Now this is a mythic that I can get behind. Probably not good enough for constructed so the prices won't be terribly high (hopefully), and is big, splashy, and feels like it'd make a great impact if it lands on the board. Yet another friend of Oona's EDH
Say you are playing Hold 'em and if you so choose you may remove the top 10 cards of the deck, would you do it?
The answer is that it doesn't matter whatsoever. Yo have no knowledge of the cards you are removing and therefore they are irrelevant. There are a TON of math and game-theory confirming this.
The difference here is in hold 'em you cant tutor for cards you want later on. Removing cards is strictly better in MTG as it removes potential threats that player would want to tutor for in the future. Sure it doesn't help anyone's statistics on their next random draw.. but it sure does help when it comes to attempting to dig for a specific card that now has a very real chance of no longer being available.
Which is true but irrelevant considering my answer is aimed at the claim that:
"you can send the smaller "Ingesters" in to pull their top-deck. Your both removing threats to this guy, and increasing the chance land drops are missed, making that turn-6 and beyond land drop crucial".
So is what you are quoting incorrect? Let's say I only remove lands every time I exile the top card. You can begin doing this as early as turn 3 with the ingest Eldrazi. So you can exile a minimum of 3 cards between turn 3 and turn 6. What type of hand did you keep? What color combinations do you have? Let's say you start with 3 lands in your opening hand and draw 2 until we start exiling. You are assured 5 lands. After that, it's 50-50. Do you have the correct answers already? Or are you relying on the top-deck? If Sire of Stagnation resolves on turn 6 and the above scenario holds true, what do you do? Need to fix your mana? Exile 2 and I draw two. All the while I've been skewing the game in my favor by shrinking your deck. I never said ingest is a standalone mechanic, but it assists today's spoiler.
I am honestly at a loss here. Let's spell a few things out...
First, The hold'em example is the worst I've ever read. Adjusting the state of a Hold'em deck affects BOTH players, so yes, you wouldn't want to take anything away from it because it hurts you just as much as it hurts your opponent.
Second, it will never be a "zero net effect", considering you are removing something entirely every successful hit.
Third, the ingest mechanic activates on the simplest interaction in the game, dealing combat damage. No hoops to jump through, nothing. Defending the fact "losing the unknown card on top of my deck means nothing" means you are willing to let these creatures attack you unblocked.
If you want to look at it like a math equation, then do this. Take your deck and remove 5 random cards from it. Then look at what your strategy amounts to. If it's 5 lands gone, your chances of pulling lands is decreased making it harder to play your deck. If it's 5 non-lands, how did they interact with your deck? Was it removal to answer large threats? Was it your bombs to win the game for you? I mean, really, everybody is over analyzing this. Taking something away is always better than not, unknown or otherwise.
But removing any number of cards from the top of the library will remove a porportionate amount of all the different cardtypes in his deck. You cannot base the argument on your christmaslandy comments about the smaller ingesters getting to both remove threats and reduing the chance to hit landdrops. That's not even christmaslandy, you are proposing that you remove both lands and threats from his deck causing him to BOTH miss land rops and threats? But if you remove the top 10 cards of his library you will remove porportionate amounts of lands and threats.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
I am honestly at a loss here. Let's spell a few things out...
First, The hold'em example is the worst I've ever read. Adjusting the state of a Hold'em deck affects BOTH players, so yes, you wouldn't want to take anything away from it because it hurts you just as much as it hurts your opponent.
Second, it will never be a "zero net effect", considering you are removing something entirely every successful hit.
Third, the ingest mechanic activates on the simplest interaction in the game, dealing combat damage. No hoops to jump through, nothing. Defending the fact "losing the unknown card on top of my deck means nothing" means you are willing to let these creatures attack you unblocked.
If you want to look at it like a math equation, then do this. Take your deck and remove 5 random cards from it. Then look at what your strategy amounts to. If it's 5 lands gone, your chances of pulling lands is decreased making it harder to play your deck. If it's 5 non-lands, how did they interact with your deck? Was it removal to answer large threats? Was it your bombs to win the game for you? I mean, really, everybody is over analyzing this. Taking something away is always better than not, unknown or otherwise.
Dude. I'm really trying to help you out here, but you're so damned insistent that you're right that you're utterly ignoring any talk of sense.
Let me break it down for you. I'm not some e-warrior trying to make you look bad, I'm trying to teach here. Do yourself a favor and hear me out.
"Removing something entirely every successful hit" is a pointless argument. Most decks do not rely on an intact library to win the game. For instance, see Satyr Wayfinder. The card saw LOTS of play during its time in Standard, despite potentially dumping valuable cards into your graveyard. In many decks that it saw play in, those cards couldn't be retrieved. But it was just as likely to get rid of GOOD cards as it was BAD cards, which is why it was okay to use.
