Print

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

[pacovf]

Hound
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Action
Reveal a card from your hand.
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a copy of that card; put it in your hand and discard the rest.

Donald has mentioned that a "Demonic Tutor" (a card that digs for a card of your choice) is something that can't be priced.
So, here's my attempt to do one that works at a low price ($2 or $3). What do you people think? Is it fine, or does it have to be nerfed further? Limit the digging to action cards, for example?

Also, is it entirely clear that, no, you don't have to discard the card you revealed from your hand?

[market squire]

I think it's a good idea to let you wish only cards that are already in your hand. It looks fine.
It encourages mono strategies, which may not be that good, but still I like it.
Maybe it compares too favorably to Sage.
The wording should be clear enough. If you'd had to discard the revealed card, Hound would be nonsense, just lowering handsize, so it is pretty clear.

[pacovf]

Thanks for your feedback!

I know that dicarding the card from your hand should obviously be nonsense, because otherwise this card does close to zero. But it would be better if what it does was clear from the wording alone.

About the comparison to sage, sage is a good opening if you want to play a key 4$ cost card after your opening (sea hag comes to mind) as quickly/often as possible, which Hound doesn't do. I think they are different enough for their price not to be strongly related. That is not to mean that Hound has to stay at $2, though.

I don't know what you mean when you say that it encourages mono strategies. If you mean that you need a lot of copies of card X for Hound to reliably dig for card X, well, I don't think I agree. The point of a digger is mostly to find uncommon cards in your deck, otherwise you don't need to dig for them, just simple draw should find them reliably enough. So if you have lots of card X, you probably won't buy Hound in the first place?

[market squire]

During the game, Sage evolves like great - good - okay - bad; Hound would do in opposite order.
I guess $3 cost would be alright.

By mono strategies, I mean cards that are better when you have more of them in the same hand (compared to appearance in seperate hands), like Treasure Map, Minion, Fool's Gold, Conspirator. You know, cards that don't combo well with Hunting Party. Hound is very useful for these cards if you can't trash your starting cards.

[AJD]

Hound is a great name; it's kind of like a hunting party but it only hunts for something once you give it the scent.

[Kirian]

Donald has mentioned that a "Demonic Tutor" (a card that digs for a card of your choice) is something that can't be priced.

This... seems really odd to me, as it's currently priced at $4 plus a village and a cantrip:



With Village/Scavenger/Cantrip in hand, you have the effect of DT.

[liopoil]

Donald has mentioned that a "Demonic Tutor" (a card that digs for a card of your choice) is something that can't be priced.

This... seems really odd to me, as it's currently priced at $4 plus a village and a cantrip. With Village/Scavenger/Cantrip in hand, you have the effect of DT.

$4 plus a village and cantrip sounds pretty expensive to me. They have to collide. This card in it's current form is way too good though I think. I think it would be fine at $4.

[pacovf]

Well, you do have to buy and collide three cards to get that to work as a demonic tutor, which is a non-trivial condition, and you are still down one card.

I've been looking for the exact quote, but can't find it. I think it's in the outtakes?

PPE: too strong, you say? Hum, what about choosing a card in play? You wouldn't be able to dig for treasures, so the chance of it wiffing would be higher.

[Kirian]

Donald has mentioned that a "Demonic Tutor" (a card that digs for a card of your choice) is something that can't be priced.

This... seems really odd to me, as it's currently priced at $4 plus a village and a cantrip. With Village/Scavenger/Cantrip in hand, you have the effect of DT.

$4 plus a village and cantrip sounds pretty expensive to me. They have to collide. This card in it's current form is way too good though I think. I think it would be fine at $4.

It's very expensive!  And rightfully so.  I think that an actual DT could be priced, but it'd be very high, in the $8-10 range.

This, which requires a copy in hand already... I think still needs to be at least $5.

[pacovf]

Donald has mentioned that a "Demonic Tutor" (a card that digs for a card of your choice) is something that can't be priced.

This... seems really odd to me, as it's currently priced at $4 plus a village and a cantrip. With Village/Scavenger/Cantrip in hand, you have the effect of DT.

$4 plus a village and cantrip sounds pretty expensive to me. They have to collide. This card in it's current form is way too good though I think. I think it would be fine at $4.

It's very expensive!  And rightfully so.  I think that an actual DT could be priced, but it'd be very high, in the $8-10 range.

