I thought I'd kick out a new discussion on this card, because the primary 2 reactions to it seem to have been:
1) What's diviner spirit? Oh, one of those junk cards I didn't even notice.
or
2) RAAAARG Why does wizards print this unplayable garbage in my favorite color!!!!
Anyway, this is diviner spirit:
Mostly I want to talk about this card because it embodies something I see a lot of fingerquotes "competitive" players do, which is to equate political cards with group hug cards. Which is not only painfully wrong, but also completely fails to miss a huge part of the point of a multiplayer format.
Diviner spirit is a political card. Font of Mythos is a group hug card.
Diviner spirit is (moderately) awesome.
Font of Mythos can go die in a pool of its own bodily fluids (I know, I know, that new grixis dude works ok with it but I don't care).
Here's the important difference. Font of mythos can't be turned off for players who are ruining your life. People MIGHT say "thanks for the 2 cards a turn, now I'm going to be nice to you", or they might use those cards you make your life miserable and there's nothing you can do about it shy of sacking font. Calling font of mythos political is akin to calling distributing weapons in the middle east a peace movement. Diviner spirit is not only effective at getting people to suck up to you in the hopes of drawing, but it also provides you with a benefit of CA vs the table average, whereas Font will almost always put you down in CA vs the table since you go last (barring consecrated sphinx/notion thief shenans).
Wizards finally got politics right - last commander release we got the idiotic "join forces" mechanic, which was stupid and awful in the case of all of them except the dragon (which was merely mediocre). Politics isn't about benefitting everyone equally, it's about benefitting people who benefit you, and doing it as much as possible, so that ultimately many people might profit, but you profit the most by being involved in as many deals as possible. The tempting offer mechanic and this card are dead on the money about what makes political schemes work - a series of deals that, as a whole, put you in an advantageous position vs the table, even though each individual deal makes sense from the perspective of the individual entities.
There's basically 4 reasons why you might dislike Diviner spirit:
1) You only play 1v1.
Piss off. What did you expect from a multiplayer release?
2) You think it will get blocked.
The only circumstance I can see this happening frequently in, is when you're way way ahead of the table to the point where they're allied against you 100%. But as long as one person is willing to broker a deal with you for mutual CA, bam, it's getting through. As long as someone is willing to let it through, it's in each of your opponents' best interests to be that person, so they'd have to be very strongly aligned against you to want to block it. So it's basically a win-less card - it's least effective at the time when you're already winning. But when you're winning, you're already winning, so stop complaining.
3) You think letting someone else draw 2 is too risky.
This is sort of a meta call, but all you need is someone - and it can be a different someone every turn - who's in a bad position. Obviously it's kind of risky to give CA to a deck that might combo out at any moment, but if there's any control or aggro decks that are looking pretty down-and-out, it's a safe bet that letting them draw 2 - especially since they're going to be your ally as long as you're giving them CA - won't be a significant problem for you. You might even be able to give CA to someone who's in a strong position, as long as they offer to leave you alone for a while. Of course, if your meta is 100% turn 3 infinite combo, then you might not have a reasonable person to attack, but if that's the case...
4) You think 5 mana to draw 2 per turn is too much.
If yours is a very competitive meta, that might be true. It can't really compete against dark confidant in terms of cheap, repeatable draw. Of course, it doesn't have to be just 2, though, you can sword it up or maybe even toss empyrial plate or something onto it. And speaking of, it makes it easier to get sword triggers through if you really want recursion off SoLaS or mana off SoFaF (which you do, if you're draw 5 cards a turn) because people don't want to block it. It's also worth pointing out that it's an anti-magnet for removal, unlike most strong draw engines, because you can just say "Hey, don't kill it, and I'll attack YOU with it next turn".
So, overall, will this card make it into top-tier druid, sharuum, zur, azami, etc? Probably not. It's a little too slow at 5 mana, even for drawing 2 per turn, and creatures are always likely to be incidental casualties of boardwipes before they get to attack. But in even moderately competitive metas, this card has serious potential. At the absolute very least, it's ridiculous to claim that it's group hug.
I just hate that it's a 2/4 non-evasive creature for 5 that needs to evade in order to do anything. Your opponent will likely take the 2 to draw the cards, but still... they get to chose what happens most of the time.
The problem is that it's a 2/4 for 5. An effect like this (both players draws a card) isn't usually seen as a premium effect. See Dream Fracture that costs ZERO more than Cancel. To charge 5 for this guy is silly when 4 would have been fine and making him a 1/3 for 3 would have been interesting.
I have to say I thought this guy had flying at first. I can't believe it doesn't! (Maybe it would be too good 1v1)
Dirk I agree with you on all points regarding politics and this is a good post. I love the design of this card. But having no evasion for this cost is a huge bummer, because it makes it impossible to force the issue. If it had flying or 2U: unblockable til EOT then that's a huge difference and you can make the card work for you if your opponents would prefer than it doesn't.