Who the hell said we were willing to be attacked unblocked? Don't assume words. My point was that, barring Processors, Ingest creatures are essentially the same as they would be without Ingest.
Your "math" is wrong. If you remove five nonland cards or five land cards from my deck, yes, it does effect me. BUT THAT IS NOT RANDOM. If you randomly removed five cards from my deck, on average, you will typically remove two lands and three nonlands, assuming a 40% land ratio. This has NO EFFECT on the odds of drawing types of cards in my deck. Now, as for the nonland cards. If you took away three of my four win conditions, then yes, you have hurt me. What are the odds of that? Very low. Know what there is also a chance of? Taking away three cards that happened to be suboptimal in the matchup I'm in.
If you disagree, feel free to cite competitive mill decks. By your logic, they should be quite strong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
Say you are playing Hold 'em and if you so choose you may remove the top 10 cards of the deck, would you do it?
The answer is that it doesn't matter whatsoever. Yo have no knowledge of the cards you are removing and therefore they are irrelevant. There are a TON of math and game-theory confirming this.
The difference here is in hold 'em you cant tutor for cards you want later on. Removing cards is strictly better in MTG as it removes potential threats that player would want to tutor for in the future. Sure it doesn't help anyone's statistics on their next random draw.. but it sure does help when it comes to attempting to dig for a specific card that now has a very real chance of no longer being available.
Which is true but irrelevant considering my answer is aimed at the claim that:
"you can send the smaller "Ingesters" in to pull their top-deck. Your both removing threats to this guy, and increasing the chance land drops are missed, making that turn-6 and beyond land drop crucial".
So is what you are quoting incorrect? Let's say I only remove lands every time I exile the top card. You can begin doing this as early as turn 3 with the ingest Eldrazi. So you can exile a minimum of 3 cards between turn 3 and turn 6. What type of hand did you keep? What color combinations do you have? Let's say you start with 3 lands in your opening hand and draw 2 until we start exiling. You are assured 5 lands. After that, it's 50-50. Do you have the correct answers already? Or are you relying on the top-deck? If Sire of Stagnation resolves on turn 6 and the above scenario holds true, what do you do? Need to fix your mana? Exile 2 and I draw two. All the while I've been skewing the game in my favor by shrinking your deck. I never said ingest is a standalone mechanic, but it assists today's spoiler.
But you canot jsut say that you remove only lands! that is the entire point. In that case I can play a 59 lands+ashling pilgrim deck and assume the opponents only draws lands and I always start the game with ashling in hand.
When you remove unknown cards from the top of the library you CANNOT assume you will get "only lands" or anything of the sort. What you will remove will be a proportionate amount of all different cards in his deck.
EDIT:
Also, check out the new lantern control deck in modern. The ONLY reason that is succesful is because it has CONTROL over what it mills and what it keeps on top. If you have seen anyone play that deck you realize that without the lantern they are pretty much locked into keeping their hand empty for ensnaring bridge and praying the opponent doesn't draw any answers.
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Whemn you remove unknown cards from the top of the library you CANNOT assume you will get "only lands" or anything of the sort. What you will remove will be a proportionate ammount of all different carsd in his deck.
This is a fundamental truth of Magic and I'm frankly flabbergasted that more people don't get it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
Whemn you remove unknown cards from the top of the library you CANNOT assume you will get "only lands" or anything of the sort. What you will remove will be a proportionate ammount of all different carsd in his deck.
This is a fundamental truth of Magic and I'm frankly flabbergasted that more people don't get it.
But a fundamental truth of life is that if you can remove something that has the potential to hurt you, you do it. I'm trying to make this as "kiddy grade" as possible but apparently it's still not sinking in. In a real game, ingest will absolutely exile something of value, as early as turn 3. I've been playing this game for a long time, and have been heavily involved with advanced statistics, so I'm speaking from experience. I'd almost say the best example is a football roster. It has 53 players. Game A, the roster has no adjustments and plays out as normal. Game B, remove 5 random player, and what happens? You need to adjust your strategy. That's the point I am trying to make here. Ingest forces you to change your strategy with every card exiled. If it exiles a needed swamp for Abzan, when is the next swamp going to come up? Will I draw it, or will it be ingested again. It's completely random. Don't sit here and tell me removing cards from your deck has zero influence on the game, it's flat out wrong. Now, a clear picture of how this relates to the spoiler. I mentioned before, you can ramp him out early and take advantage of players needing land drops to play their deck, OR, if you play creatures with ingest, you make every draw matter. If you ingest lands, you increase the chance of obtaining card advantage from his effect. If you exile non-land cards, you increase the chance he sits on the board and swings at your face for 5. Was that hard to grasp? Yes, proportionately speaking, you can exile a combination of both, but it's still random, and the chances of exiling all lands or all non-lands is entirely possible. If that wasn't true, then flooding would never be a problem. Now that's christmaslandy.
