Yeah but it actually allows you to reach and take from your deck. Dimir Charm doesn't.
What? Seriously? That's exactly the reason it's bad card. Why do you think Ponder is banned in Modern and Extended and restricted in Vintage, whereas Index is the butt of jokes?
An argument can be made for the charm's 3rd ability to get yard value, but in that case, why in the world would you not just run Ponder?
So, You are digging three cards down into your deck but you don't call it reach just because...It doesn't draw you a card? maybe?
For me, Ponder's best feature is being able to shuffle your deck without help. Just imagine Brainstorm without fetch lands, Is it still that good?
Irrelevant. You didn't know what strictly better means, but you saw some cool people use it, so you went with it. Now you want to save face by aggressively turning it into a discussion of whether or not the charm is a standard playable, which is an altogether different discussion. Very transparent, zero points for trying.
I think its laughable you'd argue I didn't know what strictly better means, and that some so called cool people inspired me to use it. But beyond that humorous statement you still don't know what you are talking about. My original post was evaluating the card based on a magical thing called context. Its where one looks at cards based on other cards that are printed and played, on what is popular now and usually is in magic history. And from that, I find, Damage is far more useful as a general blanket statement. It inherently has far more utility then the power clause. Thus.. strictly better, especially, once again in the magical thing called....
Context. Maybe its something you forgot. If every creature in standard had protection from Lightning Bolt written on the card. Shock would be strictly better in context to lightning bolt. My only mistake was not expressing that I was speaking about standard. Currently, looking at creatures that are played and need to be removed, I would say 2 damage is STRICTLY better then the 2 power clause. You can talk nighthawks (not played) all you want. But when your opponent slams his pike on whatever ****, you wont want to draw a dimir charm.
Damage to help trades + power is often higher then toughness = 2 damage, is better then that 2 power clause. It is.
Maybe if low power high toughness cards become the new meta it will change. But I am not a fortune teller.
I am sorry I have to spell this out for you. Seems fairly simple. Though Context is hard for so many. Because its not just what the two cards being compared say the counts, its what every other card says too.
I think its laughable you'd argue I didn't know what strictly better means, and that some so called cool people inspired me to use it. But beyond that humorous statement you still don't know what you are talking about. My original post was evaluating the card based on a magical thing called context. Its where one looks at cards based on other cards that are printed and played, on what is popular now and usually is in magic history. And from that, I find, Damage is far more useful as a general blanket statement. It inherently has far more utility then the power clause. Thus.. strictly better, especially, once again in the magical thing called....
Context. Maybe its something you forgot. If every creature in standard had protection from Lightning Bolt written on the card. Shock would be strictly better in context to lightning bolt. My only mistake was not expressing that I was speaking about standard. Currently, looking at creatures that are played and need to be removed, I would say 2 damage is STRICTLY better then the 2 power clause. You can talk nighthawks (not played) all you want. But when your opponent slams his pike on whatever ****, you wont want to draw a dimir charm.
Damage to help trades + power is often higher then toughness = 2 damage, is better then that 2 power clause. It is.
Maybe if low power high toughness cards become the new meta it will change. But I am not a fortune teller.
I am sorry I have to spell this out for you. Seems fairly simple. Though Context is hard for so many.
It's lategame your opponent topdecks an augur of bolas against your thragtusk, you're at 2, hes at 5 you have izzet charm in hand, you swing with thrag he blocks and nothing happens. Next turn he topdecks shock and you die, had you had dimir charm you would have won.
Strictly better means better in every situation, destroy target creature with power 2 or less and deal 2 damage to target creature are completely different effects. Even in this context there are situations where the latter is worse.
EDIT: Even in your example lightning bolt would not be strictly better because your oppenent could be at 3 life and able to alpha strike you next turn. You clearly don't understand the term.
Irrelevant. You didn't know what strictly better means, but you saw some cool people use it, so you went with it. Now you want to save face by aggressively turning it into a discussion of whether or not the charm [Dimir Charm] is standard playable, which is an altogether different discussion. Very transparent, zero points for trying.
