I had to make an account because of how blown away I am by the fact that people think this card is better then augur. Give it a month or two, this card will not even see half the amount of play augur did. If you think a 1/3 without card advantage is going to be better than a 1/3 with card advantage then you do not understand magic.
Whether this sees play or not also depends on how the decks shaped up. Had control decks of the current standard taken shape of creatures + planeswalker instead of instant/sorcery + Snapcaster Mage, Augur of Bolas would likely not be played.
With that said, one of the skills in Magic is comparing different effects. And good enough library manipulation can be better than drawing a card, especially when one is consistent while the other is conditional.
People saying Augur is leagues better are freaking blowing my mind here (never mind the people who say it's a bad card/costs too much who are getting ignored outright). That's such a complete joke I don't know what to say. In a dedicated Augur deck (ie one that bends over backward to even make it work, which by the way actually hurts the deck as it punishes you for playing things like Snapcaster, Resto, detention sphere, ect...) they are comparable at best and even then I could easily see an argument in favor of this card over Augur. In any other deck this card is leagues better. Augur has the chance of giving you a very specific set of cards. This card helps you find any type of card you need which all too often isn't an instant/sorcery. In many many matchup getting your land (say the fourth one you need to actually cast that wrath or another in the control mirror), or your planewalker, or your creature/enchantment, and yes in the end it can also help you find your instants/sorceries, is much more important.
Comparing this to Owl is also pretty clearly in this card's favor. Owl was only good for scry3, the body was pretty weak. This card has a very respectable 3 toughness on top of the scry2.
Ok, wow dude, just wow. Sage of Epityr? Really? Sage isn't Scry4 you know. You do understand that "Index" effects are not even remotely in the same league as Scry effects right?
Augur of Bolas is still leagues better than Omenspeaker. In a deck that panders to it well enough (i.e. at least 20 instants/sorceries), Augur of Bolas hands you a new card more than half the time (I'd say at least 2/3's of the time, probably 3/4's of the time). Omenspeaker behaves optimally in more decks, true, but her best case is pretty bad because she doesn't cantrip (and in Modern and beyond, she's a nonbo with the nigh-omnipresent fetchlands).
True, a 1/3 body is probably stronger than a 1/1 flying body, but I don't think it makes a guy who can't hand you new cards playable. Every time Augur didn't hand me a new card, I got frustrated. Omenspeaker is like Augur if it never handed me cards.
Let's say that you have infinite mana open, have a bunch of lands and irrelevant spells in hand (this means that you don't have cantrips or removal in hand), and you could play either Omenspeaker or Augur. Unfortunately, there's a Flying guy that will smack you for lethal next turn if you can't deal with it. You bet my house I'd rather play Augur than Omenspeaker because Augur has a nonzero chance of actually handing me the card that saves my life total.
Sage of Epityr doesn't have Scry 4, true. It can't ship terrible cards to the bottom. But neither Sage of Epityr nor Scry 4 actually give you new cards.
can someone explain to me how Scy 2 = 1 card? If I can really understand thus, then maybe I could see how to evaluate this card.
For scry 2, there are four possibilities.
1. Both cards are kept = Draw is better
2. Top card is kept, second card is meh = Equal to draw a card in your next turn. Draw is still a little bit better.
3. Top card is meh, second card is kept = They are equal
4. Both cards are meh = Scry is better.
The tiebreaker that makes draw a card better than scry 2 is the second situation. Although I'm aware that the above 4 situations may not happen with equal frequency, let's keep things simple.
With that said, I never support scry 2 = draw a card. Scry 2 is close to draw a card, but still not quite. Now with scry 3, there are 9 possibilities. Out of those 9 possibilities, only in 3 of them is drawing a card better. Therefore, scry 2 < draw a card, but scry 3 > draw a card.
Keep in mind that this doesn't take specific game situations into account. When you still have time, but really need to dig for something specific soon, the chance that both cards will not be what you're looking for is higher, thus make scry 2 better. But if you really need something this turn, then of course draw a card is better.
Whether it's better than Augur or not seems irrelevant. It's the best 2 drop control you've seen that's gonna be legal in a few wks. Scry is your new card advantage mechanic, learn to work it.
Hard for me to believe people really think this is better than augur. It doesn't replace itself.
Neither does Augur a significant portion of the time and that's in decks that actively focus on trying to make it work. Heaven forbid you're playing a deck that plays a larger percentage of non-instants/sorceries (ie a deck running a large number of Augur/Snap/Resto/Jace/Spheres/ect... plus of course the 26ish lands) in which case that failing percentage is even greater. And that's not even considering the fact that it can only replace itself with Instants/Sorceries (which are not necessarily useful at the time).