Whemn you remove unknown cards from the top of the library you CANNOT assume you will get "only lands" or anything of the sort. What you will remove will be a proportionate ammount of all different carsd in his deck.
This is a fundamental truth of Magic and I'm frankly flabbergasted that more people don't get it.
But a fundamental truth of life is that if you can remove something that has the potential to hurt you, you do it. I'm trying to make this as "kiddy grade" as possible but apparently it's still not sinking in. In a real game, ingest will absolutely exile something of value, as early as turn 3. I've been playing this game for a long time, and have been heavily involved with advanced statistics, so I'm speaking from experience. I'd almost say the best example is a football roster. It has 53 players. Game A, the roster has no adjustments and plays out as normal. Game B, remove 5 random player, and what happens? You need to adjust your strategy. That's the point I am trying to make here. Ingest forces you to change your strategy with every card exiled. If it exiles a needed swamp for Abzan, when is the next swamp going to come up? Will I draw it, or will it be ingested again. It's completely random. Don't sit here and tell me removing cards from your deck has zero influence on the game, it's flat out wrong. Now, a clear picture of how this relates to the spoiler. I mentioned before, you can ramp him out early and take advantage of players needing land drops to play their deck, OR, if you play creatures with ingest, you make every draw matter. If you ingest lands, you increase the chance of obtaining card advantage from his effect. If you exile non-land cards, you increase the chance he sits on the board and swings at your face for 5. Was that hard to grasp? Yes, proportionately speaking, you can exile a combination of both, but it's still random, and the chances of exiling all lands or all non-lands is entirely possible. If that wasn't true, then flooding would never be a problem. Now that's christmaslandy.
It's not that ingest is useless, its that it has the same chances to help as to hurt you. You can remove that swamp, but it may have been his 5th swamp because he is mana flooded, and now he can draw his rhino. You can't assume ingest will help you.
Say you are playing Hold 'em and if you so choose you may remove the top 10 cards of the deck, would you do it?
The answer is that it doesn't matter whatsoever. Yo have no knowledge of the cards you are removing and therefore they are irrelevant. There are a TON of math and game-theory confirming this.
The difference here is in hold 'em you cant tutor for cards you want later on. Removing cards is strictly better in MTG as it removes potential threats that player would want to tutor for in the future. Sure it doesn't help anyone's statistics on their next random draw.. but it sure does help when it comes to attempting to dig for a specific card that now has a very real chance of no longer being available.
Which is true but irrelevant considering my answer is aimed at the claim that:
"you can send the smaller "Ingesters" in to pull their top-deck. Your both removing threats to this guy, and increasing the chance land drops are missed, making that turn-6 and beyond land drop crucial".
So is what you are quoting incorrect? Let's say I only remove lands every time I exile the top card. You can begin doing this as early as turn 3 with the ingest Eldrazi. So you can exile a minimum of 3 cards between turn 3 and turn 6. What type of hand did you keep? What color combinations do you have? Let's say you start with 3 lands in your opening hand and draw 2 until we start exiling. You are assured 5 lands. After that, it's 50-50. Do you have the correct answers already? Or are you relying on the top-deck? If Sire of Stagnation resolves on turn 6 and the above scenario holds true, what do you do? Need to fix your mana? Exile 2 and I draw two. All the while I've been skewing the game in my favor by shrinking your deck. I never said ingest is a standalone mechanic, but it assists today's spoiler.
But you canot jsut say that you remove only lands! that is the entire point. In that case I can play a 59 lands+ashling pilgrim deck and assume the opponents only draws lands and I always start the game with ashling in hand.
When you remove unknown cards from the top of the library you CANNOT assume you will get "only lands" or anything of the sort. What you will remove will be a proportionate amount of all different cards in his deck.
EDIT:
Also, check out the new lantern control deck in modern. The ONLY reason that is succesful is because it has CONTROL over what it mills and what it keeps on top. If you have seen anyone play that deck you realize that without the lantern they are pretty much locked into keeping their hand empty for ensnaring bridge and praying the opponent doesn't draw any answers.
Ingest won't see modern play so I don't understand how that relates at all to my point.