This, which requires a copy in hand already... I think still needs to be at least $5.

$5 seems fairly excessive, IMHO. Don't you think it compares rather unfavourably to Hunting Party? HP increases your handsize and all but guarantees that you will pull off whatever 2-card combo you have in your deck, and you can still use it to dig for cantrips (yes, you need to buy it in droves to be able to use it as a pseudo DT, but arguably, the handsize increase is its main effect). Hound, as market squire point out, mostly serves as a sifter/extra virtual copy of a card you want multiple copies of, since otherwise it is not that reliable.
I think a better comparison would be scheme, since both try to do the same thing, i.e., get to play a card in your hand more often, but the way they go about it is different, so they work in different situations.

[Axxle]

This seems more of a throne room variant than anything else, right?

[pacovf]

Dayum, you are very much right. It can do some things Throne Room can't (depends on whether it is reveal from hand or choose from play), but still mostly you use it as a throne room that requires you to have an extra action and an extra copy of the card in your deck.

Hum, well that answers the question of its powerlevel. Also, meh doesn't look very interesting anymore.

[popsofctown]

Demonic tutor is a lot more interesting and makes more sense in MTG.  It doesn't make as much sense in Dominion, mostly because you want to do the same thing every turn no matter what.  It's not like your opponent can do a specific thing and you want to respond to that with something you search for.

EXCEPT maybe with reactions?

"When another player plays an attack card, you may reveal this.  If you do, name another card. Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you show a card of that name, put that card on top and discard the others.  Then put that card in your hand and discard this card."

Top part, ehhh.. +2 Actions, +1$, +1 buy?  Makes it easier to use that spare buy to pick up a Moat or Beggar.  Top could be anything
I'd price that at 2$.
You can dig for reactions and immediately use them, or dig for trashers to undo Tortures, or dig for draw until X to undo Militia.  Or just go grab Hunting Grounds whenever you get attacked, you can just do that too.

[LastFootnote]

Dayum, you are very much right. It can do some things Throne Room can't (depends on whether it is reveal from hand or choose from play), but still mostly you use it as a throne room that requires you to have an extra action and an extra copy of the card in your deck.

Hum, well that answers the question of its powerlevel. Also, meh doesn't look very interesting anymore.

I'd say it's not that close to Throne Room. Just the fact that you can use it on non-Action cards helps to differentiate it a lot.

I'm not sure the card is worth the large amount of digging it might create, but probably it's worth testing.

[Asper]

Demonic tutor is a lot more interesting and makes more sense in MTG.  It doesn't make as much sense in Dominion, mostly because you want to do the same thing every turn no matter what.  It's not like your opponent can do a specific thing and you want to respond to that with something you search for.

EXCEPT maybe with reactions?

"When another player plays an attack card, you may reveal this.  If you do, name another card. Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you show a card of that name, put that card on top and discard the others.  Then put that card in your hand and discard this card."

Top part, ehhh.. +2 Actions, +1$, +1 buy?  Makes it easier to use that spare buy to pick up a Moat or Beggar.  Top could be anything
I'd price that at 2$.
You can dig for reactions and immediately use them, or dig for trashers to undo Tortures, or dig for draw until X to undo Militia.  Or just go grab Hunting Grounds whenever you get attacked, you can just do that too.

That's too close to being a punishing Reaction, i think. Also it makes the game pause overly long.

[blueblimp]

This seems more of a throne room variant than anything else, right?

It's sort of like Throne Room minus the reason that Throne Room is good, which is that a single play of TR acts like playing _both_ a village and a copy of a card that may cost more than $4. TR is worse when it fails to connect, but it's not like you'd be very happy playing Hound on a Copper, either.

[popsofctown]

This seems more of a throne room variant than anything else, right?

It's sort of like Throne Room minus the reason that Throne Room is good, which is that a single play of TR acts like playing _both_ a village and a copy of a card that may cost more than $4. TR is worse when it fails to connect, but it's not like you'd be very happy playing Hound on a Copper, either.

But you can just give Hound +2 actions right?

[pacovf]

But you can just give Hound +2 actions right?

The original challenge was to find a version of Demonic Tutor (a non-terminal card that digs for the card of your choice and puts it in your hand) that works for a low price, i.e., $3 or $2. According to Donald's words somewhere, DT is a concept that can't work at any reasonable price in Dominion. The official card that approaches the concept the most is scavenger, which is terminal and leaves the card on top of your deck.