It will be playable as long as your game is three players or more, but I just wish it had a little more going for it for the mana cost to take up a precious card slot.
For the record, Arcane Denial is my favorite counterspell in multiplayer so I totally see where you're coming from.
My biggest gripe about this card (this product in general really) is that politics is a trait that is inherent to multiplayer games. I don't understand why they feel the need to shove political cards down our throat. When I think of politics I think more along the lines of Soul Snare.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 1 Judge-
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane for the awesome Sig.
There is some small part of me that wants to have this run in some kind of silly deck, solely for the chance to redirect the damage using something like Sivvi's Valor. Because if it deals four damage to me, I might draw 8 cards? (I'm not sure how that works rules wise off the top of my head. It would still be combat damage, the only question is how "each" works if both players are the same player)
That said, to me, Diviner Spirit doesn't do politics well enough. I don't like my card draw being at the beck and call of my opponents. It comes down to whether or not I'd run a card that says "At the beginning of combat, choose a player. That player decides whether or not you both draw 2 cards." Because I'm not going to work to give this evasion if I can just run better damage triggers instead, so it'd have to be getting through on it's own, which leaves it up to my opponents.
Despite that, I do enjoy the concept of the card, and I'm sure it will be fun for those who play it. If I wasn't taking apart Vela in favor of Oloro more likely than not, I might even consider running it in there.
I just hate that it's a 2/4 non-evasive creature for 5 that needs to evade in order to do anything. Your opponent will likely take the 2 to draw the cards, but still... they get to chose what happens most of the time.
Basically this.
They could have costed it more aggressively because that ability on that body would never (?) see tournament play.
(I think the most successful "political" commander cards they've printed are the vows.)
My main whining point is that Wizards feels the need to push politics in EDH when they are just something that happens naturally. We don't need all these janky "political" cards to push politics when they aren't strong enough to change the politics already occurring within the game with just normal cards.
Giving your opponents cards is just flat out bad. In a game where you want to dwindle your opponents resources, why would you ever give them the chance to gain them ?
You want to draw cards ? There's better ways. You want to get through damage ? There's better ways. You want to politic your opponent to do something for you ? There's better ways.
Who cares about evasion, even if it did have evasion, the card is still bad.
I just hate that it's a 2/4 non-evasive creature for 5 that needs to evade in order to do anything. Your opponent will likely take the 2 to draw the cards, but still... they get to chose what happens most of the time.
The problem is that it's a 2/4 for 5. An effect like this (both players draws a card) isn't usually seen as a premium effect. See Dream Fracture that costs ZERO more than Cancel. To charge 5 for this guy is silly when 4 would have been fine and making him a 1/3 for 3 would have been interesting.
It definitely looks like crap at first glance. But it's evasive like a creature with infiltration lens is evasive - there's nothing preventing people from blocking it, it's just that it makes the decision to block it much less profitable than the decision to let it through.
I'd also say that, if you just go "alright, i'm going to swing at....you" (chosen randomly) you're doing it very very wrong. You should be using it as a bartering chip, and at the VERY least, when it comes combat time, you should ask "who wants to not block this dude?" Alternatively, a funny metagame would be to declare that anyone who can't block it lethally (and hasn't attacked/targeted you) is a possible target. If people need draw enough, they'll hopefully start beating the crap out of each other in order to get their creatures sideways so they'll be attacked. Then just roll a dice among the tapped-out players. win-freaking-win.
Dream fracture is pretty bad in 1v1 and awesome in multiplayer. Sure, it's more efficiently costed, but it's also lower powered draw-wise and not repeatable.
1/3 for 3 would make him look like a worse scroll thief. Personally I'm fine with them keeping most overtly political stuff fairly low on the power level scale. If this was, say, a 3/4 for 4 (which would probably be ok in terms of eternal formats) it would be really nasty, especially playing the precons against each other. Draw 2 per turn is perfectly fine, and you should be able to use the political advantages as a boon. I think it's totally fair, it just looks weak at first glance.
My main whining point is that Wizards feels the need to push politics in EDH when they are just something that happens naturally. We don't need all these janky "political" cards to push politics when they aren't strong enough to change the politics already occurring within the game with just normal cards.
Fair enough, but this is still LEAGUES better than join forces. Ye gods, join forces was awful. They're going to do political stuff with a multiplayer-focused set, so you may as well get used to it. This is still way less gimmicky than the primary commanders as well.
Giving your opponents cards is just flat out bad. In a game where you want to dwindle your opponents resources, why would you ever give them the chance to gain them ?
You want to draw cards ? There's better ways. You want to get through damage ? There's better ways. You want to politic your opponent to do something for you ? There's better ways.
Who cares about evasion, even if it did have evasion, the card is still bad.
Reading comprehension clearly isn't your strong suit.
-Pick someone in a bad position and/or make deals with people in exchange for getting attacked. Them drawing 2 can be a boon. This isn't 1v1.