But a fundamental truth of life is that if you can remove something that has the potential to hurt you, you do it. I'm trying to make this as "kiddy grade" as possible but apparently it's still not sinking in. In a real game, ingest will absolutely exile something of value, as early as turn 3. I've been playing this game for a long time, and have been heavily involved with advanced statistics, so I'm speaking from experience. I'd almost say the best example is a football roster. It has 53 players. Game A, the roster has no adjustments and plays out as normal. Game B, remove 5 random player, and what happens? You need to adjust your strategy. That's the point I am trying to make here. Ingest forces you to change your strategy with every card exiled. If it exiles a needed swamp for Abzan, when is the next swamp going to come up? Will I draw it, or will it be ingested again. It's completely random. Don't sit here and tell me removing cards from your deck has zero influence on the game, it's flat out wrong. Now, a clear picture of how this relates to the spoiler. I mentioned before, you can ramp him out early and take advantage of players needing land drops to play their deck, OR, if you play creatures with ingest, you make every draw matter. If you ingest lands, you increase the chance of obtaining card advantage from his effect. If you exile non-land cards, you increase the chance he sits on the board and swings at your face for 5. Was that hard to grasp? Yes, proportionately speaking, you can exile a combination of both, but it's still random, and the chances of exiling all lands or all non-lands is entirely possible. If that wasn't true, then flooding would never be a problem. Now that's christmaslandy.
Of course Ingest has an affect on the game state, no one has disagreed with you about that. The disagreement is whether the change in the game state changes the likelihood in a manner which makes you more likely to win. The answer to that is no, unless either:
1) You have some ability to influence which of the random cards are being removed
or
2) You have some ability to generate value from the cards you removed
or
3) The removed cards matter because you're going to deck your oppoenent
Furiousmarsupial is patiently trying to explain to you something that was beaten to death in the first week of Statistics 101 as part of your advanced statistics background. Please step back and learn something that is very useful.
Your football analogy is flawed, because in Magic, you don't get to "play" all 53 of your guys in a given game. The correct interpretation would be to say, you have a 53 player team, of which you can only suit up 22 for any given game, and (this is important) you don't get to choose which 22. Now you get ingested and a random 5 guys from the 53 get removed from the pool and for game 2 you still suit up a random 22. Are you better or worse off?
The answer of course is neither. It could be that all of your QBs got taken out and now your random 22 is bad. It is just as likely that the 5 guys you lost were the five you wanted to suit up the least and you're now much more likely to suit up the 22 you want.
But a fundamental truth of life is that if you can remove something that has the potential to hurt you, you do it. I'm trying to make this as "kiddy grade" as possible but apparently it's still not sinking in. In a real game, ingest will absolutely exile something of value, as early as turn 3. I've been playing this game for a long time, and have been heavily involved with advanced statistics, so I'm speaking from experience. I'd almost say the best example is a football roster. It has 53 players. Game A, the roster has no adjustments and plays out as normal. Game B, remove 5 random player, and what happens? You need to adjust your strategy. That's the point I am trying to make here. Ingest forces you to change your strategy with every card exiled. If it exiles a needed swamp for Abzan, when is the next swamp going to come up? Will I draw it, or will it be ingested again. It's completely random. Don't sit here and tell me removing cards from your deck has zero influence on the game, it's flat out wrong. Now, a clear picture of how this relates to the spoiler. I mentioned before, you can ramp him out early and take advantage of players needing land drops to play their deck, OR, if you play creatures with ingest, you make every draw matter. If you ingest lands, you increase the chance of obtaining card advantage from his effect. If you exile non-land cards, you increase the chance he sits on the board and swings at your face for 5. Was that hard to grasp? Yes, proportionately speaking, you can exile a combination of both, but it's still random, and the chances of exiling all lands or all non-lands is entirely possible. If that wasn't true, then flooding would never be a problem. Now that's christmaslandy.
Of course Ingest has an affect on the game state, no one has disagreed with you about that. The disagreement is whether the change in the game state changes the likelihood in a manner which makes you more likely to win. The answer to that is no, unless either:
1) You have some ability to influence which of the random cards are being removed
or
2) You have some ability to generate value from the cards you removed
or
3) The removed cards matter because you're going to deck your oppoenent
Furiousmarsupial is patiently trying to explain to you something that was beaten to death in the first week of Statistics 101 as part of your advanced statistics background. Please step back and learn something that is very useful.
Your football analogy is flawed, because in Magic, you don't get to "play" all 53 of your guys in a given game. The correct interpretation would be to say, you have a 53 player team, of which you can only suit up 22 for any given game, and (this is important) you don't get to choose which 22. Now you get ingested and a random 5 guys from the 53 get removed from the pool and for game 2 you still suit up a random 22. Are you better or worse off?
The answer of course is neither. It could be that all of your QBs got taken out and now your random 22 is bad. It is just as likely that the 5 guys you lost were the five you wanted to suit up the least and you're now much more likely to suit up the 22 you want.
