at $2.

What list would you put the new Switch on?  $2 or $5?  It technically costs $2 but it functionally costs $5.

Masterpiece technically costs $3 but it functionally costs more because you will almost never want to buy it at $3.

If it helps, you could say that my suggestion is to rank cards by functional cost rather than technical cost.

The problem is LGG is just an illogical card. If there were lots of cards like LGG, then yes, cost would be mostly meaningless for setting baseline rankings.

[Robz888]

But "functional" cost is interpretive and vague. Our baseline ranking device should be neither of these things.

[Witherweaver]

If it helps, you could say that my suggestion is to rank cards by functional cost rather than technical cost.

That helps me, but I'm pedantic.  Though you couldn't call it the "$X Card List" any more.. you'd have to call it the "Effective $X Card List" or something.

However, the argument can probably be made that some $2 cards have an effective cost of $3, given that they're more often bought when you actually have $3 in your hand and not $2 (like Chapel).

[Robz888]

Again, Duchess has a functional cost of "you gain a Duchy." It's criminal to rank it against the other $2s... or should be, according to you people!