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.)

[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.

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.)

I'm not sure if you're serious or making a joke about Doctor/Herald. Putting a card into your hand with an overpay is awful. You can't even play more Treasure cards at that point.

[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.)

I'm not sure if you're serious or making a joke about Doctor/Herald. Putting a card into your hand with an overpay is awful. You can't even play more Treasure cards at that point.

No I just wasn't thinking about how Dominion works. 

I guess you could, like, set it aside and draw it next turn.  But... yeah.

[LastFootnote]

I guess you could, like, set it aside and draw it next turn.  But... yeah.

Oh, yeah. That could work. At that point it's a pretty different type of thing, but perhaps a direction you could go.

[Witherweaver]

I guess you could, like, set it aside and draw it next turn.  But... yeah.

Oh, yeah. That could work. At that point it's a pretty different type of thing, but perhaps a direction you could go.

I guess another thing you could do is have it give coin tokens and let you spend coin tokens to reveal more cards from the top of your deck.

[eHalcyon]

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.

What if you flip it around and make it more similar to Hunting Party? 

Disco Dog
$2 - Action
+1 Action
Reveal your hand and name a card that is not in your hand.  Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a copy of the named card.  Put it into your hand and discard the rest.

You can find the same card for multiple Disco Dogs if you can play one copy before looking for the next.  However, this requires village support for terminals.

If this is too powerful or if you really want to make them name different cards, the restriction could be extended: "name a card that is not in your hand or in play" (or, "in your play area" if you don't want opponents' durations to get in the way).  Of course, that still allows you to dig for multiples of things that remove themselves from play... you could instead say "name a card that is not in your hand or that you have played this turn".

One other concern is that this would be a deck-flipping Tunnel-enabler.  Maybe that's OK.  If not, you could just say "put the rest into your discard pile".

Edit:

You could also move it into Advisor territory.

Insanity Wolf
$2 - Action
+1 Action
Name two differently named cards.  The player on your left chooses one of them.  Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a copy of the chosen card.  Put it into your hand and put the rest into your discard pile.

Edit 2: Clarified "Insanity Wolf" to have you name two differently named cards.  Not sure if just saying "different cards" is sufficient, being that could be interpreted as two different copies of the same named card.

[pacovf]

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.

What if you flip it around and make it more similar to Hunting Party? 

Disco Dog
$2 - Action
+1 Action
Reveal your hand and name a card that is not in your hand.  Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a copy of the named card.  Put it into your hand and discard the rest.

You can find the same card for multiple Disco Dogs if you can play one copy before looking for the next.  However, this requires village support for terminals.

If this is too powerful or if you really want to make them name different cards, the restriction could be extended: "name a card that is not in your hand or in play" (or, "in your play area" if you don't want opponents' durations to get in the way).  Of course, that still allows you to dig for multiples of things that remove themselves from play... you could instead say "name a card that is not in your hand or that you have played this turn".

One other concern is that this would be a deck-flipping Tunnel-enabler.  Maybe that's OK.  If not, you could just say "put the rest into your discard pile".

This looks too powerful, odds are you always want to dig for the card you are missing in your starting hand to kick off your turn (village when you have a smithy, smithy when you have a village, etc.), so this is very close to being a pure DT. The condition about cards in play is nice, because it becomes a dead card later on, but I am not sure if it is enough?

Edit:

You could also move it into Advisor territory.

Insanity Wolf
$2 - Action
+1 Action
Name two differently named cards.  The player on your left chooses one of them.  Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a copy of the chosen card.  Put it into your hand and put the rest into your discard pile.

Edit 2: Clarified "Insanity Wolf" to have you name two differently named cards.  Not sure if just saying "different cards" is sufficient, being that could be interpreted as two different copies of the same named card.

I thought about this before, and it could work, it's clean. It is a bit close to advisor itself for my taste, though.

[LastFootnote]

I think the biggest potential issue with Hound is that the digging could take forever, especially if you're digging for a card you don't have (because your memory is bad or you want to activate all your Tunnels). Disco Dog and Insanity Wolf don't address those issues, so given the three digging options, I like Hound best. It's the simplest.

