Vagrant: It's a Lab where the extra card is always bad. Actually that would be more powerful
...Wait, is that true? If Vagrant were a Lab where the extra card is always bad—i.e., if it were +1 card, +1 action, dig for a Ruins, Shelter, Curse, or Victory card—wouldn't the main result of that be making you miss your good cards a lot of the time?
Well, consider the early game where acceleration is good. I highly doubt whether it's even true that you can play your good cards less, I would even think you get to play them more often.
There was a "proof" about Venture some time ago that it didn't really change the contents of your deck in any way or skip good cards more often than they were played.
Well, consider the early game where acceleration is good. I highly doubt whether it's even true that you can play your good cards less, I would even think you get to play them more often.
There was a "proof" about Venture some time ago that it didn't really change the contents of your deck in any way or skip good cards more often than they were played.
Hmm so. I get that, but I'm stuck on this:
If you have a deck where your only draw comes from Vagrants, you will see all of your cards in hand each reshuffle, including your Curses and Shelters but also including your Mountebank and Platinums.
If you have a deck where your only draw comes from Digging Vagrants, then each reshuffle, you will still see all your Curses and Shelters, but you have some nonzero probability of missing your Mountebank and Platinums. And all the cards you have a nonzero probability of missing are better than all the cards you're guaranteed to see.
Is the paradox resolved just by the fact that you cycle faster, and thus you have more reshuffles, and this compensates for the fact that on some shuffles you skip good cards?
If there's exactly ZERO "bad cards" in your drawing deck, you will have to shuffle your discard pile, and then you will find yourself with more, or at least just as many, "bad cards" than before (since you had zero...) -> bad effect
That's true, but pacovf was just addressing whether it's cleaning your draw deck for you. Cycling is a separate consideration, and yeah it's usually a good thing (but not always). Triggering a reshuffle also causes the contents of your hand to miss the shuffle, which is sometimes good and sometimes bad.If there's exactly ZERO "bad cards" in your drawing deck, you will have to shuffle your discard pile, and then you will find yourself with more, or at least just as many, "bad cards" than before (since you had zero...) -> bad effect
Unless you are greening, the cards in your discard are often better on average than your deck. Cycling is not a bad effect.
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1914.0
If there's EXACTLY ONE "bad card" in your drawing deck (not your whole deck), it will take it away, so the proportion of "bad cards" in your drawing deck is reduced -> good effect
If there's MORE THAN ONE "bad card" in your drawing deck, it doesn't affect the proportion of "bad cards" in your drawing deck at all -> neutral effect (the mathematical demonstration is in the link up there)
If there's exactly ZERO "bad cards" in your drawing deck, you will have to shuffle your discard pile, and then you will find yourself with more, or at least just as many, "bad cards" than before (since you had zero...) -> bad effect
Because of the number of "bad cards" that are in your deck (you start with three estates, and it usually grows from there), you will usually find yourself in the second case, so vagrant that digs for "bad cards" doesn't really improve your deck quality.
A vagrant that digs for bad cards would be better because it always increases your hand size, and because it offers you some choices (abandoned mine, province for tournament/explorer, etc), and for the cycling effect, not because it improves the quality of your deck. A vagrant that digs for a bad card and then shuffles the revealed cards back into the drawing deck would improve your draw deck, though.
If you have a deck where your only draw comes from Vagrants, you will see all of your cards in hand each reshuffle, including your Curses and Shelters but also including your Mountebank and Platinums.
If you have a deck where your only draw comes from Digging Vagrants, then each reshuffle, you will still see all your Curses and Shelters, but you have some nonzero probability of missing your Mountebank and Platinums. And all the cards you have a nonzero probability of missing are better than all the cards you're guaranteed to see.
Is the paradox resolved just by the fact that you cycle faster, and thus you have more reshuffles, and this compensates for the fact that on some shuffles you skip good cards?
Those extra Curses that you are seeing are bonus draws. Unless you planning on using the Curse while it is in your hand, or trigger a reshuffle, Digging Vagrant would just as well discard the dug card when it is junk rather than draw it.
If you have a deck where your only draw comes from Vagrants, you will see all of your cards in hand each reshuffle, including your Curses and Shelters but also including your Mountebank and Platinums.