You do realize that "strictly" and "contextually" are antonyms, right? That when you use the term "strictly better in context" you are contradicting yourself?
ok time to see how well I can rate a card like this one.
counter a sorcery-doesn't seem very relevant in standard, in limited this could work.
destroy 2 or less power dude- useful vs aggro I suppose, but other than that this is pretty crappy. as far as limited goes, this is useful just for the fact that it kills guildmages.
look at top 3 cards effect- this is pretty darn useful if you ask me, in late game you can make your opponent draw crap for a turn, or you can dig for a card you need at the moment. in limited, this is pretty good for finding that one good card in your deck faster.
also, i want this on isochron scepter, just so i can screw my opponents over and over again with the second ability.
"Strictly better" in the general Magic vernacular means (loosely) "same as another card, but better stats" .. while acknowledging that sometimes weird corner cases crop up that might give the "strictly better" card a downside over the other. So Lightning Bolt is strictly better than Shock and Stoneforge Mystic is strictly better than Squire. Your example isn't something that most would call "strictly better." Note that in your example, it's possible that something can be "better" for you, but not necessarily "strictly better" in the way most of us understand the term.
Of course you're free to use your own vocabulary, but don't be surprised if people either don't understand what you're trying to conveying, or disagree with what you're conveying.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 2 Judge
Currently playing:
Standard: Superfriends!
Legacy: Nic Fit / Pod
Pauper: Delvar; Tron; Flicker Stuff
Commander: Riku ("Some weird doubple spell thing happened"); Keranos ("I did a Gatherer search for 'random' and 'flip a coin.'"); Superfriends!
You do realize that "strictly" and "contextually" are antonyms, right? That when you use the term "strictly better in context" you are contradicting yourself?
The world must be viewed in context, everything must. Out of context nothing makes sense.
"Strictly better" in the general Magic vernacular means (loosely) "same as another card, but better stats" .. while acknowledging that sometimes weird corner cases crop up that might give the "strictly better" card a downside over the other. So Lightning Bolt is strictly better than Shock and Stoneforge Mystic is strictly better than Squire. Your example isn't something that most would call "strictly better." Note that in your example, it's possible that something can be "better" for you, but not necessarily "strictly better" in the way most of us understand the term.
Of course you're free to use your own vocabulary, but don't be surprised if people either don't understand what you're trying to conveying, or disagree with what you're conveying.
Then no card could ever be strictly better then any other card, because there will always be some stupid situation when the other card could be more useful, I guess I am using to extreme of term. Maybe I should say, usually? Mostly, most always. Most frequently...? If I had to bet any money on what card would be better in a random situation?
because some one might have Slaughter gamed my lighting bolts and If I only had put 1 shock in instead of a bolt, I could still use my tutor to find the burn spell to win the game. If for some reason everyone was running slaughter games..
Ugh. I will just try to not use such touchy words.
So, You are digging three cards down into your deck but you don't call it reach just because...It doesn't draw you a card? maybe?
For me, Ponder's best feature is being able to shuffle your deck without help. Just imagine Brainstorm without fetch lands, Is it still that good?
The card draw is Ponder's best feature. Just the fact that I'm arguing the value cantrips and CA blows my mind. This forum is very kitchen table in general. As for Faithless Looting, the reason it's okay without the cantrip is because you can at least take something from your deck to use that very turn. What does Dimir Charm give you on that turn? If someone charms, I'll thank them for the Time Walk.
If ponder couldn't shuffle, I wonder if it would see play at all - certainly it would lose a vast amount of its power.
Replacing itself cheaply is great, but preventing yourself from drawing a bunch of rubbish is a major boon.
Yes. It would be awesome in Standard and you can get around the shuffle effect in other formats because of fetches. 1 CMC manipulation+cantrip will almost always be good.
The card draw is Ponder's best feature. Just the fact that I'm arguing the value cantrips and CA blows my mind. This forum is very kitchen table in general. As for Faithless Looting, the reason it's okay without the cantrip is because you can at least take something from your deck to use that very turn. What does Dimir Charm give you on that turn? If someone charms, I'll thank them for the Time Walk.
It's not that you are not right, It's the fact that You want to be right regardless. So, obviously It is going to blow your mind.
Ponder's best element can be very debatable. That is why I gave my opinion about it. But just think about it for a second, How good Ponder can do to you if you could not shuffle your deck? what if You get stuck with a pile of lands? I know I giving you a specif situation, but It is real and very constant.