Omenspeaker doesn't replace itself but it does clear the chaff off the top of your deck which (assuming you live to draw said top card) is in many ways just as good as card draw. Your top card not something you want? Without Scry you draw it and it is effectively a wasted draw step (ie drawing zero relevant cards that turn). With scry you ship it to the bottom and get closer to what you actually want. When you do succeed in drawing what you want then the draw step wasn't wasted (ie you draw one relevant card).
Scry 2:
1. Put B on top, put A on top. Next turn, draw A. Next draw has not been affected.
2. Put A on top, put B on top. Next turn, draw B. Next draw has been affected, but, unless B immediately sees play, it's not an impactful decision.
3. Put A back, move B to bottom. Next turn, draw A. Next draw has not been affected.
4. Move A to bottom, put B on top. Next turn, draw B. Next draw has been affected.
5. Move A to bottom, move B to bottom. Next turn, draw C. Next draw . . . ?
Draw a Card:
1. Draw A. Next turn, draw B.
Before we get to situation 5, compare the one "Draw a Card" situation to the fourth "Scry 2" situation. In "Draw a Card," you have both A and B in your hand at the end of the next turn versus only having B in your hand when you scry 2 - and, in Omenspeaker's case, you'll have an additional speedbump in play. Is a vanilla 1/3 really worth a card in any situation?
Now, situation 5. Situation 5 is worse than simply drawing a card. Why? Since card C in "Scry 2" and cards A and B in "Draw a Card" are unknown, they are, in essence, all the same cards. In "Scry 2," you get a vanilla 1/3 followed by an unknown card; in "Draw a Card," you get an unknown card followed by another unknown card. Again, does a vanilla 1/3 really look like it's worth a card in this situation?
Scry 2:
1. Put B on top, put A on top. Next turn, draw A. Next draw has not been affected.
2. Put A on top, put B on top. Next turn, draw B. Next draw has been affected, but, unless B immediately sees play, it's not an impactful decision.
3. Put A back, move B to bottom. Next turn, draw A. Next draw has not been affected.
4. Move A to bottom, put B on top. Next turn, draw B. Next draw has been affected.
5. Move A to bottom, move B to bottom. Next turn, draw C. Next draw . . . ?
Draw a Card:
1. Draw A. Next turn, draw B.
Before we get to situation 5, compare the one "Draw a Card" situation to the fourth "Scry 2" situation. In "Draw a Card," you have both A and B in your hand at the end of the next turn versus only having B in your hand when you scry 2 - and, in Omenspeaker's case, you'll have an additional speedbump in play. Is a vanilla 1/3 really worth a card in any situation?
Now, situation 5. Situation 5 is worse than simply drawing a card. Why? Since card C in "Scry 2" and cards A and B in "Draw a Card" are unknown, they are, in essence, all the same cards. In "Scry 2," you get a vanilla 1/3 followed by an unknown card; in "Draw a Card," you get an unknown card followed by another unknown card. Again, does a vanilla 1/3 really look like it's worth a card in this situation?
Now, she's good early game making sure you hit your land drops, and being a 1/3 body that's good in every MU (smoothing land, keeping aggro/mid-range from pummeling you so early, etc.). The point of control is to survive in a decent enough position to when your better CA and cards swallow the opponent. Being able to hit lands when you need to for larger Sphinx Revelation is very good. Being able to ship lands off the top of your deck later in the game is very good. Being able to scry after Jace, or before Jace is very good.
She's a damn good card in a lot of situations. The only time she isn't good, is when you need a specific card to survive and you have no other draw spells in hand, or on the board (e.g. Jace). That's about it. Compared to Augur, for example, she's more consistent. I can't count the times when Augur screws you over, either shipping lands on the bottom, or your win-cons to the bottom, or whiffs altogether, etc. Augur, not only inconsistent, but conditional draw (instant/sorcery).
I'd rather have SGA > Augur, and Omenspeaker > Augur (SGA > Omenspeaker). I guess I value consistency and filtering (deck manipulation) more than most people, probably because as a long-time control player I know the insane value and power of it, something which blue hasn't had in a while so newer players won't understand its value. Being able to save myself upwards of 5+ life, and smoothing my draws is what I want to do on T2.