It really is Week 1 or 2 of Basic Stats.
Wow, thank you. I can only repeat basic theory so many times before I start to doubt my own sanity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
1) You have some ability to influence which of the random cards are being removed
or
2) You have some ability to generate value from the cards you removed
or
3) The removed cards matter because you're going to deck your oppoenent
4) Your opponent has the ability to tutor and now has a statistical disadvantage of still being able to get specific cards.
This is more relevant in EDH than Standard were cards are 1 ofs outside of basic lands and tutoring is heavily relied on for consistancy. Lets also not forget the huge amount of top deck manipulation used in the format. Sure basic statistics show for standard it is not as useful, but outside of that it is more game changing than not.
Against any deck that has the ability to tutor this mechanic instantly increases its usefulness for you apposed to helping your opponent. In a deck that tutors you do get the option to "play" all 53 cards and it is much less random.
1) You have some ability to influence which of the random cards are being removed
or
2) You have some ability to generate value from the cards you removed
or
3) The removed cards matter because you're going to deck your oppoenent
4) Your opponent has the ability to tutor and now has a statistical disadvantage of still being able to get specific cards.
This is more relevant in EDH than Standard were cards are 1 ofs outside of basic lands and tutoring is heavily relied on for consistancy. Lets also not forget the huge amount of top deck manipulation used in the format. Sure basic statistics show for standard it is not as useful, but outside of that it is more game changing than not.
I'll agree that Ingest can potentially mess with Tutoring strategies. I don't think that's a point of contention.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
My input I guess, is that it depends on how well you can drop it turn 4 or 5 and how slow the format is in general. It seems like they intend to slow standard down significantly, and in that case this could be quite good. It also depends on how good the processors are. With Herald of Kozilek (I know it may not be playable) its easier to drop early, Fathom Feeder is good early and late to feed Processors, Crumble to Dust helps with the resource denial, Ulamog's Nullifier as a counter/body, Transgress the Mind for discard/fuel, Brutal Expulsion could work. I think there's a lot of potential for a Grixis Eldrazi deck, although how exactly the deck would play out I'm not sure, control or midrange, certainly not aggro.
I swear I first read it as Wingbonger...something tells me that "As Long as Wingbonger is paired with another creature, both creatures have weed." wouldn't be as good. Seems solid for limited.
Ancestral Recall whenever they play a land? Opportunity for 0 if they crack a fetch? This guy is an absolute beast in EDH/your favorite multiplayer format. If he doesn't get removed quickly, you will be drowning in card advantage.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
But a fundamental truth of life is that if you can remove something that has the potential to hurt you, you do it. I'm trying to make this as "kiddy grade" as possible but apparently it's still not sinking in. In a real game, ingest will absolutely exile something of value, as early as turn 3. I've been playing this game for a long time, and have been heavily involved with advanced statistics, so I'm speaking from experience. I'd almost say the best example is a football roster. It has 53 players. Game A, the roster has no adjustments and plays out as normal. Game B, remove 5 random player, and what happens? You need to adjust your strategy. That's the point I am trying to make here. Ingest forces you to change your strategy with every card exiled. If it exiles a needed swamp for Abzan, when is the next swamp going to come up? Will I draw it, or will it be ingested again. It's completely random. Don't sit here and tell me removing cards from your deck has zero influence on the game, it's flat out wrong. Now, a clear picture of how this relates to the spoiler. I mentioned before, you can ramp him out early and take advantage of players needing land drops to play their deck, OR, if you play creatures with ingest, you make every draw matter. If you ingest lands, you increase the chance of obtaining card advantage from his effect. If you exile non-land cards, you increase the chance he sits on the board and swings at your face for 5. Was that hard to grasp? Yes, proportionately speaking, you can exile a combination of both, but it's still random, and the chances of exiling all lands or all non-lands is entirely possible. If that wasn't true, then flooding would never be a problem. Now that's christmaslandy.
Of course Ingest has an affect on the game state, no one has disagreed with you about that. The disagreement is whether the change in the game state changes the likelihood in a manner which makes you more likely to win. The answer to that is no, unless either:
1) You have some ability to influence which of the random cards are being removed
or
2) You have some ability to generate value from the cards you removed
or
3) The removed cards matter because you're going to deck your oppoenent
Furiousmarsupial is patiently trying to explain to you something that was beaten to death in the first week of Statistics 101 as part of your advanced statistics background. Please step back and learn something that is very useful.
Your football analogy is flawed, because in Magic, you don't get to "play" all 53 of your guys in a given game. The correct interpretation would be to say, you have a 53 player team, of which you can only suit up 22 for any given game, and (this is important) you don't get to choose which 22. Now you get ingested and a random 5 guys from the 53 get removed from the pool and for game 2 you still suit up a random 22. Are you better or worse off?
