FuriousMarsupial: Yes, but I do not see how. It seems quite apples and oranges to me. Beyond the obvious fact that both exile your opponent's cards and thus feed Processors.
Imagine having 3 or 4 copy's and playing a sorcery that makes both players search and play mana. Mill em end your turn. You win on there upkeep. The difference is its not a legendary like the dimir God and others. I can't wait to build a edh around his copies
Imagine having 3 or 4 copy's and playing a sorcery that makes both players search and play mana. Mill em end your turn. You win on there upkeep. The difference is its not a legendary like the dimir God and others. I can't wait to build a edh around his copies
I look forward to playing him in EDH. But the thing I look forward to even more is to play a Collective Voyage with an opponent having it out, have all the rest of the table chip in and then let him draw out when each other player searches for 12 lands each
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
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.
A player does not have access to the entirety of it's library. Your library is not part of your strategy. Your strategy is putting together a library that wins you the game. The library is the puzzle, not the solution, reason why if the game didn't had a minimum library size rules the best decks would have like 10~12 cards or so. Every card above that number is a obstacle.
I have neither the skill to correctly and accurately analyze this set in the context of current and future formats after 12 hours of exposure, nor the hubris to delude myself into believing that I do.
FuriousMarsupial: Yes, but I do not see how. It seems quite apples and oranges to me. Beyond the obvious fact that both exile your opponent's cards and thus feed Processors.
Hence my exasperation with the argument with Buffsam.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
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.
Not sure it's been pointed out yet but the value gotten the exiled matters eldrazi in this set can be somewhat double edged. This is somewhat limited by the fact you are only doing it for opponents (would've been crazy broken to do it to your own exiled) so you can choose less useful stuff but like milling you are effectively giving the opponent another resource to potentially access. So you might have to think about whether or not you want to take those ingested cards and use them for effects if it might feed your opponents DTT or tasigar or such
Aw. For a second i thought path to exile might be gross with this, then i reread the wording.
Still, looks like funtimes in my lovecraftian horror edh.
Still makes it better. I makes path have more upside... it makes the downside to path have a downside for the opponent too if they choose to search. Similar ghost quarters becomes rather interesting. Basically becomes a strip mine unless your opponents wants to give you cards
Kind of hate that it's yet another example of Wizards thinking UB can only mill, but the card is awesome.
He comes on a fat butt and provides outrageous card advantage, either through resource denial or card draw. He would have been pretty decent even without the mill.
It's also pretty obvious why he exiles cards off the top of the library, this set has the processors and he is another way to activate your processors. They didn't just make him exile the top 2 just to make sure that a UB card mills.
Its a punisher effect, not a guaranteed draw. Your opponents can choose not to play lands, and barring very gimmicky combos, you can't force them to play lands. As I have said in the past, the value of a punisher effect is less than the least of either of the two options, made lesser by how disparate they are. The two options are "Opponents can't play this land" and "Draw 2 cards, mill 2 cards". Two options with very different implications. As many have said, if the game has already reached 6+ CMC, the enemy player can probably afford to skip a land drop or two while he stabilizes his board. Or, since this dies to a single piece of removal, he can just untap, draw, play a kill spell, THEN drop a land anyway.
This is no consecrated sphinx. It lacks evasion, it lacks reliability, its easily played around. Even if you cast it from ahead and secure a board advantage, its not backbreaking for an opponent to play a land, maybe two, before he nukes it, because its still chumpable, its just generating a bit of CA for a 6 drop.
About the mill debate, I don't think actually did the math behind it. If there's some formal proof of it I would be glad to see because the last time I did the math I found milling the opponent had a expected negative value (for the opponent), with the only exception being when that player value the cards in his/her deck all the same.
Edit: Never mind, didn't realize you guys have trivialized tutoring and were speaking strictly in terms of drawing value.
I guess Buffsam has a point if you, say, have a deck focusing around tutoring out a certain card(s), then milling someone will inherently give them a slightly less likely chance of being able to pull it out of their deck. The difference is nearly negligible, even in limited sized decks, but I suppose in that sense it makes a little bit of sense.
Its a punisher effect, not a guaranteed draw. Your opponents can choose not to play lands, and barring very gimmicky combos, you can't force them to play lands. As I have said in the past, the value of a punisher effect is less than the least of either of the two options, made lesser by how disparate they are. The two options are "Opponents can't play this land" and "Draw 2 cards, mill 2 cards". Two options with very different implications. As many have said, if the game has already reached 6+ CMC, the enemy player can probably afford to skip a land drop or two while he stabilizes his board. Or, since this dies to a single piece of removal, he can just untap, draw, play a kill spell, THEN drop a land anyway.
This is no consecrated sphinx. It lacks evasion, it lacks reliability, its easily played around. Even if you cast it from ahead and secure a board advantage, its not backbreaking for an opponent to play a land, maybe two, before he nukes it, because its still chumpable, its just generating a bit of CA for a 6 drop.
This is NOT a good card
The evasion that Consecrated Sphinx gets from being able to fly doesn't even compare to how much more of a "Kill now" it is than this card.
