The slower a format is, the more likely you are to find an optimal use for Disperse, and the less likely you are to gain much from using Time Ebb as a tempo play.
But the slower format also means you are more likely to find an optimal use for Time Ebb and less likely to gain much from using Disperse as a tempo play.
Imagine a situation where a card like Master of the Wild Hunt is played basically whenever it's opened, and it is a very rare situation to play against another deck that got him. Then every time that player won, it would increase the win percentage for that card.
Now, imagine a situation like with Lightning Bolt, which is played basically whenever it's opened, and it is extremely common to play against another deck that got it. Then, with respect to the card's win percentage, it doesn't matter who won, and for the same number of games, a win is far less likely to tick up the average win rate.
Do you see how very good commons have almost no ability to show up on a list that's aggregated the way that one was? The better a common is, the more likely it is to show up against itself, and the more it'll be dragged to the middle.
This line of reasoning is nothing more than a statistical fallacy.
The numbers are the percentage of the time a deck with card X wins against the field. You're right that the better Card X is the more likely it is that decks with it will play other decks with it. But the chance that decks without Card X will face decks with Card X will also increase. The better card's number will be decreased by the mirror matches, but it will be increased by having a better win percentage against the rest of the field. Mathematically, the total win percentage must increase or else the card is not really better.
Think about what you are saying: if what you say is true you can do better in an event by replacing your best common with a worse (but less-played) card. This is obviously absurd.
Plus, even if this were the case, it would be an argument against your point. If being a common somehow magically depressed the card's number, than a common like Excommunicate which still made top 25 must be something truly special.
For a common to be high on the list, it has to have a few characteristics, none of which necessarily classify it as a top flight card: it has to not be played in a large portion of decks (most significantly meaning it doesn't ever get splashed). It has to not suck so badly that it detracts from your odds of winning. And it has to be consistently played in decks with strong cards.
If this were really the case than Pacifism should not have shown up as high as it did. Surely Pacifism was played in a large portion of decks; it was and is a reasonable splash. But there's not much point in going any further on this point, since the base of your argument was a statistical fallacy.
You're arguing in circles. You say the card is good in any kind of deck, I say the card is bad outside aggro decks, you say the card can be used to stabilize, I say the card is bad at stabilizing, you say the card isn't meant for stabilizing. Guess what I'm going to say now?
The card is bad outside aggro decks.
The card isn't meant for stabilizing, but it can do so if you need to. It's at its best in aggressive decks, but it's still reasonable elsewhere.
I kinda feel like this is coming from a position where you can't refute the obvious, but okay. Doom Blade and Lightning Bolt were the best commons in M10, despite not producing any inherent card advantage. In EVERY format where cheap, instant speed removal without horrific drawbacks is available, it is ALWAYS the best.
I rather expect you to disagree, but I dare you to find a counterexample.
Let's use RTR as an example.
The best common removal (the best common, in fact) was Stab Wound.
The best uncommon removal was Arrest.
The best rare/mythic removal was Mizzium Mortars.
None of these are instant speed.
As a general example, Pacifism effects are tier-1 removal and are often among the best commons/uncommons, if not the best.
Straw man. Kind of crazy huge straw man. 1) I didn't say there was no difference, I said the situations where it doesn't matter are common. Instant speed gives you options which are always there, no matter what. 2) a 2/1 is a repeatable source of damage that potentially impacts the whole flow of the game over and over, turn after turn. I was talking about a single, 1-shot effect. 3) There are so many ways to interact with creatures through combat situations that comparing them to each other the same way you would spells is ineffective. Small differences between creatures mean a lot more than small differences between spells.
You're missing the point of the analogy. Dismissing something as a small difference ignores the fact that games are often decided by the cumulative effect of many small differences. Individually they may not matter much, but together they decide the game.
Running Doom Blade means that your opponent has to be leery of double blocks, or using combat tricks. Doom Blade gives you the ability to punish opponents for all sorts of high-risk-high-reward plays. Instant speed makes all of that possible, before I ever need to bother using the spell as a 1-for-1 on his bomb. I'm plenty happy to pay a single card, which may never make a difference, to not have to worry about my opponent getting rewarded for plays like that, which always makes a difference.
The difference is even more stark with Disperse vs. Time Ebb, where Time Ebb can't even be used to get rid of problem cards. The tricky uses of Disperse are worth significantly more than a single random card.