Now, situation 4. Situation 4 is worse than simply drawing a card. Why? Since card C in "Scry 2" and cards A and B in "Draw a Card" are unknown, they are, in essence, all the same cards. In "Scry 2," you get a vanilla 1/3 followed by an unknown card; in "Draw a Card," you get two unknown cards. Again, does a vanilla 1/3 really look like it's worth a card in this situation?
Assuming A and B are bad, then if you don't scry those two cards away, you need to draw all the way to C to have a chance to draw something good.
It's true that statistically, blindly drawing from the top or blindly drawing from the third card aren't going to yield you different outcomes. But if you know that the top two cards are meh, then drawing the third card is more desirable than drawing from the top.
Granted, this is just one of the possibilities, and therefore has to be weighted according to how likely it's going to happen. But in that particular situation, scry 2 is better than draw 1.
The power of scry is far more subtle than most people realize. The difference in power between Preordain and Serum Visions is considerable, and that's just because the scry effect lands at different points in the card. Hence, it's easy to see why people don't value this card high enough.
I can't believe this is even a discussion. There have been plenty of blue cards in Magic's history that have manipulated the top of the deck but didn't replace themselves. You know how many of them saw serious constructed play? Zero. Augur is better. The end.
This isn't remotely close to being better or even with Augur. In the decks that Augur saw play, the same type of decks that may want this 1/3 body you drew a far more often than you didn't. And saying Scry 2 is like drawing a card is not remotely true, especially since when Augur hit it always drew a spell. Can't believe anyone thinks they are even on the same level.
This isn't remotely close to being better or even with Augur. In the decks that Augur saw play, the same type of decks that may want this 1/3 body you drew a far more often than you didn't. And saying Scry 2 is like drawing a card is not remotely true, especially since when Augur hit it always drew a spell. Can't believe anyone thinks they are even on the same level.
Posted from MTGsalvation.com App for Android
Technically Augur's accuracy is about 50%. Which is neither good nor bad, and also means you draw nothing about as often as you draw something. Considering lands make up 43% of your deck (at 26 out of 60) plus an additional 7-9 creatures usually in deck if you have one Augur in play already. It's a fine card, but it's by far the most unreliable/worst creature of the UWx standard staples.
Again, whether its better than Augur is completely irrelevant. Is it the best 2 drop defensive body you can muster in Uxx control standard 9/27/13? That's all that matters. I expect to see as many Scry effects in this block as Flashback instants and sorceries in Innistrad, so it helps to consider all the other draw fixing that will take place in addition to this one's. Since many people already consider Thassa with her low cmc and value later, all you have to do is hold off long enough for Aetherling and her to start taking unblockable swings at people's heads every turn, theoretically. Omenspeaker looks like an alright 2 drop for this. I'd bet there are couple more low cost creature drops left for blue.
can someone explain to me how Scy 2 = 1 card? If I can really understand thus, then maybe I could see how to evaluate this card.
It isn't. It's a made-up formula that is both simplistic and wildly wrong. According to this "formula", 1R - 2 damage and draw a card is only as good as Magma Jet.
It's not like 1R - 2 damage and draw a card would be an autoinclude in a huge swathe of decks, whereas Magma Jet is merely decent.
Here's another completely obvious example that anyone can see: 3 mana for 1, T: draw a card is a fantastic artifact that would see play all over the place. Crystal Ball is... not in the same universe as that card.
I like Augur of Bolas better that this. But I think this might replace the Augurs in the Blue decks maybe? For Standard anyway.
(Still speaking for Standard)
Blue decks have a bigger problem though. They lose a cheap instant draw spell - Think Twice (and Thought Scour). Unless it's reprinted in Theros. Hopefully they print another spell similar to it.
I still don't see why people are comparing it to Augur of Bolas when they won't be in Standard together, and it's not likely either of them are good enough for Modern play. It doesn't have to be better than Augur of Bolas to be playable. This sort of benchmarking is what leads to people missing obvious good cards. The trend of comparison leads to false assumptions, given that no cards exist in a vacuum and the format is the relevant context.
So yes, Omenspeaker is better than Augur of Bolas in the Standard season that'll be starting in a few weeks. There is literally no way for this statement not to be true.
I would rather it be scry 2 and draw a card or just run augur. Although augur rotating it does give you blocker and stacked draw, but its no source of card advantage.
Whether this sees play or not also depends on how the decks shaped up. Had control decks of the current standard taken shape of creatures + planeswalker instead of instant/sorcery + Snapcaster Mage, Augur of Bolas would likely not be played.
With that said, one of the skills in Magic is comparing different effects. And good enough library manipulation can be better than drawing a card, especially when one is consistent while the other is conditional.