If a card does exactly what you expect You can say It's a fair card with a fair effect. We all expect to draw a card for U , but to produce a shuffle effect to help you out the mud is very unexpected. That what I call a feature.
Edit: To be clear, Im not saying Dimir Charm is a powerful card, but also stand way from the group of people that crucify it for not drawing a card.
However, You could treat your graveyard as an extention of your hand and build that deck. Esper Delver Miracle deck for Standard. Other formats, depends how It performs.
If index said scry 5 instead of look at the top 5 and rearrange them. I'd play it no questions asked...and so would many other people. Its the ability to get rid and avoid what you dont need, and get close to what you do. Card draw is the cherry on top that makes ba-roken. But index isnt weak because it doesnt draw you a card.
Scry is a pretty strong ability, but index is weak because it doesn't draw you a card. At scry 5, you're approaching value (scry 2 is often seen as draw .5). I'd be willing to bet that ponder no shuffle would see a considerable amount more play than ponder no draw. if index had a shuffle, it still wouldn't be played. spending mana on increasing consistency can be worthwhile. spending mana and a card needs to get you mirage tutor levels of consistency
Counter a Farseek/Ranger's Path/Terminus/Temporal Manipulation/Bonfire of the Damned/Entreat the Angels/Dreadbore/Rakdos' Return/Mulch/Mizzium Mortars/Unburial Rites.
Kill a Huntmaster of the Fells/Izzet Staticaster/Snapcaster Mage/Thalia/Avacyn's Pilgrim/Arbor Elf/Champion of the Parish(on the play)/Deathrite Shaman/Nightshade Peddler/Rakdos Cackler/Diregraf Ghoul/Gravecrawler/Rhox Faithmender/Stromkirk Noble/Acidic Slime/Ash Zealot/Stonewright/Knight of Infamy/Lightning Mauler/Silverblade Paladin/Trostani.
Oh, and let's not forget the fact that not only does the third ability function as a Thought Scour'ish effect on yourself if you need to..but it also works as a Jace-Man-Mode +2 late game on your opponent to ensure that your opponent is drawing garbage.
Yeah man..you guys are right..this card is so bad.
Yeah...killing a Gravecrawler with a non-red spell seems pretty bad to me.
No idea why people are buzzing about the third ability. It's the worst of the 3 by a mile. How can you even compare a planeswalker's plus ability to actually using a whole card? Maybe if mode 3 was like, "Look at top 3, put 2 in the yard, return Dimir Charm to your hand" the two would be comparable
The card draw is Ponder's best feature. Just the fact that I'm arguing the value cantrips and CA blows my mind. This forum is very kitchen table in general. As for Faithless Looting, the reason it's okay without the cantrip is because you can at least take something from your deck to use that very turn. What does Dimir Charm give you on that turn? If someone charms, I'll thank them for the Time Walk.
Learn how to evaluate cards please. The card draw ISN'T ponders best feature. The fact that it lets you rearrange THEN Draw is what makes it good. But seriously, you obviously don't have a good grasp of this card, and cards in Standard(and some in modern) that this card likes to poop on.
No idea why people are buzzing about the third ability. It's the worst of the 3 by a mile. How can you even compare a planeswalker's plus ability to actually using a whole card? Maybe if mode 3 was like, "Look at top 3, put 2 in the yard, return Dimir Charm to your hand" the two would be comparable
but what you are failing to realize is that if you run 4 Dimir Charms, and 4 Snapcaster Mage, you essentially control their draw for 8 turns. This card is amazing and the counter sorcery IS relevant.
Yeah...killing a Gravecrawler with a non-red spell seems pretty bad to me.
I love how you picked only that out to try and be an ass, but I'll go ahead and remind you that I just put it there to point out that if the situation arises where you need to kill a Gravecrawler, you can do it.
I once farted during the final match for prizes at an FNM. It was a tense moment, everything was quiet, control vs control, I was about to mana leak, thought about it.. and farted. Then mana leaked.
Mode 1 counters radkos return, bonfire, terminus, and Unburial Rites. That is enough reason to justify the slot.
Mode 2 kills Ash Zelot, cacker, deathrite shaman, mana dorks, and stromkirk noble (while small). These are very problematic for blue decks.