The answer of course is neither. It could be that all of your QBs got taken out and now your random 22 is bad. It is just as likely that the 5 guys you lost were the five you wanted to suit up the least and you're now much more likely to suit up the 22 you want.
It really is Week 1 or 2 of Basic Stats.
Missed the point, again. It's been missed so many times I am honestly tired of bringing it up. Go back to my original use of ingest regarding this particular card. Please, do us all a favor and do it before responding with more nonsense.
I initially pointed out that ramping into this guy creates an undesirable scenario for your opponent. You obviously can't do much sitting on 3-4 lands with the threat of card advantage to play more. It was agreed that ramping to him was a viable strategy and then it was agreed it would make him playable under that circumstance. I responded with the combination of ingest being another viable option to abuse his ability/body.
Here is how it works:
We both start the game with 7 cards in hand and 53 left in our library. You keep your hand based on the probability that you will draw cards to support it, wether it's additional lands, or, non-lands to take advantage of a high land count in hand. I will go first.
Assuming I play a 2cmc ingest creature, I can begin exiling cards from your library as soon as turn 3. Still with me?
Until that point you have had access to all 60 cards you began the game with. Random or not, ingest(slowly) removes what you have left.
So what we are left with is 10 total cards for you to build a strategy with before ingest begins to "close the window" so to speak on your initial strategy. It essentially makes you rely more on the top deck.
Now, this is where it is relevant to the spoiled card...
Those 10 cards are just as random as the cards that are exiled. Did you keep 3 lands and draw 1 land and 2 non-lands? Can you build a strategy on 4 lands? Do they even match the color requirements of the cards you kept? Ingest makes your draws more important.
Do you get what you need? Do you draw an answer? Do you have enough resources to cast an answer? Or did your answer get exiled. The body itself is a threat.
I laughed at you're second point, ingest provides tons of value to cards in this set, so yes they will impact the outcome of the game.
Again, never said ingest was a standalone mechanic. However, it's not a garbage mechanic either. Taking something away permanently is no joke.
Missed the point, again. It's been missed so many times I am honestly tired of bringing it up. Go back to my original use of ingest regarding this particular card. Please, do us all a favor and do it before responding with more nonsense.
I initially pointed out that ramping into this guy creates an undesirable scenario for your opponent. You obviously can't do much sitting on 3-4 lands with the threat of card advantage to play more. It was agreed that ramping to him was a viable strategy and then it was agreed it would make him playable under that circumstance. I responded with the combination of ingest being another viable option to abuse his ability/body.
Here is how it works:
We both start the game with 7 cards in hand and 53 left in our library. You keep your hand based on the probability that you will draw cards to support it, wether it's additional lands, or, non-lands to take advantage of a high land count in hand. I will go first.
Assuming I play a 2cmc ingest creature, I can begin exiling cards from your library as soon as turn 3. Still with me?
Until that point you have had access to all 60 cards you began the game with. Random or not, ingest(slowly) removes what you have left.
So what we are left with is 10 total cards for you to build a strategy with before ingest begins to "close the window" so to speak on your initial strategy. It essentially makes you rely more on the top deck.
Now, this is where it is relevant to the spoiled card...
Those 10 cards are just as random as the cards that are exiled. Did you keep 3 lands and draw 1 land and 2 non-lands? Can you build a strategy on 4 lands? Do they even match the color requirements of the cards you kept? Ingest makes your draws more important.
Do you get what you need? Do you draw an answer? Do you have enough resources to cast an answer? Or did your answer get exiled. The body itself is a threat.
I laughed at you're second point, ingest provides tons of value to cards in this set, so yes they will impact the outcome of the game.
Again, never said ingest was a standalone mechanic. However, it's not a garbage mechanic either. Taking something away permanently is no joke.
So, what you are saying here is that games where you start ingesting my library on turn 3 play out exactly the same as games where ingest is not present at all...
The next card you ingest could be the card I needed to kill you next turn. It could be useless to my hand/clock/whatever. Now, what about the card underneath that that I will draw instead? It could be the card I needed to kill you next turn. It could be useless to my hand/clock/whatever, you know, cause it is all random.
So is what you are quoting incorrect? Let's say I only remove lands every time I exile the top card. You can begin doing this as early as turn 3 with the ingest Eldrazi. So you can exile a minimum of 3 cards between turn 3 and turn 6. What type of hand did you keep? What color combinations do you have? Let's say you start with 3 lands in your opening hand and draw 2 until we start exiling. You are assured 5 lands. After that, it's 50-50. Do you have the correct answers already? Or are you relying on the top-deck? If Sire of Stagnation resolves on turn 6 and the above scenario holds true, what do you do? Need to fix your mana? Exile 2 and I draw two. All the while I've been skewing the game in my favor by shrinking your deck. I never said ingest is a standalone mechanic, but it assists today's spoiler.