Durdle vs. Non-durdle. Hmm. I guess people like durdling. I prefer to not durdle.
Augur of Bolas is still leagues better than Omenspeaker. In a deck that panders to it well enough (i.e. at least 20 instants/sorceries), Augur of Bolas hands you a new card more than half the time (I'd say at least 2/3's of the time, probably 3/4's of the time). Omenspeaker behaves optimally in more decks, true, but her best case is pretty bad because she doesn't cantrip (and in Modern and beyond, she's a nonbo with the nigh-omnipresent fetchlands).
True, a 1/3 body is probably stronger than a 1/1 flying body, but I don't think it makes a guy who can't hand you new cards playable. Every time Augur didn't hand me a new card, I got frustrated. Omenspeaker is like Augur if it never handed me cards.
Let's say that you have infinite mana open, have a bunch of lands and irrelevant spells in hand (this means that you don't have cantrips or removal in hand), and you could play either Omenspeaker or Augur. Unfortunately, there's a Flying guy that will smack you for lethal next turn if you can't deal with it. You bet my house I'd rather play Augur than Omenspeaker because Augur has a nonzero chance of actually handing me the card that saves my life total.
Sage of Epityr doesn't have Scry 4, true. It can't ship terrible cards to the bottom. But neither Sage of Epityr nor Scry 4 actually give you new cards.
—Karn, silver golem
For scry 2, there are four possibilities.
1. Both cards are kept = Draw is better
2. Top card is kept, second card is meh = Equal to draw a card in your next turn. Draw is still a little bit better.
3. Top card is meh, second card is kept = They are equal
4. Both cards are meh = Scry is better.
The tiebreaker that makes draw a card better than scry 2 is the second situation. Although I'm aware that the above 4 situations may not happen with equal frequency, let's keep things simple.
With that said, I never support scry 2 = draw a card. Scry 2 is close to draw a card, but still not quite. Now with scry 3, there are 9 possibilities. Out of those 9 possibilities, only in 3 of them is drawing a card better. Therefore, scry 2 < draw a card, but scry 3 > draw a card.
Keep in mind that this doesn't take specific game situations into account. When you still have time, but really need to dig for something specific soon, the chance that both cards will not be what you're looking for is higher, thus make scry 2 better. But if you really need something this turn, then of course draw a card is better.
UW Control (:symu: :symw:)
Neither does Augur a significant portion of the time and that's in decks that actively focus on trying to make it work. Heaven forbid you're playing a deck that plays a larger percentage of non-instants/sorceries (ie a deck running a large number of Augur/Snap/Resto/Jace/Spheres/ect... plus of course the 26ish lands) in which case that failing percentage is even greater. And that's not even considering the fact that it can only replace itself with Instants/Sorceries (which are not necessarily useful at the time).
Omenspeaker doesn't replace itself but it does clear the chaff off the top of your deck which (assuming you live to draw said top card) is in many ways just as good as card draw. Your top card not something you want? Without Scry you draw it and it is effectively a wasted draw step (ie drawing zero relevant cards that turn). With scry you ship it to the bottom and get closer to what you actually want. When you do succeed in drawing what you want then the draw step wasn't wasted (ie you draw one relevant card).
Scry 2 vs. Draw a Card.
(ABC on top of library)
Scry 2:
1. Put B on top, put A on top. Next turn, draw A. Next draw has not been affected.
2. Put A on top, put B on top. Next turn, draw B. Next draw has been affected, but, unless B immediately sees play, it's not an impactful decision.
3. Put A back, move B to bottom. Next turn, draw A. Next draw has not been affected.
4. Move A to bottom, put B on top. Next turn, draw B. Next draw has been affected.
5. Move A to bottom, move B to bottom. Next turn, draw C. Next draw . . . ?
Draw a Card:
1. Draw A. Next turn, draw B.
Before we get to situation 5, compare the one "Draw a Card" situation to the fourth "Scry 2" situation. In "Draw a Card," you have both A and B in your hand at the end of the next turn versus only having B in your hand when you scry 2 - and, in Omenspeaker's case, you'll have an additional speedbump in play. Is a vanilla 1/3 really worth a card in any situation?
Now, situation 5. Situation 5 is worse than simply drawing a card. Why? Since card C in "Scry 2" and cards A and B in "Draw a Card" are unknown, they are, in essence, all the same cards. In "Scry 2," you get a vanilla 1/3 followed by an unknown card; in "Draw a Card," you get an unknown card followed by another unknown card. Again, does a vanilla 1/3 really look like it's worth a card in this situation?