Mode 3 is the very card selection that is completely void atm. Is this ponder or preordain? Hell no it is not. I don't seeWotC to ever print anything near that level again for multiple reasons. So looking forward this is a very strong effect for its cost. The graveyard is an extention for many decks and U/B is positioned the best to take advatange of it. Combined with Auger and thought scour this allows your deck to see a lot of cards per game. This is the very core of why delver worked. This card single handly ushers delver back into the meta game.
Stop comparing this to the other charms. Everyone is all over izzet charm's nuts but the fact is izzet charm has seen very little play in standard. Azourios ans Selesnya charms are the king of RtR because decks have constantly ran a 4 of since being introduced.
Scry is a pretty strong ability, but index is weak because it doesn't draw you a card. At scry 5, you're approaching value (scry 2 is often seen as draw .5). I'd be willing to bet that ponder no shuffle would see a considerable amount more play than ponder no draw. if index had a shuffle, it still wouldn't be played. spending mana on increasing consistency can be worthwhile. spending mana and a card needs to get you mirage tutor levels of consistency
Have you ever played Brainstorm in a deck with no shuffling effects before?
Then, try to play the same deck with Ponder without the"Draw a card" part and tell me on which deck did you experienced the most frustration of all.
So, You are digging three cards down into your deck but you don't call it reach just because...It doesn't draw you a card? maybe?
For me, Ponder's best feature is being able to shuffle your deck without help. Just imagine Brainstorm without fetch lands, Is it still that good?
I think its laughable you'd argue I didn't know what strictly better means, and that some so called cool people inspired me to use it. But beyond that humorous statement you still don't know what you are talking about. My original post was evaluating the card based on a magical thing called context. Its where one looks at cards based on other cards that are printed and played, on what is popular now and usually is in magic history. And from that, I find, Damage is far more useful as a general blanket statement. It inherently has far more utility then the power clause. Thus.. strictly better, especially, once again in the magical thing called....
Context. Maybe its something you forgot. If every creature in standard had protection from Lightning Bolt written on the card. Shock would be strictly better in context to lightning bolt. My only mistake was not expressing that I was speaking about standard. Currently, looking at creatures that are played and need to be removed, I would say 2 damage is STRICTLY better then the 2 power clause. You can talk nighthawks (not played) all you want. But when your opponent slams his pike on whatever ****, you wont want to draw a dimir charm.
Damage to help trades + power is often higher then toughness = 2 damage, is better then that 2 power clause. It is.
Maybe if low power high toughness cards become the new meta it will change. But I am not a fortune teller.
I am sorry I have to spell this out for you. Seems fairly simple. Though Context is hard for so many. Because its not just what the two cards being compared say the counts, its what every other card says too.
It's lategame your opponent topdecks an augur of bolas against your thragtusk, you're at 2, hes at 5 you have izzet charm in hand, you swing with thrag he blocks and nothing happens. Next turn he topdecks shock and you die, had you had dimir charm you would have won.
Strictly better means better in every situation, destroy target creature with power 2 or less and deal 2 damage to target creature are completely different effects. Even in this context there are situations where the latter is worse.
EDIT: Even in your example lightning bolt would not be strictly better because your oppenent could be at 3 life and able to alpha strike you next turn. You clearly don't understand the term.
Standard: W/R Aggro
counter a sorcery-doesn't seem very relevant in standard, in limited this could work.
destroy 2 or less power dude- useful vs aggro I suppose, but other than that this is pretty crappy. as far as limited goes, this is useful just for the fact that it kills guildmages.
look at top 3 cards effect- this is pretty darn useful if you ask me, in late game you can make your opponent draw crap for a turn, or you can dig for a card you need at the moment. in limited, this is pretty good for finding that one good card in your deck faster.
also, i want this on isochron scepter, just so i can screw my opponents over and over again with the second ability.
Of course you're free to use your own vocabulary, but don't be surprised if people either don't understand what you're trying to conveying, or disagree with what you're conveying.
Currently playing:
Standard: Superfriends!
Legacy: Nic Fit / Pod
Pauper: Delvar; Tron; Flicker Stuff
Commander: Riku ("Some weird doubple spell thing happened"); Keranos ("I did a Gatherer search for 'random' and 'flip a coin.'"); Superfriends!
........................
The world must be viewed in context, everything must. Out of context nothing makes sense.