-Better ways than 2 cards per turn for 5? True, but fewer than you'd think. What'd you expect, necropotence 2: electric boogaloo?
-Better ways to politic? There are lots of good whips, but not a lot of good carrots (outside of whipping someone else). As far as carrots go, this one is pretty damn good.
-You're right about one thing, this card doesn't need evasion.
Am I the only one who thinks of Trade Secrets when they see this card? I mean, obviously it's no where near as powerful (thank god). If the problem with Trade Secrets was collusion between 2 people to draw tons of cards and win, isn't this guy it's baby brother? Not that I think it's going to be broken or anything, but I just can't understand how you people are complaining that this guy is terrible, and yet Trade Secrets was to good.
Infiltrator Lens has proven to be a bad card, so yes, it does look like Infiltrator Lens. The defending player is the one who gets to chose in both cases and that makes it a lot less good. Had this card said something to the effect of "If it isn't blocked, you may have yourself and defending player each draw cards" it would at least be your control. It's a weird punisher card where it doesn't really put anyone ahead.
Am I the only one who thinks of Trade Secrets when they see this card? I mean, obviously it's no where near as powerful (thank god). If the problem with Trade Secrets was collusion between 2 people to draw tons of cards and win, isn't this guy it's baby brother? Not that I think it's going to be broken or anything, but I just can't understand how you people are complaining that this guy is terrible, and yet Trade Secrets was to good.
This card is definitely very similar. Obviously much weaker in general since it costs more and has to survive to do anything. But it has some advantages too.
The main improvements on this vs trade secrets is (1) it deals some damage, which might matter, (2) it lets you do other damage triggers, and most importantly (3) it lets you switch players to target partway through. With trade secrets, it made it a 2-person game. With divining spirit, it keeps the table pretty even, except for you.
Infiltrator Lens has proven to be a bad card, so yes, it does look like Infiltrator Lens. The defending player is the one who gets to chose in both cases and that makes it a lot less good. Had this card said something to the effect of "If it isn't blocked, you may have yourself and defending player each draw cards" it would at least be your control. It's a weird punisher card where it doesn't really put anyone ahead.
Never tried infiltration lens, but my point is that it's a similar concept. It's not more evasive but they have less reason to block it. It's a thinking man's evasion.
Obviously ultimately the defending player gets to pick, so it's legal for you to broker deals with them in exchange for attacking them, you ask them if they're going to block and they say "no", and then they block anyway. But you know in the future not to broker deals with them, and in the long run they lose out.
Or you could use my silly metagame idea. Then they can't block lethally.
And it totally puts people ahead - it puts you and the attacked player ahead of the rest of the table.
Obviously ultimately the defending player gets to pick, so it's legal for you to broker deals with them in exchange for attacking them, you ask them if they're going to block and they say "no", and then they block anyway. But you know in the future not to broker deals with them, and in the long run they lose out.
Actually you lose out. Hard. In that scenario you're not only running a worthless card, but also allowed yourself to be manipulated by an opponent. I'm not big on my creatures helping my opponents and worsening my deck.
Never tried infiltration lens, but my point is that it's a similar concept. It's not more evasive but they have less reason to block it. It's a thinking man's evasion.
If you tried it you would know that it's actually way worse than if it gave a creature Unblockable OR draw 2 cards. The opponent's choice takes away all strategy and advantage.
My biggest gripe about this card (this product in general really) is that politics is a trait that is inherent to multiplayer games. I don't understand why they feel the need to shove political cards down our throat. When I think of politics I think more along the lines of Soul Snare.
Thank you. This is exactly what I've been talking with my group about.
I don't need a card that says "do this to target player and gain +1". I want to figure out these things on my own
[EDH] It's built to be a casual format and to a specific vision, and if you don't like the vision, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not going to change to accommodate everyone. Big tent is not a goal.
If you tried it you would know that it's actually way worse than if it gave a creature Unblockable OR draw 2 cards. The opponent's choice takes away all strategy and advantage.
I agree 100%. This card is not that card, though. This card offers a benefit if they don't block, infiltration lens does not. There's no way to politic with infiltration lens, whereas there's infinite ways to politic with this dude.
Actually you lose out. Hard. In that scenario you're not only running a worthless card, but also allowed yourself to be manipulated by an opponent. I'm not big on my creatures helping my opponents and worsening my deck.
Let's go point by point.
1 - you misunderstand what I mean by "long run". In that game, you lose out. Realistically, if you're actually requesting real favors from people in exchange for attacking them, even if they block you shouldn't lose out THAT much, but it's still probably a bummer. However, in the long run - meaning subsequent games - you can exclude them from being attacked with the spirit, putting them behind in CA because you'll always be attacking other people. Dishonesty is a short-sighted choice.
2 - Saying "you lose out because you're running a worthless card" or "it worsens your deck" is a non-argument. You're saying, "It's a bad card, because when you're running it it's a worthless card, which makes your deck worse". You have to demonstrate why it's worthless in your deck for that to be valid, and so far you've done nothing of the kind.