This is more true when you're dealing with less-experienced/skilled players. Skilled players will be leery of this stuff whenever you have the mana open for the Doom Blade, whether you have it or not.
But more fundamentally, this argument is an example of Availability bias. The times when the instant speed Disperse causes a blowout are quite memorable, while you might not even notice when the drawskip from Time Ebb wins you a game.
It doesn't make any sense to me to compare blue cards with white cards. Since blue almost never gets decent removal, I think a card like claustrophobia is significantly better than arrest or pacifism. The same goes with a card like excommunicate - white in general doesn't get that type of effect very often - you can't really compare a white bounce spell to a blue bounce spell because they're so different.
This is a good point, but it's not as simple as looking at what each color does alone since decks are rarely mono-color. You'd have to look at how the cards perform in individual archetypes. Of course, the two are pretty much identical in UW, which is generally one of the most popular archetypes in core set Limited.
As far as staying on topic, I think the pick is disperse, not close. One of the most important things about playing Magic is giving yourself options: if you believe that you are a good player, I think it's best to give yourself as many opportunities to make decisions as possible. While we can argue or whatever about which card is better, I'll take a slightly weaker card that gives me a lot more choices pretty much every time.
Depends what your goal is.
If you're trying to maximize your chance of winning, choosing worse cards which give you more options is not a winning strategy.
I think you have it backwards. Normally when we discuss how good a card is, we do so with the assumption of perfect play. So the options argument should work as a tiebreaker in the other direction: if you don't think you're a near-perfect player, it may make sense to take a slightly worse card which provides fewer options. (If a card provides the opponent with options, then it may sometimes make sense to overvalue it somewhat if you expect your opponent to make the wrong choices.)
I think you have it backwards. Normally when we discuss how good a card is, we do so with the assumption of perfect play
I've never made the assumption that anyone plays magic perfectly or even near perfectly. Everyone makes multiple errors per game. It's not uncommon for a player to make 10+ errors in a three game match, and that's even a given for players who play at a very high level. I don't think basing card evaluations on the assumption that everyone will play well is the right way to go about it.
What separates players in magic more than anything isn't how few mistakes they make; it's how quickly they recognize their errors and what they can do to mitigate the effects of the mistakes. I would rather have a disperse than a time ebb in my hand basically all the time. The fact that I can use it on everything from my own creature to an equipment, to even something like an aura makes the card extremely flexible - it's the kind of card that I always want to play with in my deck. Sometimes it's strictly worse than time ebb, but often it's much better.
It should be disperse by a little bit. By my evaulation, the main two draws to Disperse (cheaper, instant) balance with the relative CA generated by Time Ebb (over Disperse). Urafever mentioned the flexibility of being able to target any non-land permanent with Disperse. This is what makes me lean towards Disperse over Time Ebb.
Edit: Also, the lengths of everyone's posts in this thread are ridiculous.
I've never made the assumption that anyone plays magic perfectly or even near perfectly. Everyone makes multiple errors per game. It's not uncommon for a player to make 10+ errors in a three game match, and that's even a given for players who play at a very high level. I don't think basing card evaluations on the assumption that everyone will play well is the right way to go about it.
What I mean is that you very rarely see in card evaluations consideration of how hard (in terms of player skill) the card is to use effectively. You sometimes see this at the archetype level, but not when evaluating individual cards. We don't see statements like "This burn spell does 3 damage, but because of how many play mistakes you're likely to make with it it's really only worth 2 damage."
What separates players in magic more than anything isn't how few mistakes they make; it's how quickly they recognize their errors and what they can do to mitigate the effects of the mistakes.
One of the most effective ways to reduce the number of mistakes you make is to reduce the opportunities you have to make mistakes. Obviously, this does not mean not playing a Demonic Tutor because there's a pretty high chance you won't choose the best card. But it does mean that when choosing between two similar cards, the one which gives you fewer opportunities to make mistakes is the better choice.
I would rather have a disperse than a time ebb in my hand basically all the time. The fact that I can use it on everything from my own creature to an equipment, to even something like an aura makes the card extremely flexible - it's the kind of card that I always want to play with in my deck. Sometimes it's strictly worse than time ebb, but often it's much better.