Then no card could ever be strictly better then any other card, because there will always be some stupid situation when the other card could be more useful, I guess I am using to extreme of term. Maybe I should say, usually? Mostly, most always. Most frequently...? If I had to bet any money on what card would be better in a random situation?
because some one might have Slaughter gamed my lighting bolts and If I only had put 1 shock in instead of a bolt, I could still use my tutor to find the burn spell to win the game. If for some reason everyone was running slaughter games..
Ugh. I will just try to not use such touchy words.
........................
The card draw is Ponder's best feature. Just the fact that I'm arguing the value cantrips and CA blows my mind. This forum is very kitchen table in general. As for Faithless Looting, the reason it's okay without the cantrip is because you can at least take something from your deck to use that very turn. What does Dimir Charm give you on that turn? If someone charms, I'll thank them for the Time Walk.
Yes. It would be awesome in Standard and you can get around the shuffle effect in other formats because of fetches. 1 CMC manipulation+cantrip will almost always be good.
It's not that you are not right, It's the fact that You want to be right regardless. So, obviously It is going to blow your mind.
Ponder's best element can be very debatable. That is why I gave my opinion about it. But just think about it for a second, How good Ponder can do to you if you could not shuffle your deck? what if You get stuck with a pile of lands? I know I giving you a specif situation, but It is real and very constant.
If a card does exactly what you expect You can say It's a fair card with a fair effect. We all expect to draw a card for U , but to produce a shuffle effect to help you out the mud is very unexpected. That what I call a feature.
Edit: To be clear, Im not saying Dimir Charm is a powerful card, but also stand way from the group of people that crucify it for not drawing a card.
However, You could treat your graveyard as an extention of your hand and build that deck. Esper Delver Miracle deck for Standard. Other formats, depends how It performs.
If index said scry 5 instead of look at the top 5 and rearrange them. I'd play it no questions asked...and so would many other people. Its the ability to get rid and avoid what you dont need, and get close to what you do. Card draw is the cherry on top that makes ba-roken. But index isnt weak because it doesnt draw you a card.
Yeah...killing a Gravecrawler with a non-red spell seems pretty bad to me.
Learn how to evaluate cards please. The card draw ISN'T ponders best feature. The fact that it lets you rearrange THEN Draw is what makes it good. But seriously, you obviously don't have a good grasp of this card, and cards in Standard(and some in modern) that this card likes to poop on.
Many thanks to DNC at Heroes of the Plane Studios
but what you are failing to realize is that if you run 4 Dimir Charms, and 4 Snapcaster Mage, you essentially control their draw for 8 turns. This card is amazing and the counter sorcery IS relevant.
All in all this is my favorite charm thus far.
i'd say 2 MD 2 SB.
I love how you picked only that out to try and be an ass, but I'll go ahead and remind you that I just put it there to point out that if the situation arises where you need to kill a Gravecrawler, you can do it.
Mode 1 counters radkos return, bonfire, terminus, and Unburial Rites. That is enough reason to justify the slot.
Mode 2 kills Ash Zelot, cacker, deathrite shaman, mana dorks, and stromkirk noble (while small). These are very problematic for blue decks.
Mode 3 is the very card selection that is completely void atm. Is this ponder or preordain? Hell no it is not. I don't seeWotC to ever print anything near that level again for multiple reasons. So looking forward this is a very strong effect for its cost. The graveyard is an extention for many decks and U/B is positioned the best to take advatange of it. Combined with Auger and thought scour this allows your deck to see a lot of cards per game. This is the very core of why delver worked. This card single handly ushers delver back into the meta game.
Stop comparing this to the other charms. Everyone is all over izzet charm's nuts but the fact is izzet charm has seen very little play in standard. Azourios ans Selesnya charms are the king of RtR because decks have constantly ran a 4 of since being introduced.
Have you ever played Brainstorm in a deck with no shuffling effects before?
Then, try to play the same deck with Ponder without the"Draw a card" part and tell me on which deck did you experienced the most frustration of all.
Smother to shock seems a better comparison.
W/U Lavinia of the Tenth
G/W Selvala, Explorer Returned
B Mono-black random General
R/G Xenagos, God of Revels
U/B Wydwen the BIting Gale
Sig by DNC/HotP Studios