3 - It's helping your (weakest) opponents, but it's helping you even more, and it's helping the rest of the table zero. How often have you been in a losing position vs someone with a powerful board position, and the whole table is going against them and losing because you're low on answers? Know what's really good in that situation? +4 cards in the hands of the losing team, for free, per turn.
The problem with multiplayer politics isn't the cards. It's the idea of multiplayer politics in a free-for-all. RIP, died of a theory.
People don't just have random vanilla 4/4's and 6/6's lying around waffling on who to attack. Regardless of how many hundred times it takes people to see their creatures wiped and chump blocked over and over, eventually everyone learns the same lesson, then they start playing creatures that have value to be attacking with. And whether I've got a Wrexial, the Risen Deep or a Sun Titan, my decision of who to attack depends on the worth of that attack, not who's smiling at me and being nice. People attack the player that they want to kill, and they learn to want to kill the player in the best position.
That's exactly the problem here. If the defender is in a good position, I don't want to attack here because he has a good deck and he'll be in an even better position, and if he's in a bad position I don't want to attack because he has a good deck and I need him to stay in a bad position. If he has a bad deck, it doesn't matter because good deck wins and bad deck loses. The guy with a bad deck is even better not playing this and not letting it through either. For that matter, the same incentives exist in nearly every case across the table for letting it through. If the strategy of my deck somehow leads me to attacking a certain player with this anyway, then that player is definitely not going to want to let this thing through. If not, I don't want to attack.
The same as Trade Secrets. Target the player who's already lost, watch him make the mistake of crowning you King just because he can, then win the game with your library in hand.
These situations where two players want to collaborate to draw answers against the guy with a Rampaging Baloths in play only happen where the deck strategies are very answerable and not linear at all. In other words, in a group full of preconstructed-level decks. Which is exactly why these cards come in precons. These aren't the droids we're looking for. Move along.
The problem with multiplayer politics isn't the cards. It's the idea of multiplayer politics in a free-for-all. RIP, died of a theory.
People don't just have random vanilla 4/4's and 6/6's lying around waffling on who to attack. Regardless of how many hundred times it takes people to see their creatures wiped and chump blocked over and over, eventually everyone learns the same lesson, then they start playing creatures that have value to be attacking with. And whether I've got a Wrexial, the Risen Deep or a Sun Titan, my decision of who to attack depends on the worth of that attack, not who's smiling at me and being nice. People attack the player that they want to kill, and they learn to want to kill the player in the best position
This is why Font sucks, but it doesn't apply to this card at all. Telling someone that not attacking you will result in them drawing 2 cards is totally an effective deterrent, unless you're way ahead.
Also, although it has nothing to do with this card, I've seen people "being nice" not get attacked for that reason, although I would never base my strategic planning on that because I'm not an idiot, and I'm rarely nice.
That's exactly the problem here. If the defender is in a good position, I don't want to attack here because he has a good deck and he'll be in an even better position, and if he's in a bad position I don't want to attack because he has a good deck and I need him to stay in a bad position. If he has a bad deck, it doesn't matter because good deck wins and bad deck loses. The guy with a bad deck is even better not playing this and not letting it through either. For that matter, the same incentives exist in nearly every case across the table for letting it through. If the strategy of my deck somehow leads me to attacking a certain player with this anyway, then that player is definitely not going to want to let this thing through. If not, I don't want to attack.
If you're in the CLEAR lead, you're right. If you're not, though, usually it's in your best immediate interests to have other stronger allies against the leader, and it's in their best interests to let you draw as well.
As I said, it's a win-less card. worthless when you're in the lead, but powerful when you're not.
The same as Trade Secrets. Target the player who's already lost, watch him make the mistake of crowning you King just because he can, then win the game with your library in hand.
Obviously it's not the same power level as trade secrets, but I saw people agree to mutually benefit with trade secrets all the time, because it turns into a 2-person game with the rest of the table at a steep disadvantage to the 2 people who trade secreted.
These situations where two players want to collaborate to draw answers against the guy with a Rampaging Baloths in play only happen where the deck strategies are very answerable and not linear at all. In other words, in a group full of preconstructed-level decks. Which is exactly why these cards come in precons. These aren't the droids we're looking for. Move along.
As I said, this card isn't for your tier 1 decks, that's clear. It's definitely playable above precon levels, though.
This is why Font sucks, but it doesn't apply to this card at all. Telling someone that not attacking you will result in them drawing 2 cards is totally an effective deterrent, unless you're way ahead.
Well we seem to agree on a lot, except I don't see myself negotiating my way out of an attack by paying 5 mana and asking people not to. When I'm building I'll put in something at 5 that can solve that problem for me. I can see a lot of Sheldon'esque advice about building your group's confidence that you'll come through on the commitments you make when you politic, but if you are playing an answer-packed Control deck that's good enough at winning when no one has a heel to your throat, people learn that helping you will hurt them regardless of what you come through with against someone else.