But removing any number of cards from the top of the library will remove a porportionate amount of all the different cardtypes in his deck. You cannot base the argument on your christmaslandy comments about the smaller ingesters getting to both remove threats and reduing the chance to hit landdrops. That's not even christmaslandy, you are proposing that you remove both lands and threats from his deck causing him to BOTH miss land rops and threats? But if you remove the top 10 cards of his library you will remove porportionate amounts of lands and threats.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Dude. I'm really trying to help you out here, but you're so damned insistent that you're right that you're utterly ignoring any talk of sense.
Let me break it down for you. I'm not some e-warrior trying to make you look bad, I'm trying to teach here. Do yourself a favor and hear me out.
"Removing something entirely every successful hit" is a pointless argument. Most decks do not rely on an intact library to win the game. For instance, see Satyr Wayfinder. The card saw LOTS of play during its time in Standard, despite potentially dumping valuable cards into your graveyard. In many decks that it saw play in, those cards couldn't be retrieved. But it was just as likely to get rid of GOOD cards as it was BAD cards, which is why it was okay to use.
Who the hell said we were willing to be attacked unblocked? Don't assume words. My point was that, barring Processors, Ingest creatures are essentially the same as they would be without Ingest.
Your "math" is wrong. If you remove five nonland cards or five land cards from my deck, yes, it does effect me. BUT THAT IS NOT RANDOM. If you randomly removed five cards from my deck, on average, you will typically remove two lands and three nonlands, assuming a 40% land ratio. This has NO EFFECT on the odds of drawing types of cards in my deck. Now, as for the nonland cards. If you took away three of my four win conditions, then yes, you have hurt me. What are the odds of that? Very low. Know what there is also a chance of? Taking away three cards that happened to be suboptimal in the matchup I'm in.
If you disagree, feel free to cite competitive mill decks. By your logic, they should be quite strong.
But you canot jsut say that you remove only lands! that is the entire point. In that case I can play a 59 lands+ashling pilgrim deck and assume the opponents only draws lands and I always start the game with ashling in hand.
When you remove unknown cards from the top of the library you CANNOT assume you will get "only lands" or anything of the sort. What you will remove will be a proportionate amount of all different cards in his deck.
EDIT:
Also, check out the new lantern control deck in modern. The ONLY reason that is succesful is because it has CONTROL over what it mills and what it keeps on top. If you have seen anyone play that deck you realize that without the lantern they are pretty much locked into keeping their hand empty for ensnaring bridge and praying the opponent doesn't draw any answers.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
This is a fundamental truth of Magic and I'm frankly flabbergasted that more people don't get it.
But a fundamental truth of life is that if you can remove something that has the potential to hurt you, you do it. I'm trying to make this as "kiddy grade" as possible but apparently it's still not sinking in. In a real game, ingest will absolutely exile something of value, as early as turn 3. I've been playing this game for a long time, and have been heavily involved with advanced statistics, so I'm speaking from experience. I'd almost say the best example is a football roster. It has 53 players. Game A, the roster has no adjustments and plays out as normal. Game B, remove 5 random player, and what happens? You need to adjust your strategy. That's the point I am trying to make here. Ingest forces you to change your strategy with every card exiled. If it exiles a needed swamp for Abzan, when is the next swamp going to come up? Will I draw it, or will it be ingested again. It's completely random. Don't sit here and tell me removing cards from your deck has zero influence on the game, it's flat out wrong. Now, a clear picture of how this relates to the spoiler. I mentioned before, you can ramp him out early and take advantage of players needing land drops to play their deck, OR, if you play creatures with ingest, you make every draw matter. If you ingest lands, you increase the chance of obtaining card advantage from his effect. If you exile non-land cards, you increase the chance he sits on the board and swings at your face for 5. Was that hard to grasp? Yes, proportionately speaking, you can exile a combination of both, but it's still random, and the chances of exiling all lands or all non-lands is entirely possible. If that wasn't true, then flooding would never be a problem. Now that's christmaslandy.
It's not that ingest is useless, its that it has the same chances to help as to hurt you. You can remove that swamp, but it may have been his 5th swamp because he is mana flooded, and now he can draw his rhino. You can't assume ingest will help you.
thats my cube
Ingest won't see modern play so I don't understand how that relates at all to my point.
I believe that enchantment (if it is the one talked about here: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/628427-black-eldrazi-enchantment-fake) was deemed fake.