Flexibility definitely feels nice to have, but how effective is it actually? In my experience with Disperse and similar cards in previous formats, I'm using it on an opponent's creature the great majority of the time anyways. The additional flexibility is worth something, but not nearly as much as a card.
Flexibility definitely feels nice to have, but how effective is it actually? In my experience with Disperse and similar cards in previous formats, I'm using it on an opponent's creature the great majority of the time anyways. The additional flexibility is worth something, but not nearly as much as a card.
Well, it might just be a difference in our playstyle then. I tend to use cards in what at times seems like pretty strange ways -- I'm going to be uploading a video draft I did recently where I think I used orzhov charm to bounce my own guys every single time in a tournament, which is probably something most people wouldn't do. I guess I probably play pretty "weird" to most people, but it's my habit to always evaluate every single use for a card and many times choose the less common one. I've learned over the years that not everyone shares my perspective on ingame play, so maybe for you the other card is significantly better. I tend to use disperse on my own creatures or non-creatures pretty routinely, though.
I've missed most of the conversation, but here are my thoughts:
Both are fine, but neither are cards that I'd pick highly. This is a format where not very many cards are extremely strong, so you're generally interested in making the best use of your cards possible. Tempo decks that want these effects don't seem to really exist in this format as far as I can tell. This is a grindy format and spending a card just make them replay a card is fairly bad as such.
Given that, I think the card disadvantage caused by Disperse means that it's something I don't care for unless I'm killing an enchantment in the process. I think Time Ebb is a more acceptable maindeck card in blue decks, since it at least doesn't put me down a card (not exactly since them drawing the creature is usually better than a random card), but it's rarely what I want to be doing.
Each color has access to one card at common that you want to kill with these (Pacifism, Claustrophobia, Mark of the Vampire, Lightning Talons, Trollhide) and there are a few targets at higher rarities. I think I don't want to play this card if my opponents don't have multiple of those targets. You can expect opponents to have ~1 card you want to hit with it on average. Both are clunky against Pacifism and Claustrophobia. As such, I'd want to start it in the sideboard and side either in if I saw multiple/powerful enchantments. I think they're both pretty similar to Naturalize. I think these will be my 23rd card often.
Disperse has some added utility against Enlarge and the Slivers deck. I'm not sure how prevalent that deck is, but if it usually appears in the draft, I'll want the card slightly more.
But the slower format also means you are more likely to find an optimal use for Time Ebb and less likely to gain much from using Disperse as a tempo play.
This line of reasoning is nothing more than a statistical fallacy.
The numbers are the percentage of the time a deck with card X wins against the field. You're right that the better Card X is the more likely it is that decks with it will play other decks with it. But the chance that decks without Card X will face decks with Card X will also increase. The better card's number will be decreased by the mirror matches, but it will be increased by having a better win percentage against the rest of the field. Mathematically, the total win percentage must increase or else the card is not really better.
Think about what you are saying: if what you say is true you can do better in an event by replacing your best common with a worse (but less-played) card. This is obviously absurd.
Plus, even if this were the case, it would be an argument against your point. If being a common somehow magically depressed the card's number, than a common like Excommunicate which still made top 25 must be something truly special.
If this were really the case than Pacifism should not have shown up as high as it did. Surely Pacifism was played in a large portion of decks; it was and is a reasonable splash. But there's not much point in going any further on this point, since the base of your argument was a statistical fallacy.
The card isn't meant for stabilizing, but it can do so if you need to. It's at its best in aggressive decks, but it's still reasonable elsewhere.
Let's use RTR as an example.
The best common removal (the best common, in fact) was Stab Wound.
The best uncommon removal was Arrest.
The best rare/mythic removal was Mizzium Mortars.
None of these are instant speed.
As a general example, Pacifism effects are tier-1 removal and are often among the best commons/uncommons, if not the best.
You're missing the point of the analogy. Dismissing something as a small difference ignores the fact that games are often decided by the cumulative effect of many small differences. Individually they may not matter much, but together they decide the game.
This is more true when you're dealing with less-experienced/skilled players. Skilled players will be leery of this stuff whenever you have the mana open for the Doom Blade, whether you have it or not.
But more fundamentally, this argument is an example of Availability bias. The times when the instant speed Disperse causes a blowout are quite memorable, while you might not even notice when the drawskip from Time Ebb wins you a game.