I guess that's the keystone. If the decks you're playing against are good enough that you want their bad draws to stay bad, then you should avoid playing this card.
I'm just going to go ahead and believe that a card is bad whether or not it is political. That's not enough to make it a good choice to include in anything. Politics can be a valid reason to include a card, but not this one. IMHO.
I'm just going to go ahead and believe that a card is bad whether or not it is political. That's not enough to make it a good choice to include in anything. Politics can be a valid reason to include a card, but not this one. IMHO.
You know who is always there for me when I want to spend 5 mana on drawing 2 cards? Mulldrifter.
Well we seem to agree on a lot, except I don't see myself negotiating my way out of an attack by paying 5 mana and asking people not to. When I'm building I'll put in something at 5 that can solve that problem for me. I can see a lot of Sheldon'esque advice about building your group's confidence that you'll come through on the commitments you make when you politic, but if you are playing an answer-packed Control deck that's good enough at winning when no one has a heel to your throat, people learn that helping you will hurt them regardless of what you come through with against someone else.
I guess that's the keystone. If the decks you're playing against are good enough that you want their bad draws to stay bad, then you should avoid playing this card.
You're vastly simplifying politics with your first sentence. Here's a few ways to go about it.
"Whoever wins my favor this round gets to draw 2 cards with me."
"Who's not going to block this guy?"
"If you kill his X, we can both draw cards on my next turn."
etc...
Now, of course it's not always going to work, especially if you're way ahead. (see previous comments) I haven't read many sheldon articles except the ones that piss everyone off, but that's more or less the idea. Except that, in this case, you're benefitting too, so there's no reason for others to distrust you, unlike if you said "I'll sac my X if you do Y", where they have to totally take you on faith.
Especially if you're playing control, I would think that someone in a bad position would LOVE to help you. You're going to draw answers to get rid of what ails the field, he's going to draw cards to put him back in the game hopefully, and both of you benefit. Of course, if you're playing a heavy control deck and attack someone with a good position it might not work, but (1) why are you attacking them, idiot, and (2) all you need is one person interested in dealing. It doesn't need to be THAT person.
If you're behind, everyone should want to mutually benefit with you, because the downside of your draw is insignificant compared to the benefit they get from theirs.
If you're in the middle, everyone should want to mutually benefit with you for the same reason (except maybe the leader if he's not feeling confident and wants minimal risk).
If you're in the lead, probably no one will want to mutually benefit with you because your draw is too dangerous, BUT THEY MIGHT if they're selfish and/or stupid (depending how good your position is).
You know who is always there for me when I want to spend 5 mana on drawing 2 cards? Mulldrifter.
That's funny, because last time I checked everyone ran phyrexian arena over divination, despite the less immediate bonus, because repeatable draw is powerful.
The biggest problem with this guy, by far, is that he's slow. But in a longer game without too many boardwipes, stellar, for sure. That might not be your game. If so, this is not your card. But it's not a bad card. It definitely has more application than most of the other cards we've seen, in this or any set.
Giving out free draws is a dead giveaway that someone is up to no good. I'd put this card at number three in my "if you play this you need to die" list, right behind durdling with ramp and employing group hug effects.
I'm gonna be honest... most of the commander cards spoiled are basically made for zedruu. That's not bad by any means, just not everyone's cup of tea. Card is fine for some people.
I agree. We should all only play g/x decks because they are the most objectively fun and anyone who disagrees does not know the truth about EDH. Everyone should just play their decks because interaction beyond high fiving about how many land are in play is unfun and equivalent to casting Stasis while kicking puppies. I for one will never play with anyone who casts tutors, removal spells, blue cards, things I arbitrarily decide I don't like but will probably cast myself later.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1) What's diviner spirit? Oh, one of those junk cards I didn't even notice.
or
2) RAAAARG Why does wizards print this unplayable garbage in my favorite color!!!!
Anyway, this is diviner spirit:
Mostly I want to talk about this card because it embodies something I see a lot of fingerquotes "competitive" players do, which is to equate political cards with group hug cards. Which is not only painfully wrong, but also completely fails to miss a huge part of the point of a multiplayer format.
Diviner spirit is a political card.
Font of Mythos is a group hug card.
Diviner spirit is (moderately) awesome.
Font of Mythos can go die in a pool of its own bodily fluids (I know, I know, that new grixis dude works ok with it but I don't care).
Here's the important difference. Font of mythos can't be turned off for players who are ruining your life. People MIGHT say "thanks for the 2 cards a turn, now I'm going to be nice to you", or they might use those cards you make your life miserable and there's nothing you can do about it shy of sacking font. Calling font of mythos political is akin to calling distributing weapons in the middle east a peace movement. Diviner spirit is not only effective at getting people to suck up to you in the hopes of drawing, but it also provides you with a benefit of CA vs the table average, whereas Font will almost always put you down in CA vs the table since you go last (barring consecrated sphinx/notion thief shenans).