[pacovf]

I think the biggest potential issue with Hound is that the digging could take forever, especially if you're digging for a card you don't have (because your memory is bad or you want to activate all your Tunnels). Disco Dog and Insanity Wolf don't address those issues, so given the three digging options, I like Hound best. It's the simplest.

Mmm, I guess that could be fixed by using scavenger's option: put your deck on your discard pile, then look through your discard pile.

I saw you mention your card before. Still not sure what X should be to make it balanced? Or have you just been too busy playtesting "other" cards to find the appropiate X?

[silverspawn]

I remember having considered a card identical to hound without name as a 3/4$ card before. I don't remember why I decided not to try it though. It's even possible that I just forgot about it.

[popsofctown]

Noooooo silverspawn changed his avatar

What's the point of f.ds anymore

[markusin]

Noooooo silverspawn changed his avatar

What's the point of f.ds anymore

Well at least Awaclus never changes his avat...wait...

Edit: He changed it back! All is not lost.

[eHalcyon]

I think the biggest potential issue with Hound is that the digging could take forever, especially if you're digging for a card you don't have (because your memory is bad or you want to activate all your Tunnels). Disco Dog and Insanity Wolf don't address those issues, so given the three digging options, I like Hound best. It's the simplest.

Greyhound
$2 - Action-Timed
+1 Action
Name a card and set the timer.  Reveal cards from your deck until time runs out or you reveal a copy of the named card, putting it into your hand.  Discard the rest.

From some expansion with a timer gimmick.  Make it a 15 second timer?  I don't know.  A digital timer would be better so you can pause it when reshuffling, and it would allow for different increments for different cards as appropriate.

I am genuinely curious if such a card could work.  It might lead to wrecked cards from overzealous players though.




Another idea: a card that only lets you search your deck without reshuffling, or your discard, not both.  Only one or the other.  You'll look through fewer cards on average!  (Oh, but I suppose this would amount to the same thing, just with more time trying to recall whether the card you want is in your deck or if you've already passed it... so I guess this wouldn't work at all.)

[Asper]

Noooooo silverspawn changed his avatar

What's the point of f.ds anymore

How shall i ever be able to remember who that guy with the pony avatar is?? Of all the worst things that could happen, this is the. Worst. Possible. Thing.

[silverspawn]

It's nice that you care, but I'd prefer to be identified with this avatar rather than the last, because it has far more personal relevance.

[Awaclus]

Of all the worst things that could happen, this is the. Worst. Possible. Thing.

They can't all be the worstest thing.

[Asper]

It's nice that you care, but I'd prefer to be identified with this avatar rather than the last, because it has far more personal relevance.

In case that refers to me, i actually made a joke 
Anyhow, maybe i should change my avatar, too?

[silverspawn]

no it referred to popsofctown

[Asper]

no it referred to popsofctown

Ah i see. I personally like your new avatar better, by the way.

Edit: Damn phone i'm using!

[blueblimp]

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...

Since this is pretty brutal if your opponent doesn't have the card, how about: "The player to your right reveals his hand. Choose a card from it, and 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." Playing with this might be fun because when you have a terrible hand, at least your opponent suffers also when she plays Barber2, kinda like Possession except without the possibility of losing a good hand.

[pacovf]

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...

Since this is pretty brutal if your opponent doesn't have the card, how about: "The player to your right reveals his hand. Choose a card from it, and 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." Playing with this might be fun because when you have a terrible hand, at least your opponent suffers also when she plays Barber2, kinda like Possession except without the possibility of losing a good hand.

The main problem I have about that version (and the reason why I phrased the card the way I did) is that you get free knowledge of your neighbour's cards, everytime. That's a strong effect, and it might be the reason why you are buying Barber in the first place. I don't want the card to waste time digging if that's not the main reason you are playing it.

The effect looks innocent enough, but that's a tremendous effect in games with attacks, especially if reaction cards are involved, and it breaks PPR: kowing whether the game is going to end or not is a really strong effect, and some people + board combination might lead to analysis paralysis as they scramble to get as many points as possible during what they know to be their last turn.

Thus, I make it so that knowledge has a hefty cost: you could have dug for a card instead.

Also note that my version can't fail more than once per turn, unless the player has bad memory, so there's that going for it. And well, I am tentatively pricing it at $2, after all.

[eHalcyon]

I don't think seeing an opponent's hand is tremendous. Sometimes useful, but not that big a deal.

[pacovf]

I don't think seeing an opponent's hand is tremendous. Sometimes useful, but not that big a deal.

I phrased myself wrong. It's not tremendous, but it can be. In those cases, you will be buying barber for the revealing (a cantrip for $2, can't go wrong there), and then wasting time by digging when you aren't even interested in digging. A card better need the digging to justify its existence, or else you should scrap the digging or the card, me thinks.

There was a thread discussing the worth of playing with the hand revealed, and SheCantSayNo thought that knowing your opponent's cards was a much stronger advantage than being First Player. That's not super strong evidence about how strong the effect is, but it's definitely impactful.

[Asper]

I don't think seeing an opponent's hand is tremendous. Sometimes useful, but not that big a deal.

I'd suggest to have it be the player to your left, though. If you take your right neighbor, there will be a max of four people (besides you) playing before him that know his hand. If you take the one to your left, he'll always be the next in line, no matter how many players.

[pacovf]

I don't think seeing an opponent's hand is tremendous. Sometimes useful, but not that big a deal.

I'd suggest to have it be the player to your left, though. If you take your right neighbor, there will be a max of four people (besides you) playing before him that know his hand. If you take the one to your left, he'll always be the next in line, no matter how many players.

That's actually a very good point!

[eHalcyon]

I don't think seeing an opponent's hand is tremendous. Sometimes useful, but not that big a deal.

I phrased myself wrong. It's not tremendous, but it can be. In those cases, you will be buying barber for the revealing (a cantrip for $2, can't go wrong there), and then wasting time by digging when you aren't even interested in digging. A card better need the digging to justify its existence, or else you should scrap the digging or the card, me thinks.

There was a thread discussing the worth of playing with the hand revealed, and SheCantSayNo thought that knowing your opponent's cards was a much stronger advantage than being First Player. That's not super strong evidence about how strong the effect is, but it's definitely impactful.

SCSN is talking about always having that info on every hand for the entire game. That's very different. The card has opportunity cost to buy it, and the chance of the info being useless on the turns you play it. Even on turns where it would be useful, you might not receive it until after it would have helped.

[popsofctown]

Putting a 2$ card in your deck is usually better than first player advantage, no?

[pacovf]

If that $2 is courtyard, probably.
If that $2 is pearl diver, probably not.

[Grujah]

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?

It's called Infernal Tutor.

[Grujah]

I had these submitted in rinkworks contest, they didn't do too well.

Bounty Hunter
$4 Action
+1 Action
Name a card.
Reveal the top 5 card of your deck.
Put the revealed named card(s) on top of your deck.
Discard the rest.


(this one could be altered to also affect you):

Almost Strictly Better than Fortune Teller
$4
Action - Attack
+2$.
Name a card.
Every other player reveals cards from their deck until they reveal the named card.
The discard it or put it on top of their deck, your choice.
They discard the other revealed cards.

[ConMan]

It's called Infernal Tutor.

It's called Demonic Tutor, because Donald was playing Magic for a long time and WotC have made "strictly better" an art form.

[Grujah]

I was referring to the fact that pacovf's card also has to reveal a card from hand to tutor for it.

[Asper]

Putting a 2$ card in your deck is usually better than first player advantage, no?

"I'll go first. Here's your Estate."

[popsofctown]

If that $2 is courtyard, probably.
If that $2 is pearl diver, probably not.

Yeah, so my point is that if a 2$ card gives you lots of hand info and that's better than first player advantage then that just means the 2$ card is better than Pearl Diver so not an issue.

[Awaclus]

If that $2 is courtyard, probably.
If that $2 is pearl diver, probably not.

Yeah, so my point is that if a 2$ card gives you lots of hand info and that's better than first player advantage then that just means the 2$ card is better than Pearl Diver so not an issue.

TBH, I'm still not sure what your point is. Seeing your opponent's cards is better than first player advantage, because putting a $2 card in your deck is better than first player advantage, uh... because seeing your opponent's cards is better than first player advantage?

[silverspawn]

I'm also pretty sure that first player advantage is more important than seeing your opponent's cards.