I think I would rather play Divination or even Scroll Thief over a Lumengrid Warden. At least Augury Owl flies.
You skipped over a few possibilities:
AB > AB
AB > BC
AB > BA
AB > CD
AB > AC
Now, she's good early game making sure you hit your land drops, and being a 1/3 body that's good in every MU (smoothing land, keeping aggro/mid-range from pummeling you so early, etc.). The point of control is to survive in a decent enough position to when your better CA and cards swallow the opponent. Being able to hit lands when you need to for larger Sphinx Revelation is very good. Being able to ship lands off the top of your deck later in the game is very good. Being able to scry after Jace, or before Jace is very good.
She's a damn good card in a lot of situations. The only time she isn't good, is when you need a specific card to survive and you have no other draw spells in hand, or on the board (e.g. Jace). That's about it. Compared to Augur, for example, she's more consistent. I can't count the times when Augur screws you over, either shipping lands on the bottom, or your win-cons to the bottom, or whiffs altogether, etc. Augur, not only inconsistent, but conditional draw (instant/sorcery).
I'd rather have SGA > Augur, and Omenspeaker > Augur (SGA > Omenspeaker). I guess I value consistency and filtering (deck manipulation) more than most people, probably because as a long-time control player I know the insane value and power of it, something which blue hasn't had in a while so newer players won't understand its value. Being able to save myself upwards of 5+ life, and smoothing my draws is what I want to do on T2.
Assuming A and B are bad, then if you don't scry those two cards away, you need to draw all the way to C to have a chance to draw something good.
It's true that statistically, blindly drawing from the top or blindly drawing from the third card aren't going to yield you different outcomes. But if you know that the top two cards are meh, then drawing the third card is more desirable than drawing from the top.
Granted, this is just one of the possibilities, and therefore has to be weighted according to how likely it's going to happen. But in that particular situation, scry 2 is better than draw 1.
Posted from MTGsalvation.com App for Android
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
Technically Augur's accuracy is about 50%. Which is neither good nor bad, and also means you draw nothing about as often as you draw something. Considering lands make up 43% of your deck (at 26 out of 60) plus an additional 7-9 creatures usually in deck if you have one Augur in play already. It's a fine card, but it's by far the most unreliable/worst creature of the UWx standard staples.
Again, whether its better than Augur is completely irrelevant. Is it the best 2 drop defensive body you can muster in Uxx control standard 9/27/13? That's all that matters. I expect to see as many Scry effects in this block as Flashback instants and sorceries in Innistrad, so it helps to consider all the other draw fixing that will take place in addition to this one's. Since many people already consider Thassa with her low cmc and value later, all you have to do is hold off long enough for Aetherling and her to start taking unblockable swings at people's heads every turn, theoretically. Omenspeaker looks like an alright 2 drop for this. I'd bet there are couple more low cost creature drops left for blue.
UW Control (:symu: :symw:)
It isn't. It's a made-up formula that is both simplistic and wildly wrong. According to this "formula", 1R - 2 damage and draw a card is only as good as Magma Jet.
It's not like 1R - 2 damage and draw a card would be an autoinclude in a huge swathe of decks, whereas Magma Jet is merely decent.
Here's another completely obvious example that anyone can see: 3 mana for 1, T: draw a card is a fantastic artifact that would see play all over the place. Crystal Ball is... not in the same universe as that card.
0 Karn
W Darien
U Arcanis
B Geth
R Norin
G Yeva
UW Hanna
RB Olivia
WB Obzedat
UR Melek
BG Glissa
WR Aurelia
GU Kraj
BRU Nicol Bolas
RGB Prossh
BGW Ghave
GUB Mimeoplasm
WUBRG Sliver Overlord
GWU Treva, the Renewer
EDH Spike:
U Azami, Lady of Scrolls
Trades
(Still speaking for Standard)
Blue decks have a bigger problem though. They lose a cheap instant draw spell - Think Twice (and Thought Scour). Unless it's reprinted in Theros. Hopefully they print another spell similar to it.
Standard
UR Control
Modern
Merfolk
Burn
Avacyn did nothing wrong!
Purify Innistrad!
#Purge
So yes, Omenspeaker is better than Augur of Bolas in the Standard season that'll be starting in a few weeks. There is literally no way for this statement not to be true.
I can't resist... Whoever brought up the freaking owl needs to be hit with a stick!
Standard
W.I.P.
EDH
WNorn Tokens
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)