Wizards finally got politics right - last commander release we got the idiotic "join forces" mechanic, which was stupid and awful in the case of all of them except the dragon (which was merely mediocre). Politics isn't about benefitting everyone equally, it's about benefitting people who benefit you, and doing it as much as possible, so that ultimately many people might profit, but you profit the most by being involved in as many deals as possible. The tempting offer mechanic and this card are dead on the money about what makes political schemes work - a series of deals that, as a whole, put you in an advantageous position vs the table, even though each individual deal makes sense from the perspective of the individual entities.
There's basically 4 reasons why you might dislike Diviner spirit:
1) You only play 1v1.
Piss off. What did you expect from a multiplayer release?
2) You think it will get blocked.
The only circumstance I can see this happening frequently in, is when you're way way ahead of the table to the point where they're allied against you 100%. But as long as one person is willing to broker a deal with you for mutual CA, bam, it's getting through. As long as someone is willing to let it through, it's in each of your opponents' best interests to be that person, so they'd have to be very strongly aligned against you to want to block it. So it's basically a win-less card - it's least effective at the time when you're already winning. But when you're winning, you're already winning, so stop complaining.
3) You think letting someone else draw 2 is too risky.
This is sort of a meta call, but all you need is someone - and it can be a different someone every turn - who's in a bad position. Obviously it's kind of risky to give CA to a deck that might combo out at any moment, but if there's any control or aggro decks that are looking pretty down-and-out, it's a safe bet that letting them draw 2 - especially since they're going to be your ally as long as you're giving them CA - won't be a significant problem for you. You might even be able to give CA to someone who's in a strong position, as long as they offer to leave you alone for a while. Of course, if your meta is 100% turn 3 infinite combo, then you might not have a reasonable person to attack, but if that's the case...
4) You think 5 mana to draw 2 per turn is too much.
If yours is a very competitive meta, that might be true. It can't really compete against dark confidant in terms of cheap, repeatable draw. Of course, it doesn't have to be just 2, though, you can sword it up or maybe even toss empyrial plate or something onto it. And speaking of, it makes it easier to get sword triggers through if you really want recursion off SoLaS or mana off SoFaF (which you do, if you're draw 5 cards a turn) because people don't want to block it. It's also worth pointing out that it's an anti-magnet for removal, unlike most strong draw engines, because you can just say "Hey, don't kill it, and I'll attack YOU with it next turn".
So, overall, will this card make it into top-tier druid, sharuum, zur, azami, etc? Probably not. It's a little too slow at 5 mana, even for drawing 2 per turn, and creatures are always likely to be incidental casualties of boardwipes before they get to attack. But in even moderately competitive metas, this card has serious potential. At the absolute very least, it's ridiculous to claim that it's group hug.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
The problem is that it's a 2/4 for 5. An effect like this (both players draws a card) isn't usually seen as a premium effect. See Dream Fracture that costs ZERO more than Cancel. To charge 5 for this guy is silly when 4 would have been fine and making him a 1/3 for 3 would have been interesting.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Dirk I agree with you on all points regarding politics and this is a good post. I love the design of this card. But having no evasion for this cost is a huge bummer, because it makes it impossible to force the issue. If it had flying or 2U: unblockable til EOT then that's a huge difference and you can make the card work for you if your opponents would prefer than it doesn't.
It will be playable as long as your game is three players or more, but I just wish it had a little more going for it for the mana cost to take up a precious card slot.
For the record, Arcane Denial is my favorite counterspell in multiplayer so I totally see where you're coming from.
:symu::symr: Melek WheelStorm
:symw::symg: Trostani Enchantress (updated 6/5)
:symg::symr::symu: Unexpected Results.dec
Thada Adel Stax WIP
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane for the awesome Sig.
Currently Playing- EDH
GGGOmnath, Locus of the LifestreamGGG
BBBShirei, Lord of PoniesBBB
UWRasputin Dreamweaver, Russia's Greatest Love MachineUW
UBWZur, Killer of FunUBW
UGWTreva, Princess of CanterlotUGW
RWTajic, Master of the Reverse BladeRW
RRRZirilan, How to Train Your DragonRRR
PDH Decks
Gelectrode
Ascended Lawmage
Blaze Commando
That said, to me, Diviner Spirit doesn't do politics well enough. I don't like my card draw being at the beck and call of my opponents. It comes down to whether or not I'd run a card that says "At the beginning of combat, choose a player. That player decides whether or not you both draw 2 cards." Because I'm not going to work to give this evasion if I can just run better damage triggers instead, so it'd have to be getting through on it's own, which leaves it up to my opponents.
Despite that, I do enjoy the concept of the card, and I'm sure it will be fun for those who play it. If I wasn't taking apart Vela in favor of Oloro more likely than not, I might even consider running it in there.
Basically this.
They could have costed it more aggressively because that ability on that body would never (?) see tournament play.
(I think the most successful "political" commander cards they've printed are the vows.)