If you have a deck where your only draw comes from Digging Vagrants, then each reshuffle, you will still see all your Curses and Shelters, but you have some nonzero probability of missing your Mountebank and Platinums. And all the cards you have a nonzero probability of missing are better than all the cards you're guaranteed to see.
Is the paradox resolved just by the fact that you cycle faster, and thus you have more reshuffles, and this compensates for the fact that on some shuffles you skip good cards?
Those extra Curses that you are seeing are bonus draws. Unless you planning on using the Curse while it is in your hand, or trigger a reshuffle, Digging Vagrant would just as well discard the dug card when it is junk rather than draw it.
Yabbut... that's also true for regular Vagrant, and it doesn't skip your good cards. So is "skip exactly one bad card, with a nonzero probability of skipping good cards" that obviously better than "skip zero good cards, with a nonzero probability of skipping exactly one bad card"?
At the risk of bringing up more Venture discussion (ugh), this "digging vagrant" is different from Venture because it does it during your action phase and keeps the junk card in your hand. With Venture, once you're done venturing, your turn is pretty much over (you just buy stuff); but with digging vagrant, you can subsequently play other drawing actions, which now can't draw the junk and thus have their draw improved.
Here's a simple way to understand the effect digging has on your deck contents: if you cut your deck at a random point, the quality in the half you take will on average be the same as the entire deck, because you're just choosing a random set of cards out of your whole deck. However, if you cut your deck at the point where you find your first Curse, you are now choosing a random set of cards out of your whole deck minus that Curse. Imagine your deck only contains one Curse: a digging Vagrant always leaves you with a random set of cards guaranteed not to contain a Curse. Likewise, if Copper is a worse than average card, when Venture hits a Copper it (on average) slightly improves your deck quality. Sage and Golem on average decrease your deck quality, but not by very much, and they increase the quality of the current turn by a lot more.
This is completely right and should be the end of the discussion.
I know it's popular in internet arguments to make this sort of statement but it doesn't add any value to the discussion.Here's a simple way to understand the effect digging has on your deck contents: if you cut your deck at a random point, the quality in the half you take will on average be the same as the entire deck, because you're just choosing a random set of cards out of your whole deck. However, if you cut your deck at the point where you find your first Curse, you are now choosing a random set of cards out of your whole deck minus that Curse. Imagine your deck only contains one Curse: a digging Vagrant always leaves you with a random set of cards guaranteed not to contain a Curse. Likewise, if Copper is a worse than average card, when Venture hits a Copper it (on average) slightly improves your deck quality. Sage and Golem on average decrease your deck quality, but not by very much, and they increase the quality of the current turn by a lot more.
This is completely right and should be the end of the discussion.
So at what price X would$3. There is little point in having it cost $4 (I don't think that a double opening will cause problems).
Digging Vagrant: $X
+1 card
+1 action
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a Curse, Ruins, Shelter, or Victory Card. Place that card in your hand and discard the rest.
be balanced?
So at what price X would
Digging Vagrant: $X
+1 card
+1 action
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a Curse, Ruins, Shelter, or Victory Card. Place that card in your hand and discard the rest.
be balanced?
So at what price X would
Digging Vagrant: $X
+1 card
+1 action
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a Curse, Ruins, Shelter, or Victory Card. Place that card in your hand and discard the rest.
be balanced?
I'd test it at $2 first. It might be fine there.
So at what price X would
Digging Vagrant: $X
+1 card
+1 action
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a Curse, Ruins, Shelter, or Victory Card. Place that card in your hand and discard the rest.
be balanced?
I'd test it at $2 first. It might be fine there.
So at what price X would
Digging Vagrant: $X
+1 card
+1 action
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a Curse, Ruins, Shelter, or Victory Card. Place that card in your hand and discard the rest.
be balanced?
I'd test it at $2 first. It might be fine there.
I think it'd look odd compared to Vagrant at $2
and being so cheap and spammable might make it annoying in games with +buy since it'd likely slow the game down a lot. You're right that it's probably balanced at $2, I think it'd still be roughly as balanced at $3, but avoids the above issues somewhat.
Well, sure, if Vagrant doesn't exist that's not an issue. I think you're missing the point regarding the price - it's not that the card would somehow resolve faster if it cost $3, but that at $2, considerably more copies would be gained. When you then factor in that the card is pretty slow relative to it's effect, I think the lower price would be undesirable.