I thought of the requirement to have a copy of the card in hand as a nerf to the concept. Axxle insightfully pointed out that this now looks like a throne room variant. That doesn't mean this card wants to be a throne room variant though, it just means that it is not a very strong card, and well, I am trying to find a cheap card here.

Also, as LastFootNote mentioned, digging causes a lot of downtime, so a village that digs might not be very cool in Real Life games...

Anyway, the idea is to make it so you can't dig for any card, or else it can fail, or else there are conditions... Ideally, I would like a card that can dig for different cards each turn. Hmmm... I just had a different, crazy idea.

Barber
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Action
Name a card. The player to your right reveals a copy of that card from his hand (or reveals a hand with no copy of the card). If she did, reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a copy of that card; put it in your hand and discard the rest.

Hmmm, lots of problems with it, but it might be a start...

[Witherweaver]

I think the firstmost problem being "The player to your right does A or B.  If she did...".  Pretty sure that can't fail.

[pacovf]

I think the firstmost problem being "The player to your right does A or B.  If she did...".  Pretty sure that can't fail.

It can, if AUB =/= Ω. Also, parentheses*, man!

Yeah, that is one of the problems, although it is mainly a wording one. I am mostly concerned about the strength of the card depending on whether you are using the same strategy as the player to your right, though.

*Technically, my wording might be correct. Torturer lets you choose to discard two cards even if you can't discard two cards. Cutpurse doesn't let you choose to reveal a hand without copper if you can't do so, though. By induction and if you don't look too closely...

[Asper]

I think the firstmost problem being "The player to your right does A or B.  If she did...".  Pretty sure that can't fail.

It can, if AUB =/= Ω. Also, parentheses*, man!

A OR B holds if either or both are true, meaning that even if she revealed a hand without the card, "she did". It could only fail if she didn't reveal any cards at all, which she is incapable of doing (not physically, but, you know, when she's playing according to the rules and doing what a card demands her to do). I would clarify it by saying "if she revealed a copy". The parantheses help, but i think they don't make it clear enough considering not every possible Dominion player frequents these forums and knows/wants to dive into the magic of parantheses.

[Witherweaver]

I think the firstmost problem being "The player to your right does A or B.  If she did...".  Pretty sure that can't fail.

It can, if AUB =/= Ω. Also, parentheses*, man!

A OR B holds if either or both are true, meaning that even if she revealed a hand without the card, "she did". It could only fail if she didn't reveal any cards at all, which she is incapable of doing (not physically, but, you know, when she's playing according to the rules and doing what a card demands her to do). I would clarify it by saying "if she revealed a copy". The parantheses help, but i think they don't make it clear enough considering not every possible Dominion player frequents these forums and knows/wants to dive into the magic of parantheses.

I would argue "A (or B)" is logically equivalent to "A or B"

[pacovf]

A OR B holds if either or both are true, meaning that even if she revealed a hand without the card, "she did". It could only fail if she didn't reveal any cards at all, which she is incapable of doing (not physically, but, you know, when she's playing according to the rules and doing what a card demands her to do). I would clarify it by saying "if she revealed a copy". The parantheses help, but i think they don't make it clear enough considering not every possible Dominion player frequents these forums and knows/wants to dive into the magic of parantheses.

Well, I did use an "if" to demonstrate that there was a (theoretical) edge case to WW's proposition, and a "" to demonstrate my tongue-in-cheekiness because I realized that it didn't apply here.

I would argue "A (or B)" is logically equivalent to "A or B"

Not in Dominion, though, as my example demonstrates: they are used as an implied "if you/he/she didn't".

[LastFootnote]

Setting aside the possibility of being too close to Wishing Well, I've been thinking about a non-digging version of this concept.

+1 Action. Name a card. Reveal the top X cards of your deck. Put a revealed copy of the named card into your hand and discard the rest.

[Witherweaver]

Setting aside the possibility of being too close to Wishing Well, I've been thinking about a non-digging version of this concept.

+1 Action. Name a card. Reveal the top X cards of your deck. Put a revealed copy of the named card into your hand and discard the rest.

Huh, what if you combine it with overpay ability, so it has that as an on-buy effect and you can overpay to increase X.

(Maybe the card itself can do something different on play.)