Thread | Draft
Giving your opponents cards is just flat out bad. In a game where you want to dwindle your opponents resources, why would you ever give them the chance to gain them ?
You want to draw cards ? There's better ways. You want to get through damage ? There's better ways. You want to politic your opponent to do something for you ? There's better ways.
Who cares about evasion, even if it did have evasion, the card is still bad.
EDIT:
PS: Wizards still doesn't understand politics.
It definitely looks like crap at first glance. But it's evasive like a creature with infiltration lens is evasive - there's nothing preventing people from blocking it, it's just that it makes the decision to block it much less profitable than the decision to let it through.
I'd also say that, if you just go "alright, i'm going to swing at....you" (chosen randomly) you're doing it very very wrong. You should be using it as a bartering chip, and at the VERY least, when it comes combat time, you should ask "who wants to not block this dude?" Alternatively, a funny metagame would be to declare that anyone who can't block it lethally (and hasn't attacked/targeted you) is a possible target. If people need draw enough, they'll hopefully start beating the crap out of each other in order to get their creatures sideways so they'll be attacked. Then just roll a dice among the tapped-out players. win-freaking-win.
Dream fracture is pretty bad in 1v1 and awesome in multiplayer. Sure, it's more efficiently costed, but it's also lower powered draw-wise and not repeatable.
1/3 for 3 would make him look like a worse scroll thief. Personally I'm fine with them keeping most overtly political stuff fairly low on the power level scale. If this was, say, a 3/4 for 4 (which would probably be ok in terms of eternal formats) it would be really nasty, especially playing the precons against each other. Draw 2 per turn is perfectly fine, and you should be able to use the political advantages as a boon. I think it's totally fair, it just looks weak at first glance.
Fair enough, but this is still LEAGUES better than join forces. Ye gods, join forces was awful. They're going to do political stuff with a multiplayer-focused set, so you may as well get used to it. This is still way less gimmicky than the primary commanders as well.
Reading comprehension clearly isn't your strong suit.
-Pick someone in a bad position and/or make deals with people in exchange for getting attacked. Them drawing 2 can be a boon. This isn't 1v1.
-Better ways than 2 cards per turn for 5? True, but fewer than you'd think. What'd you expect, necropotence 2: electric boogaloo?
-Better ways to politic? There are lots of good whips, but not a lot of good carrots (outside of whipping someone else). As far as carrots go, this one is pretty damn good.
-You're right about one thing, this card doesn't need evasion.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
This card is definitely very similar. Obviously much weaker in general since it costs more and has to survive to do anything. But it has some advantages too.
The main improvements on this vs trade secrets is (1) it deals some damage, which might matter, (2) it lets you do other damage triggers, and most importantly (3) it lets you switch players to target partway through. With trade secrets, it made it a 2-person game. With divining spirit, it keeps the table pretty even, except for you.
Never tried infiltration lens, but my point is that it's a similar concept. It's not more evasive but they have less reason to block it. It's a thinking man's evasion.
Obviously ultimately the defending player gets to pick, so it's legal for you to broker deals with them in exchange for attacking them, you ask them if they're going to block and they say "no", and then they block anyway. But you know in the future not to broker deals with them, and in the long run they lose out.
Or you could use my silly metagame idea. Then they can't block lethally.
And it totally puts people ahead - it puts you and the attacked player ahead of the rest of the table.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Actually you lose out. Hard. In that scenario you're not only running a worthless card, but also allowed yourself to be manipulated by an opponent. I'm not big on my creatures helping my opponents and worsening my deck.
If you tried it you would know that it's actually way worse than if it gave a creature Unblockable OR draw 2 cards. The opponent's choice takes away all strategy and advantage.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Thank you. This is exactly what I've been talking with my group about.
I don't need a card that says "do this to target player and gain +1". I want to figure out these things on my own
Exactly my feelings. Just like how someone drops a Fumiko, the Lowblood way to early and wonders why he gets exploded on lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY8h2vp5Xis
I agree 100%. This card is not that card, though. This card offers a benefit if they don't block, infiltration lens does not. There's no way to politic with infiltration lens, whereas there's infinite ways to politic with this dude.
Let's go point by point.
1 - you misunderstand what I mean by "long run". In that game, you lose out. Realistically, if you're actually requesting real favors from people in exchange for attacking them, even if they block you shouldn't lose out THAT much, but it's still probably a bummer. However, in the long run - meaning subsequent games - you can exclude them from being attacked with the spirit, putting them behind in CA because you'll always be attacking other people. Dishonesty is a short-sighted choice.
2 - Saying "you lose out because you're running a worthless card" or "it worsens your deck" is a non-argument. You're saying, "It's a bad card, because when you're running it it's a worthless card, which makes your deck worse". You have to demonstrate why it's worthless in your deck for that to be valid, and so far you've done nothing of the kind.