Standard - Some kind of control
Modern - UB Mill (casual)
EDH - Meren's Grave Shenanigans
Could have been better tough
No. Just no. I'm done talking to you. I am explicitly and without equivocation calling you a liar, and you're wasting my time.
Of course Ingest has an affect on the game state, no one has disagreed with you about that. The disagreement is whether the change in the game state changes the likelihood in a manner which makes you more likely to win. The answer to that is no, unless either:
1) You have some ability to influence which of the random cards are being removed
or
2) You have some ability to generate value from the cards you removed
or
3) The removed cards matter because you're going to deck your oppoenent
Furiousmarsupial is patiently trying to explain to you something that was beaten to death in the first week of Statistics 101 as part of your advanced statistics background. Please step back and learn something that is very useful.
Your football analogy is flawed, because in Magic, you don't get to "play" all 53 of your guys in a given game. The correct interpretation would be to say, you have a 53 player team, of which you can only suit up 22 for any given game, and (this is important) you don't get to choose which 22. Now you get ingested and a random 5 guys from the 53 get removed from the pool and for game 2 you still suit up a random 22. Are you better or worse off?
The answer of course is neither. It could be that all of your QBs got taken out and now your random 22 is bad. It is just as likely that the 5 guys you lost were the five you wanted to suit up the least and you're now much more likely to suit up the 22 you want.
It really is Week 1 or 2 of Basic Stats.
Wow, thank you. I can only repeat basic theory so many times before I start to doubt my own sanity.
4) Your opponent has the ability to tutor and now has a statistical disadvantage of still being able to get specific cards.
This is more relevant in EDH than Standard were cards are 1 ofs outside of basic lands and tutoring is heavily relied on for consistancy. Lets also not forget the huge amount of top deck manipulation used in the format. Sure basic statistics show for standard it is not as useful, but outside of that it is more game changing than not.
Against any deck that has the ability to tutor this mechanic instantly increases its usefulness for you apposed to helping your opponent. In a deck that tutors you do get the option to "play" all 53 cards and it is much less random.
I'll agree that Ingest can potentially mess with Tutoring strategies. I don't think that's a point of contention.
Would have been okay with Ingest X, thus allowing bigger hitters to ingest more
Standard - Some kind of control
Modern - UB Mill (casual)
EDH - Meren's Grave Shenanigans
RIP Mike McArtor. The Mothership won't be the same.
Legacy
GG Aggro Elves GG
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
Missed the point, again. It's been missed so many times I am honestly tired of bringing it up. Go back to my original use of ingest regarding this particular card. Please, do us all a favor and do it before responding with more nonsense.
I initially pointed out that ramping into this guy creates an undesirable scenario for your opponent. You obviously can't do much sitting on 3-4 lands with the threat of card advantage to play more. It was agreed that ramping to him was a viable strategy and then it was agreed it would make him playable under that circumstance. I responded with the combination of ingest being another viable option to abuse his ability/body.
Here is how it works:
We both start the game with 7 cards in hand and 53 left in our library. You keep your hand based on the probability that you will draw cards to support it, wether it's additional lands, or, non-lands to take advantage of a high land count in hand. I will go first.
Assuming I play a 2cmc ingest creature, I can begin exiling cards from your library as soon as turn 3. Still with me?
Until that point you have had access to all 60 cards you began the game with. Random or not, ingest(slowly) removes what you have left.
So what we are left with is 10 total cards for you to build a strategy with before ingest begins to "close the window" so to speak on your initial strategy. It essentially makes you rely more on the top deck.
Now, this is where it is relevant to the spoiled card...
Those 10 cards are just as random as the cards that are exiled. Did you keep 3 lands and draw 1 land and 2 non-lands? Can you build a strategy on 4 lands? Do they even match the color requirements of the cards you kept? Ingest makes your draws more important.
Do you get what you need? Do you draw an answer? Do you have enough resources to cast an answer? Or did your answer get exiled. The body itself is a threat.
I laughed at you're second point, ingest provides tons of value to cards in this set, so yes they will impact the outcome of the game.
Again, never said ingest was a standalone mechanic. However, it's not a garbage mechanic either. Taking something away permanently is no joke.
So, what you are saying here is that games where you start ingesting my library on turn 3 play out exactly the same as games where ingest is not present at all...
The next card you ingest could be the card I needed to kill you next turn. It could be useless to my hand/clock/whatever. Now, what about the card underneath that that I will draw instead? It could be the card I needed to kill you next turn. It could be useless to my hand/clock/whatever, you know, cause it is all random.
I think Ingest is a very interesting mechanic.
I have somehow missed the linkage between them.
The link is that, apparently, Ingest somehow makes Sire better.