Print

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

[Awaclus]

I had this idea, I wonder if it's a good idea or if I should have posted it in the bigger thread instead. It's pretty similar to Vagrant, but while Vagrant guarantees that you won't skip any good cards, this guarantees that you will always skip a bad card. It's a cheap cantrip because I love cheap cantrips and it's called Hide so that you could sage & hide.

Hide
$2 Action

+1 card
+1 action

Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card costing $0 or a Victory card. Discard the revealed cards.

[Titandrake]

By the Venture Theorem proved by blueblimp a long time ago (in...the same galaxy as here), this doesn't affect the probability of drawing a better card, as long as you don't know the order of your deck or trigger a reshuffle.

I would guess that this is equivalent to "+1 Card, +1 Action, discard some random number of cards from the top of your deck". If you don't trigger a reshuffle, it's exactly the same by the theorem above. If you do trigger a reshuffle, my conjecture is that your deck quality is the same as if you switched the location of your draw and discard. So, in mid game it improves your deck since you've bought more actions, and in late game it weakens your deck since you've bought more Victory cards.

Honestly, I can see this being a decently good $2, just for the cycling, but in most scenarios it's a slightly more exciting Pearl Diver. If your deck is very trashed out, it's $2 non-terminal Chancellor, but in that scenario you might be drawing your deck already. Could be very funny with Tunnel though, since it'll explicitly discard it unlike the other cards in the Chancellor family.

[dondon151]

It's also a Lab with enough cost reduction in play.

EDIT: Shit, I totally misread the last line.

[silverspawn]

It's logical that it doesn't do anything, even without doing the maths. Or, rather, that it equals null in the end

You can split the process in two parts:

First you discard cards until a bad card is on top. This is Bad.
Now you discard the bad card. This is Good.

=> null

[HiveMindEmulator]

You discard all the revealed cards? If so, then this is really just doing blueblimp's venture thing. You should probably put the junk card in hand. Then there's some combos with Cellar or Crossroads or something.

[GendoIkari]

You discard all the revealed cards? If so, then this is really just doing blueblimp's venture thing. You should probably put the junk card in hand. Then there's some combos with Cellar or Crossroads or something.

Then it's almost exactly the same as Vagrant, just with an added "discard a random number of cards from the top of your deck" added on.

[ben_king]

You discard all the revealed cards? If so, then this is really just doing blueblimp's venture thing. You should probably put the junk card in hand. Then there's some combos with Cellar or Crossroads or something.

Agreed.  If the junk card went in hand, this would be a good pickup in the early game as it would often draw a copper.

[HiveMindEmulator]

Okay, I get it. It does do something if you put junk on top of your deck. Counter to deck top attacks, or combo with Apothecary-like things. Putting the junk in hand is obviously way too strong, because Copper costs $0.

[Awaclus]

Right, I was originally thinking of putting the other cards back, but then I thought that it's super inelegant, and this is the result of getting a genius solution to the problem at 3 am. Well, I don't think I'm going to playtest this either way so I might as well leave it like that, it's still an interesting concept even though it doesn't do what I intended.

[TheOthin]

Putting the other cards back would be fun in a deck made entirely of other cards.

[pacovf]

Also see this thread.

It's a bit of a misconception to say that Blueblimp's theorem proves that diggers don't affect your deck density. This is only true if there are at least two cards of the dug category in your (draw) deck

[popsofctown]

You could do a 2$ cantrip that chancellors your deck if it's the first one you played that turn, or the first time you elected to do it that turn, though the latter is harder to word.  Having such a cheap nonterminal cause so much physical reshuffling and mashing of cards is questionable though.  Double scavenger decks are a thing though, so that ends up with people shuffling fat stacks almost as much, admittedly.


You'd probably rather prefer that max total cycling instead of random cycling though, since cycling is so weak to start with and you're still dealing with some shuffling overhead based on how much random cycling you get.