3 - It's helping your (weakest) opponents, but it's helping you even more, and it's helping the rest of the table zero. How often have you been in a losing position vs someone with a powerful board position, and the whole table is going against them and losing because you're low on answers? Know what's really good in that situation? +4 cards in the hands of the losing team, for free, per turn.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
People don't just have random vanilla 4/4's and 6/6's lying around waffling on who to attack. Regardless of how many hundred times it takes people to see their creatures wiped and chump blocked over and over, eventually everyone learns the same lesson, then they start playing creatures that have value to be attacking with. And whether I've got a Wrexial, the Risen Deep or a Sun Titan, my decision of who to attack depends on the worth of that attack, not who's smiling at me and being nice. People attack the player that they want to kill, and they learn to want to kill the player in the best position.
That's exactly the problem here. If the defender is in a good position, I don't want to attack here because he has a good deck and he'll be in an even better position, and if he's in a bad position I don't want to attack because he has a good deck and I need him to stay in a bad position. If he has a bad deck, it doesn't matter because good deck wins and bad deck loses. The guy with a bad deck is even better not playing this and not letting it through either. For that matter, the same incentives exist in nearly every case across the table for letting it through. If the strategy of my deck somehow leads me to attacking a certain player with this anyway, then that player is definitely not going to want to let this thing through. If not, I don't want to attack.
The same as Trade Secrets. Target the player who's already lost, watch him make the mistake of crowning you King just because he can, then win the game with your library in hand.
These situations where two players want to collaborate to draw answers against the guy with a Rampaging Baloths in play only happen where the deck strategies are very answerable and not linear at all. In other words, in a group full of preconstructed-level decks. Which is exactly why these cards come in precons. These aren't the droids we're looking for. Move along.
This is why Font sucks, but it doesn't apply to this card at all. Telling someone that not attacking you will result in them drawing 2 cards is totally an effective deterrent, unless you're way ahead.
Also, although it has nothing to do with this card, I've seen people "being nice" not get attacked for that reason, although I would never base my strategic planning on that because I'm not an idiot, and I'm rarely nice.
If you're in the CLEAR lead, you're right. If you're not, though, usually it's in your best immediate interests to have other stronger allies against the leader, and it's in their best interests to let you draw as well.
As I said, it's a win-less card. worthless when you're in the lead, but powerful when you're not.
Obviously it's not the same power level as trade secrets, but I saw people agree to mutually benefit with trade secrets all the time, because it turns into a 2-person game with the rest of the table at a steep disadvantage to the 2 people who trade secreted.
As I said, this card isn't for your tier 1 decks, that's clear. It's definitely playable above precon levels, though.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Well we seem to agree on a lot, except I don't see myself negotiating my way out of an attack by paying 5 mana and asking people not to. When I'm building I'll put in something at 5 that can solve that problem for me. I can see a lot of Sheldon'esque advice about building your group's confidence that you'll come through on the commitments you make when you politic, but if you are playing an answer-packed Control deck that's good enough at winning when no one has a heel to your throat, people learn that helping you will hurt them regardless of what you come through with against someone else.
I guess that's the keystone. If the decks you're playing against are good enough that you want their bad draws to stay bad, then you should avoid playing this card.
Draft my Peasant Cube.
You know who is always there for me when I want to spend 5 mana on drawing 2 cards? Mulldrifter.
You're vastly simplifying politics with your first sentence. Here's a few ways to go about it.
"Whoever wins my favor this round gets to draw 2 cards with me."
"Who's not going to block this guy?"
"If you kill his X, we can both draw cards on my next turn."
etc...
Now, of course it's not always going to work, especially if you're way ahead. (see previous comments) I haven't read many sheldon articles except the ones that piss everyone off, but that's more or less the idea. Except that, in this case, you're benefitting too, so there's no reason for others to distrust you, unlike if you said "I'll sac my X if you do Y", where they have to totally take you on faith.
Especially if you're playing control, I would think that someone in a bad position would LOVE to help you. You're going to draw answers to get rid of what ails the field, he's going to draw cards to put him back in the game hopefully, and both of you benefit. Of course, if you're playing a heavy control deck and attack someone with a good position it might not work, but (1) why are you attacking them, idiot, and (2) all you need is one person interested in dealing. It doesn't need to be THAT person.
If you're behind, everyone should want to mutually benefit with you, because the downside of your draw is insignificant compared to the benefit they get from theirs.
If you're in the middle, everyone should want to mutually benefit with you for the same reason (except maybe the leader if he's not feeling confident and wants minimal risk).
If you're in the lead, probably no one will want to mutually benefit with you because your draw is too dangerous, BUT THEY MIGHT if they're selfish and/or stupid (depending how good your position is).
Most of the time, someone should want to do it.
That's funny, because last time I checked everyone ran phyrexian arena over divination, despite the less immediate bonus, because repeatable draw is powerful.
The biggest problem with this guy, by far, is that he's slow. But in a longer game without too many boardwipes, stellar, for sure. That might not be your game. If so, this is not your card. But it's not a bad card. It definitely has more application than most of the other cards we've seen, in this or any set.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6