This is a good point, but it's not as simple as looking at what each color does alone since decks are rarely mono-color. You'd have to look at how the cards perform in individual archetypes. Of course, the two are pretty much identical in UW, which is generally one of the most popular archetypes in core set Limited.
Depends what your goal is.
If you're trying to maximize your chance of winning, choosing worse cards which give you more options is not a winning strategy.
I think you have it backwards. Normally when we discuss how good a card is, we do so with the assumption of perfect play. So the options argument should work as a tiebreaker in the other direction: if you don't think you're a near-perfect player, it may make sense to take a slightly worse card which provides fewer options. (If a card provides the opponent with options, then it may sometimes make sense to overvalue it somewhat if you expect your opponent to make the wrong choices.)
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
I've never made the assumption that anyone plays magic perfectly or even near perfectly. Everyone makes multiple errors per game. It's not uncommon for a player to make 10+ errors in a three game match, and that's even a given for players who play at a very high level. I don't think basing card evaluations on the assumption that everyone will play well is the right way to go about it.
What separates players in magic more than anything isn't how few mistakes they make; it's how quickly they recognize their errors and what they can do to mitigate the effects of the mistakes. I would rather have a disperse than a time ebb in my hand basically all the time. The fact that I can use it on everything from my own creature to an equipment, to even something like an aura makes the card extremely flexible - it's the kind of card that I always want to play with in my deck. Sometimes it's strictly worse than time ebb, but often it's much better.
*DCI Rules Advisor*
Edit: Also, the lengths of everyone's posts in this thread are ridiculous.
What I mean is that you very rarely see in card evaluations consideration of how hard (in terms of player skill) the card is to use effectively. You sometimes see this at the archetype level, but not when evaluating individual cards. We don't see statements like "This burn spell does 3 damage, but because of how many play mistakes you're likely to make with it it's really only worth 2 damage."
One of the most effective ways to reduce the number of mistakes you make is to reduce the opportunities you have to make mistakes. Obviously, this does not mean not playing a Demonic Tutor because there's a pretty high chance you won't choose the best card. But it does mean that when choosing between two similar cards, the one which gives you fewer opportunities to make mistakes is the better choice.
Flexibility definitely feels nice to have, but how effective is it actually? In my experience with Disperse and similar cards in previous formats, I'm using it on an opponent's creature the great majority of the time anyways. The additional flexibility is worth something, but not nearly as much as a card.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Well, it might just be a difference in our playstyle then. I tend to use cards in what at times seems like pretty strange ways -- I'm going to be uploading a video draft I did recently where I think I used orzhov charm to bounce my own guys every single time in a tournament, which is probably something most people wouldn't do. I guess I probably play pretty "weird" to most people, but it's my habit to always evaluate every single use for a card and many times choose the less common one. I've learned over the years that not everyone shares my perspective on ingame play, so maybe for you the other card is significantly better. I tend to use disperse on my own creatures or non-creatures pretty routinely, though.
*DCI Rules Advisor*
Both are fine, but neither are cards that I'd pick highly. This is a format where not very many cards are extremely strong, so you're generally interested in making the best use of your cards possible. Tempo decks that want these effects don't seem to really exist in this format as far as I can tell. This is a grindy format and spending a card just make them replay a card is fairly bad as such.
Given that, I think the card disadvantage caused by Disperse means that it's something I don't care for unless I'm killing an enchantment in the process. I think Time Ebb is a more acceptable maindeck card in blue decks, since it at least doesn't put me down a card (not exactly since them drawing the creature is usually better than a random card), but it's rarely what I want to be doing.
Each color has access to one card at common that you want to kill with these (Pacifism, Claustrophobia, Mark of the Vampire, Lightning Talons, Trollhide) and there are a few targets at higher rarities. I think I don't want to play this card if my opponents don't have multiple of those targets. You can expect opponents to have ~1 card you want to hit with it on average. Both are clunky against Pacifism and Claustrophobia. As such, I'd want to start it in the sideboard and side either in if I saw multiple/powerful enchantments. I think they're both pretty similar to Naturalize. I think these will be my 23rd card often.
Disperse has some added utility against Enlarge and the Slivers deck. I'm not sure how prevalent that deck is, but if it usually appears in the draft, I'll want the card slightly more.