There is a chance this sees play in standard, but only if there is a UB deck that can get it out early. If you don't cast this until t6 they can probably wait until they can kill it before playing another land. I guess it could be a sideboard against ramp decks though. A RG deck probably has no good way to kill it, and if they are running eldrazi or landfall they can't just avoid playing lands without ruining their plan. Against a normal control deck (who also wants to play lands past t6) they can ignore it for a few turns before it causes problems, and any 6-drop is going to beat control if they don't remove it in a few turns. Other decks probably don't care too much unless this comes down really early.
In EDH, this can be close to Consecrated Sphinx, especially in a decks with ways to force opponents to play lands. I don't think I would ever play this over sphinx, but that is a really high standard to live up to.
First pick in limited of course, but that means little on a mythic.
Too expensive for other formats, comes down after his ability means nothing
Dude, you are not off evaluating a card, you are factually mathematically wrong. I am just as likely to hit my next land drop if I was hit by Ingest as I am if I was not. I am just as likely to draw a threat as well. Ingest does not alter the chance to draw any given card at any stage in the game at all.
In other words: the card I need is just as likely to be on the top of my library as it is to be second to the top. If you Ingest the top card of my library I am just as likely to draw the needed card.
This is not quite accurate, and the way in which it is inaccurate is probably the source of Buffsam's confusion:
On turn 3, player A attacks and ingests a card from Player B. Now the odds of drawing any given card in Player B's deck can be updated because we know an additional card it is not. If a land was ingested, Player B is less likely to draw a land. If a creature was ingested, Player B is less likely to draw a creature.
The problem for Buffsam's argument is that when we look at the general case, we end up realizing that ingesting will make it more likely to draw the card that they want some of the time, just as it will make it less likely some of the time. If there is 1 card they are looking for, a small small percentage of the time we will hit it, but far more often, we will improve their odds of drawing it. The net effect is neutral.
I'm a little mystified this thread was derailed by people harping on about some totally tangential deck draw bad logic instead of the punisher mechanic as usual. Aren't we supposed to have 10 pages of people flaming each other and browbeat being linked about 50 times?
I'm a little mystified this thread was derailed by people harping on about some totally tangential deck draw bad logic instead of the punisher mechanic as usual. Aren't we supposed to have 10 pages of people flaming each other and browbeat being linked about 50 times?
The real question is if it is okay to let the person draw if you first mill the top three cards of his library.
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
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I look forward to playing him in EDH. But the thing I look forward to even more is to play a Collective Voyage with an opponent having it out, have all the rest of the table chip in and then let him draw out when each other player searches for 12 lands each
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
A player does not have access to the entirety of it's library. Your library is not part of your strategy. Your strategy is putting together a library that wins you the game. The library is the puzzle, not the solution, reason why if the game didn't had a minimum library size rules the best decks would have like 10~12 cards or so. Every card above that number is a obstacle.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Still, looks like funtimes in my lovecraftian horror edh.
Everyone should learn from this
Well, to be fair, it DOES make Path a one mana unconditional exile spell with no stipulation. Not that Path needed help being good.
Hence my exasperation with the argument with Buffsam.
Not sure it's been pointed out yet but the value gotten the exiled matters eldrazi in this set can be somewhat double edged. This is somewhat limited by the fact you are only doing it for opponents (would've been crazy broken to do it to your own exiled) so you can choose less useful stuff but like milling you are effectively giving the opponent another resource to potentially access. So you might have to think about whether or not you want to take those ingested cards and use them for effects if it might feed your opponents DTT or tasigar or such
It's also pretty obvious why he exiles cards off the top of the library, this set has the processors and he is another way to activate your processors. They didn't just make him exile the top 2 just to make sure that a UB card mills.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
This is no consecrated sphinx. It lacks evasion, it lacks reliability, its easily played around. Even if you cast it from ahead and secure a board advantage, its not backbreaking for an opponent to play a land, maybe two, before he nukes it, because its still chumpable, its just generating a bit of CA for a 6 drop.
This is NOT a good card
Edit: Never mind, didn't realize you guys have trivialized tutoring and were speaking strictly in terms of drawing value.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
The evasion that Consecrated Sphinx gets from being able to fly doesn't even compare to how much more of a "Kill now" it is than this card.
In EDH, this can be close to Consecrated Sphinx, especially in a decks with ways to force opponents to play lands. I don't think I would ever play this over sphinx, but that is a really high standard to live up to.
First pick in limited of course, but that means little on a mythic.
Too expensive for other formats, comes down after his ability means nothing
Love it.
This is not quite accurate, and the way in which it is inaccurate is probably the source of Buffsam's confusion:
On turn 3, player A attacks and ingests a card from Player B. Now the odds of drawing any given card in Player B's deck can be updated because we know an additional card it is not. If a land was ingested, Player B is less likely to draw a land. If a creature was ingested, Player B is less likely to draw a creature.
The problem for Buffsam's argument is that when we look at the general case, we end up realizing that ingesting will make it more likely to draw the card that they want some of the time, just as it will make it less likely some of the time. If there is 1 card they are looking for, a small small percentage of the time we will hit it, but far more often, we will improve their odds of drawing it. The net effect is neutral.
Could use more Drana bursting out of it's chest though.
The real question is if it is okay to let the person draw if you first mill the top three cards of his library.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Put it inside Helvault or something similar.
And since you're already in the colors,
you may as well throw Notion Thief in the 'vault, too.
Acually, wait, that works much better than this guy...
Reprint Stasis!
Control needs more love.
EDH:
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm
WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW
WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW