you can't really bluff with this spell unless you have a lot of mana. if you need a removal for something you would just play it, not cast this and then play it. any average skilled played will just choose accordingly
Oh c'mon. There aren't that many bad scenarios for this.
One of the following happens:
- you don't need specific card
- you need specific card and it isn't there in 5
- you need specific card and there are 1 of them in 5
- you need specific card and there are 2+ of them in 5
Only 1 out of 4 is bad outcome, which can be negated by snappy.
Lol. Just... absurd.
It's not a "you need something" situation. In a "need something" situation, you can:
-just reveal two of the cards you need.
-get other cards that can help to get what you need.
-get what you need cause the opponent doesn't know what it is
-use another card for this (you're playing control, aren't you?)
I'm not gonna talk about how much magic i've played, but i think your statements aren't based in the real world's gameplay, you're just talking about an imaginary situation when none of the options i said above work, which makes it much less common.
Have a good night.
I'll talk about how much Magic I've played. I've been playing consistently since 1997 (and arguably a few years before that). There's no reason not to talk about it unless you're insecure for some reason.
Have you played Steam Augury yet? I haven't. But I have played FoF, and a lot of other draw spells besides. There have been many, many times where I needed a threat or an answer and I was able to dig for it. Now I'm sitting here, thinking about what would have happened in those same situations if my opponent had the choice of what cards went into my hand, and you know what conclusion I'm drawing? I would have lost almost every single one of those games. Again (and for the last time), needing an answer is not remotely an uncommon situation. You know what is an uncommon situation? Assuming that you will draw into multiple answers in those top 5, or that you will draw into something else that will enable you to dig deeper or use the cards in your graveyard. The only thing that is guaranteed with Steam Augury is that your opponent will pitch your best card, and if that card is something you need to survive another turn then you lose. That makes this card objectively and unquestionably bad.
I really am done with this thread now. Hope to see you on the other side of the table some day.
Why are people evaluating this card in relation to FoF? Seems to me this card is more akin to Gifts Ungiven. What makes Gifts playable? The ability to control precisely what cards are in the pile and to set up traps for the opponent where no matter what cards they choose, the user gains an advantage. This means the deck needs cards that use the graveyard as a resource to make Gifts shine.
This card is leagues apart from Fact or Fiction, but it is also much worse than Gifts. You cannot expect the top five cards to give you the ability to set up Gift traps. The ideal situation is an unreasonable one. If you expect your opponent to NOT know what card you need by turn 4, I don't know what to say.
You opponent will almost certainly know what deck you are playing by turn four. This card is 2 colors, so that severely limits what decks it could fit into. This card is also not suited for certain play styles (such as combo or aggro). If you have this card in your deck, your opponent knows what you are basically planning to do, especially by turn four. (URX Control "Draw-Go"esque control)
Therefore, your opponent will choose a pile based on board state and knowledge of the deck they are facing, which is enough information to ensure you get the worst of the two piles, regardless of how you engineer them. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but you have to be aware of that. You cannot bet on the off-chance that you will be able to "out-smart" your opponents. You have to judge the card in its worst state, then see if the benefits outweigh the risk in using the card.
Quote from Smooth Criminal »
Oh c'mon. There aren't that many bad scenarios for this.
One of the following happens:
- you don't need specific card
- you need specific card and it isn't there in 5
- you need specific card and there are 1 of them in 5
- you need specific card and there are 2+ of them in 5
Only 1 out of 4 is bad outcome.
I count 2 bad outcomes there, which is one more than Divination or Thoughtflare. Needing a specific card and seeing either 0/5 or 1/5 are both bad outcomes.
I am not saying this card is unplayable, but I am saying this card has a serious downside that cannot just be written off.
This card seems to put your deck to the test. The deck this card fits into cannot value card quality higher than card advantage, since you have a good chance of not getting what you will need, even if this card finds it in the top 5. This type of mechanic seems to be in the same vein as Covenant of Minds, though obviously this card is better by virtue of being an instant and only 4 mana (at the very least).
So, with a power level somewhere in between Covenant of Minds (unplayable) to Gifts Ungiven (playable in decks built around it), I say this card has a chance at filling a certain niche in a deck (whose existence in the format is not as stable as, for example, RDW) but other options will be generally better. If this card can find a deck that takes advantage of its perks (card advantage, graveyard shenanigans, EOT shenanigans) while maneuvering around its offsets (punisher effect) we could see this card make as big a splash as Vexing Devil, which is to say present in the metagame, but just barely.
I'll talk about how much Magic I've played. I've been playing consistently since 1997 (and arguably a few years before that). There's no reason not to talk about it unless you're insecure for some reason.
Have you played Steam Augury yet? I haven't. But I have played FoF, and a lot of other draw spells besides. There have been many, many times where I needed a threat or an answer and I was able to dig for it. Now I'm sitting here, thinking about what would have happened in those same situations if my opponent had the choice of what cards went into my hand, and you know what conclusion I'm drawing? I would have lost almost every single one of those games. Again (and for the last time), needing an answer is not remotely an uncommon situation. You know what is an uncommon situation? Assuming that you will draw into multiple answers in those top 5, or that you will draw into something else that will enable you to dig deeper or use the cards in your graveyard. The only thing that is guaranteed with Steam Augury is that your opponent will pitch your best card, and if that card is something you need to survive another turn then you lose. That makes this card objectively and unquestionably bad.
I really am done with this thread now. Hope to see you on the other side of the table some day.
This is 100 percent correct. Even kitchen table players know the type of cards the other guy needs to win. Basically you have to draw into two answers off the top. If you are already winning then any instant speed draw is good...if you are losing this reads get 4 irrelevant cards and lose your one out. Even in the best case you get 2 decent cards and one piece of junk. 2 decent cards are not going to cut it.
The only deck this would be good in is aggro decks and aggro has better ways to gain CA. Combat tricks like bloodrush/brave the elements or tons of different planeswalkers. This is just a really bad card and should not be run. If you are looking for a real draw spell try read the bones.
I count 2 bad outcomes there, which is one more than Divination or Thoughtflare. Needing a specific card and seeing either 0/5 or 1/5 are both bad outcomes.
But there are no blue draw card that can dig deeper than 5 at this manacost range. Being worse than nonexistant card doesn't make a card bad.
Obviously if there was better draw spell, you'd put it in your deck. So, what draw spells are strictly better than augury in Std and Modern at 3-5 mana?
But there are no blue draw card that can dig deeper than 5 at this manacost range. Being worse than nonexistant card doesn't make a card bad.
Obviously if there was better draw spell, you'd put it in your deck. So, what draw spells are strictly better than augury in Std and Modern at 3-5 mana?
In modern? Thirst for Knowledge, Compulsive Research, Forbidden Alchemy all come to mind instantly. Mulldrifter probably even counts. And Jace Beleren.
Edit: Can't believe I forgot Gifts Ungiven. Or Vendillion Clique. Or Cryptic Command.
But there are no blue draw card that can dig deeper than 5 at this manacost range. Being worse than nonexistant card doesn't make a card bad.
Obviously if there was better draw spell, you'd put it in your deck. So, what draw spells are strictly better than augury in Std and Modern at 3-5 mana?
Who is claiming strictly better? I even said this card may have a niche in the metagame. But the card is too risky for most decks. Finding only one out in the top 5 will lose games for you, and it will happen often enough to affect results if your deck cannot turn the downside of the card into an upside.
If we are sticking to UR control decks in standard, Thoughtflare will generally be better for consistently digging for outs, Opportunity will be better as a Sphinx's Revelation look-alike, and Divination might have to be used if earlier drawing is needed. These options are more consistent in their effects, and control thrives on consistency.
I will repeat: This card may have a niche in standard because of its minuscule card pool.
I hope you were kidding about modern. While nothing is strictly better, decks that want this card will probably want Gifts Ungiven more, and that is all that really needs to be said there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig credited to my basic GIMP skills.
There's something about a homemade avvy that makes you feel proud no matter how much it sucks.
Why are people evaluating this card in relation to FoF? Seems to me this card is more akin to Gifts Ungiven. What makes Gifts playable? The ability to control precisely what cards are in the pile and to set up traps for the opponent where no matter what cards they choose, the user gains an advantage. This means the deck needs cards that use the graveyard as a resource to make Gifts shine.
This card is leagues apart from Fact or Fiction, but it is also much worse than Gifts. You cannot expect the top five cards to give you the ability to set up Gift traps. The ideal situation is an unreasonable one. If you expect your opponent to NOT know what card you need by turn 4, I don't know what to say.
You opponent will almost certainly know what deck you are playing by turn four. This card is 2 colors, so that severely limits what decks it could fit into. This card is also not suited for certain play styles (such as combo or aggro). If you have this card in your deck, your opponent knows what you are basically planning to do, especially by turn four. (URX Control "Draw-Go"esque control)
Therefore, your opponent will choose a pile based on board state and knowledge of the deck they are facing, which is enough information to ensure you get the worst of the two piles, regardless of how you engineer them. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but you have to be aware of that. You cannot bet on the off-chance that you will be able to "out-smart" your opponents. You have to judge the card in its worst state, then see if the benefits outweigh the risk in using the card.
I count 2 bad outcomes there, which is one more than Divination or Thoughtflare. Needing a specific card and seeing either 0/5 or 1/5 are both bad outcomes.
I am not saying this card is unplayable, but I am saying this card has a serious downside that cannot just be written off.
This card seems to put your deck to the test. The deck this card fits into cannot value card quality higher than card advantage, since you have a good chance of not getting what you will need, even if this card finds it in the top 5. This type of mechanic seems to be in the same vein as Covenant of Minds, though obviously this card is better by virtue of being an instant and only 4 mana (at the very least).
So, with a power level somewhere in between Covenant of Minds (unplayable) to Gifts Ungiven (playable in decks built around it), I say this card has a chance at filling a certain niche in a deck (whose existence in the format is not as stable as, for example, RDW) but other options will be generally better. If this card can find a deck that takes advantage of its perks (card advantage, graveyard shenanigans, EOT shenanigans) while maneuvering around its offsets (punisher effect) we could see this card make as big a splash as Vexing Devil, which is to say present in the metagame, but just barely.
Fact or Fiction and Gifts Ungiven are two of the most powerful card-drawing effects of all time.
Both were restricted in Vintage.
A card does not need to be as good as them to be "playable".
People keep looking at it as a control "answers" card, and well... yeah. Sometimes you can get the wrong answers.
But there are no wrong questions. In a deck executating a proactive, redundant game plan, the extra cards are going to be brutal.
The more I think about it, the more I think that this isn't in any way a control card. Obviously, it's bad at digging for answers, since you're unlikely to get that exact card you're looking for. Nor do control decks really need this, since they've already got Revelation, Thoughtflare, Inspiration, and Opportunity that they can run and be more consistent than this will ever be.
What this card can do is dig for gas. In a more aggressive deck, the chance that you absolutely need a specific card is much lower than in a more controlling shell. If you're the aggressor, you just want threats, and with this card you can often create situations where you either get one or two major threats, or two or three smaller ones, both of which are welcome results when you're low on fuel. Decks like those with Pyromancer and Guttersnipe in them, for example, I could see using this card, since they'll usually be able to get value out of their spells regardless of which ones you give them. Competitively, I feel like this will mostly show up in fringe decks, but it's definitely a fun card and I, for one, am happy with it. There will be a lot of situations where you'll have to get creative with how you split the piles and try to confuse your opponent.
It's kind of funny how everyone is saying that it's the opposite of Fact or Fiction, but almost no one is considering playing it differently from Fact or Fiction.
my epic experiment deck needed something interesting... though i am not sure i will use this. i would almost just prefer having green and using urban evolution
And you know something? I don't care about your playing skills, because they have nothing to do here. I know some people who've played a lot of magic, and are great players, and suck at card evaluation. When you see a card and can only think about when it would be bad, then you're obviously, objectively and unquestionably bad.
I'd argue the EXACT inverse. If you see a card and only think about when it would be good, you are probably a terrible player. In fact, you should consider when a card is bad way before you think of situations where it is good. But, ultimately you need to consider all options and their likelihood.
Here is a fact about this card: It is very good when you don't need it to be very good. When you are simply casting this to gain card advantage, it is a pretty good spell. It will probably end up averaging you nearly a full card over Inspiration. The *quality* of those 3 cards you get vs. the *quality* of cards you get from Inspiration will probably be slightly lower though, and so it is probably best to look at this card as an Inspiration that draws you 2.5 cards (but rarely the best of them) when you are simply looking to gain card advantage.
Here is another fact about this card: It is VERYbad when you do need it to be good. When you're losing, and you need an answer, you are possibly better off topdecking vs. actually casting this card.
So this obviously brings up the next question: How often are you going to be in a position where you need answers?
- Well, in my opinion, often enough that the small utility gained from playing this over something else when you are in good shape is not enough to make up for the massive utility lost when you play this over a different card that might help you when you're in trouble.
People underestimate just how often it is that you'll be "in trouble." Well the answer is that you'll be in trouble in more than 50% of the games you play. Every game you lose will be one where you didn't have sufficient answers when you needed them. Even in games that you win there will be times when you had your back against the wall, but pulled answers in tight spots.
I add all this up and I see a card that, despite it's downsides, is probably an upgrade on Inspiration overall and thus should make it into some UR standard decks that are looking for card draw. There isn't a lot in UR that can abuse the graveyards at the moment, but if there were, it would improve the value of the card.
I look at modern, and I simply see better alternatives. Sure, Snapcaster Mage has good synergy with this card because it helps to alleviate the disadvantages to the card. But there are other cards that draw and stick stuff in the graveyard as well. Considering the increased speed and card quality in that format, I simply don't see this making a dent.
TL/DR version: This is a surprisingly playable "win-more" draw card. Should see some standard play, but will not be a gamebreaker.
I'm not thinking about when it's good or when it's bad, it's just that uncommon situations aren't enought to create a debate about a card's quality.
And yes, it's for standard, not for modern, and it's not a FoF, it's a decent draw spell.
Well, being in a losing position isn't exactly an uncommon situation. You should be able to broadly estimate how cards perform when you're in control of the game, when you're even, and when you're behind.
I agree with you in that it seems standard playable, despite all the trash I talked about it above. There just simply aren't better options for instant card draw around that cmc in standard, save maybe thoughtflare.
In modern? Thirst for Knowledge, Compulsive Research, Forbidden Alchemy all come to mind instantly. Mulldrifter probably even counts. And Jace Beleren.
Edit: Can't believe I forgot Gifts Ungiven. Or Vendillion Clique. Or Cryptic Command.
In standard, there isn't a lot of good card draw.
Of those only thirst is instant speed and it only gives you CA if you play artifacts. Alchemy gives no CA.
Gifts need specific deck (that no one managed to build yet).
Cryptic doesn't really compete for the same slot.
As far as draw-go is concerned, augury looks pretty good. Even being up there among top choices is enough.
If we are sticking to UR control decks in standard, Thoughtflare will generally be better for consistently digging for outs, Opportunity will be better as a Sphinx's Revelation look-alike, and Divination might have to be used if earlier drawing is needed. These options are more consistent in their effects, and control thrives on consistency.
Opportunity is different slot. 4 vs. 6 cmc don't really compete.
Thoughtflare seems good, but if no one played it before at 5, I doubt people will suddenly play it now. I'm not expert in draw-go, but I guess 5 was revelation territory, because for 5 it gives you same +1 CA.
Of those only thirst is instant speed and it only gives you CA if you play artifacts.
Gifts need specific deck (that no one managed to build yet).
Cryptic doesn't really compete for the same slot.
As far as draw-go is concerned, augury looks pretty good.
Opportunity is different slot. 4 vs. 6 cmc don't really compete.
Thoughtflare seems good, but if no one played it before at 5, I doubt people will suddenly play it now.
Forbidden Alchemy is an instant. And better than this if you're playing Snapcaster.
I think this is good in a control deck (probably Grixis) with a critical mass of cheap efficient 1 for 1s or 2 for 1s that just needs to draw more of those cards than the other player draws threats. It's not going to be good if the deck is relying on digging for a wrath effect or some other silver bullet to survive.
It also gets considerably better if the deck playing it can take advantage of the cards going into the graveyard as well (good thing snappy's rotating).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
This card is more like a Chill of Foreboding than a FoF. In fact Chill of Foreboding may be slightly better.
Wha...?
Chill of Foreboding just mills 5 from both players, with flashback, for 3 mana, at sorcery speed. Why would that ever be comparable to a card that draws at least 2 (only ever draws less than that if you let it), at 4 mana, at instant speed?
Between this comment and the whole discussion around Ashiok, I feel like people are losing track of the fact that milling a library generally doesn't help you win the game at all (literally: you are on average no better off milling a card than doing nothing) unless you can mill an enemy out entirely.
Forbidden Alchemy is an instant. And better than this if you're playing Snapcaster.
Forbidden alchemy serves a different role than this, whether you're playing with Snapcaster or not. FA only gives you one card, and you get to chose the one you need the most. Steam augury gives you 2.5 cards not of your choice. Of course Forbidden Alchemy is better if you're trying to use Steam Augury to filter your draws, SA doesn't do that. But SA is a lot better at producing immediate card advantage. 2.5 cards in hand and 2.5 cards in the graveyard immediately 4 on turn 4, vs. 1 card in hand and 3 in the yard on turn 3 and a second in hand and 3 more in the yard turn 7 at the earliest. I don't understand how you can even compare them, they serve totally different purposes in deck construction.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I am confident that if anyone actually
penetrates our facades, even the most
perceptive would still be fundamentally
unprepared for the truth of House Dimir."
Forbidden alchemy serves a different role than this, whether you're playing with Snapcaster or not. FA only gives you one card, and you get to chose the one you need the most. Steam augury gives you 2.5 cards not of your choice. Of course Forbidden Alchemy is better if you're trying to use Steam Augury to filter your draws, SA doesn't do that. But SA is a lot better at producing immediate card advantage. 2.5 cards in hand and 2.5 cards in the graveyard immediately 4 on turn 4, vs. 1 card in hand and 3 in the yard on turn 3 and a second in hand and 3 more in the yard turn 7 at the earliest. I don't understand how you can even compare them, they serve totally different purposes in deck construction.
Forbidden Alchemy is different, yes, and better. You get the best card out of your top 4. You'll never get that with Augury. Not like it matters, because rotation.
Anyway, this thread just keeps repeating itself. Augury is fine if: (1) you have two cards in the top 5 you want; or (2) the opponent does not know what it is that you really want to draw. However, neither of these are optimal because: (1) if you have a deck that is likely to have redundant answers in your top 5, then you probably shouldn't be spending 5 on dedicated card draw; and (2) it is a very bad idea to bet on your opponents being bad at magic.
In pretty much every other situation, Augury is pretty stinky. "But but but you might draw 3 cards." Yes, it's true. There are conceivable piles where the opponent would be right to give you 3 or even 4 cards instead the bomb you dug for. It may even be true that you can consistently get 3 cards off of this guy as long as you make your pile correctly. 2 spells versus 3 lands seems like a pretty reliable way to get 3 in your hand, for instance.
But what the naysayers keep saying, and the proponents keep overlooking, is that you are going to get your 3 WORST cards. If you split them equally on a regular basis, you are usually going to get an Inspiration out of this. An inspiration which will never give you the card your opponent thinks is the best for you. An inspiration that lets your opponent trash your best card so you will not draw it. That's why people keep making that comparison. If you reliably draw 3, you are reliably drawing the 3 worst cards in your top 5. Keep that in mind.
"But my deck only has good cards so the 3 worst is fine." Alright, here again we have the redundancy issue. If your deck is all good, why are you wasting a five drop slot on raw card draw instead of just continuing to draw good stuff?
This card is playable -- if there is a deck that just wants raw card advantage. For example, if we have a powerful effect that you pay for by discarding cards, then the idea of forcing your opponent to give you 3 crap cards to fuel the engine is fine. In that respect, it's kind of like how Land Tax works very well with Scroll Rack. There is no such deck, or cards really, in standard.
It is also workable in reanimator, as people said, because if you get access to all five anyway it's gravy. A deck full of Recoup effects, for example, is fine with this. But, as people pointed out, the closest thing we have to this - Snappy - is rotating. So there's no deck there either.
Bottom line: this card is bad at the moment and would take some very specific types of printing to make it worthwhile.
Here's the thing, even when you get the '3 worst cards' in the split, you still got 3 cards. At Instant speed. For 4 mana. Even if it's not a guaranteed 3 cards, you are playing a spell that sits somewhere in power level between Inspiration, which is unplayable, and an Instant speed Concentrate, which would likely be playable.
Also, if you know your opponent knows you need 1 specific card in that moment to win/not lose, why would you divide the piles at a 2/3 split? It seems like a lot of people attacking this card are not only assuming your opponent has perfect information, but also that you are an idiot.
If I need a sweeper and the split is Verdict, another draw spell, and 3 lands, I am definitely splitting the pile as 1/4. Yes, that draw spell and those 3 lands were not the cards I needed, but you forced your opponent to give you a massive amount of card advantage and a card that could give you another shot at drawing the sweeper.
Point is, if you are assuming your opponent is going to pick perfectly each time, why put yourself at a disadvantage by not drawing as many cards as possible?
Further point: If you look at 5 cards and there's only 1 out amongst them, you need to consider how greatly the odds of another out being on top of your deck have become. Getting all that information might seem irrelevant at the time, but it does increase the chances the card you need is amongst the rest of your deck by a considerable margin.
Here's the thing, even when you get the '3 worst cards' in the split, you still got 3 cards. At Instant speed. For 4 mana. Even if it's not a guaranteed 3 cards, you are playing a spell that sits somewhere in power level between Inspiration, which is unplayable, and an Instant speed Concentrate, which would likely be playable.
Also, if you know your opponent knows you need 1 specific card in that moment to win/not lose, why would you divide the piles at a 2/3 split? It seems like a lot of people attacking this card are not only assuming your opponent has perfect information, but also that you are an idiot.
If I need a sweeper and the split is Verdict, another draw spell, and 3 lands, I am definitely splitting the pile as 1/4. Yes, that draw spell and those 3 lands were not the cards I needed, but you forced your opponent to give you a massive amount of card advantage and a card that could give you another shot at drawing the sweeper.
Point is, if you are assuming your opponent is going to pick perfectly each time, why put yourself at a disadvantage by not drawing as many cards as possible?
Further point: If you look at 5 cards and there's only 1 out amongst them, you need to consider how greatly the odds of another out being on top of your deck have become. Getting all that information might seem irrelevant at the time, but it does increase the chances the card you need is amongst the rest of your deck by a considerable margin.
It gets even better if it seems like you need a sweeper and you have one in your hand.
It gets even better if it seems like you need a sweeper and you have one in your hand.
Indeed. Skilled players will be able to weigh the potential costs of choosing to lose maybe more life, or give up more board presence, in order to create situations wherein they can achieve greater net advantage with skill intensive cards like this one.
I fully understand the argument that this card can not get you out of a really bad spot given certain circumstances. But given the righteousness of people detracting this card, the situations they ascribe to it seem like even a successful recovery would merely be a hiccup to eventual defeat. If I am dead on board without a removal spell and I do get one, whose to say I'm not still dead on board next turn? There are times even when the successful Fact or Fiction is not enough, and it's not a card to compare this to in anything but functionality because it is obviously too strong to be printed in Standard. At 4 mana, what better card draw is there for Red/Blue?
You know what the only two real answers are? Jace and Chandra. And both of them are grinding, incremental card advantage machines, and both suffer from a host of other abilities that are not relevant to an Instant. The biggest argument for why this will see play is that there is nothing better in its colours at its cost, and it is good enough despite its negative qualities.
Worse cards than this have seen play in Standard. I imagine some of them have won the Pro Tour. The detractors of this card are angry they didn't get Fact or Fiction, and are hyperbolically expanding a relevant but oversimplified scenario of when the card plays poorly.
Indeed. Skilled players will be able to weigh the potential costs of choosing to lose maybe more life, or give up more board presence, in order to create situations wherein they can achieve greater net advantage with skill intensive cards like this one.
I fully understand the argument that this card can not get you out of a really bad spot given certain circumstances. But given the righteousness of people detracting this card, the situations they ascribe to it seem like even a successful recovery would merely be a hiccup to eventual defeat. If I am dead on board without a removal spell and I do get one, whose to say I'm not still dead on board next turn? There are times even when the successful Fact or Fiction is not enough, and it's not a card to compare this to in anything but functionality because it is obviously too strong to be printed in Standard. At 4 mana, what better card draw is there for Red/Blue?
You know what the only two real answers are? Jace and Chandra. And both of them are grinding, incremental card advantage machines, and both suffer from a host of other abilities that are not relevant to an Instant. The biggest argument for why this will see play is that there is nothing better in its colours at its cost, and it is good enough despite its negative qualities.
Worse cards than this have seen play in Standard. I imagine some of them have won the Pro Tour. The detractors of this card are angry they didn't get Fact or Fiction, and are hyperbolically expanding a relevant but oversimplified scenario of when the card plays poorly.
I am a "detractor" of this card. And it has nothing to do with me being angry it isn't Fact or Fiction. In fact, I'd be angry if they did print that, because that card was clearly overpowered.
And yet, I'm here explaining that I think this card is standard playable. Not because it is a great card (it isn't) but because there aren't really better alternatives. It is a card that is on par with, or maybe a sliver better than Inspiration. (In standard) And this is only if you're in those colors, and in the right deck. It obviously becomes way better than Inspiration if you can exploit the graveyard, but there really isn't much that can do that at the moment. So then I wonder why people are getting so worked up over what amounts to a "better Inspiration" if you're winning and a "horrible Inspiration" if you're losing. Risk/Reward and all that, but I evaluate it about the same overall.
The only thing I'm a detractor to are the people claiming this card is "almost" fact or fiction. That is laughable. It is a borderline playable standard card, and unlikely to be used heavily in any other competitive deck in any other format. I'm sure it will be experimented with in things that use Snapcaster. But I don't think it will make the cut.
Grand Arbiter
Omnath
Skittles
One of the following happens:
- you don't need specific card
- you need specific card and it isn't there in 5
- you need specific card and there are 1 of them in 5
- you need specific card and there are 2+ of them in 5
Only 1 out of 4 is bad outcome, which can be negated by snappy.
I'll talk about how much Magic I've played. I've been playing consistently since 1997 (and arguably a few years before that). There's no reason not to talk about it unless you're insecure for some reason.
Have you played Steam Augury yet? I haven't. But I have played FoF, and a lot of other draw spells besides. There have been many, many times where I needed a threat or an answer and I was able to dig for it. Now I'm sitting here, thinking about what would have happened in those same situations if my opponent had the choice of what cards went into my hand, and you know what conclusion I'm drawing? I would have lost almost every single one of those games. Again (and for the last time), needing an answer is not remotely an uncommon situation. You know what is an uncommon situation? Assuming that you will draw into multiple answers in those top 5, or that you will draw into something else that will enable you to dig deeper or use the cards in your graveyard. The only thing that is guaranteed with Steam Augury is that your opponent will pitch your best card, and if that card is something you need to survive another turn then you lose. That makes this card objectively and unquestionably bad.
I really am done with this thread now. Hope to see you on the other side of the table some day.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
This card is leagues apart from Fact or Fiction, but it is also much worse than Gifts. You cannot expect the top five cards to give you the ability to set up Gift traps. The ideal situation is an unreasonable one. If you expect your opponent to NOT know what card you need by turn 4, I don't know what to say.
You opponent will almost certainly know what deck you are playing by turn four. This card is 2 colors, so that severely limits what decks it could fit into. This card is also not suited for certain play styles (such as combo or aggro). If you have this card in your deck, your opponent knows what you are basically planning to do, especially by turn four. (URX Control "Draw-Go"esque control)
Therefore, your opponent will choose a pile based on board state and knowledge of the deck they are facing, which is enough information to ensure you get the worst of the two piles, regardless of how you engineer them. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but you have to be aware of that. You cannot bet on the off-chance that you will be able to "out-smart" your opponents. You have to judge the card in its worst state, then see if the benefits outweigh the risk in using the card.
I count 2 bad outcomes there, which is one more than Divination or Thoughtflare. Needing a specific card and seeing either 0/5 or 1/5 are both bad outcomes.
I am not saying this card is unplayable, but I am saying this card has a serious downside that cannot just be written off.
This card seems to put your deck to the test. The deck this card fits into cannot value card quality higher than card advantage, since you have a good chance of not getting what you will need, even if this card finds it in the top 5. This type of mechanic seems to be in the same vein as Covenant of Minds, though obviously this card is better by virtue of being an instant and only 4 mana (at the very least).
So, with a power level somewhere in between Covenant of Minds (unplayable) to Gifts Ungiven (playable in decks built around it), I say this card has a chance at filling a certain niche in a deck (whose existence in the format is not as stable as, for example, RDW) but other options will be generally better. If this card can find a deck that takes advantage of its perks (card advantage, graveyard shenanigans, EOT shenanigans) while maneuvering around its offsets (punisher effect) we could see this card make as big a splash as Vexing Devil, which is to say present in the metagame, but just barely.
In standard, we don't have a lot of good card draw. It is a reasonable card there as the card quality of the format is much worse.
I've seen a lot of people saying this card is a "slightly worse" Fact or Fiction. No.
It is a situationally better Inspiration.
This is 100 percent correct. Even kitchen table players know the type of cards the other guy needs to win. Basically you have to draw into two answers off the top. If you are already winning then any instant speed draw is good...if you are losing this reads get 4 irrelevant cards and lose your one out. Even in the best case you get 2 decent cards and one piece of junk. 2 decent cards are not going to cut it.
The only deck this would be good in is aggro decks and aggro has better ways to gain CA. Combat tricks like bloodrush/brave the elements or tons of different planeswalkers. This is just a really bad card and should not be run. If you are looking for a real draw spell try read the bones.
But there are no blue draw card that can dig deeper than 5 at this manacost range. Being worse than nonexistant card doesn't make a card bad.
Obviously if there was better draw spell, you'd put it in your deck. So, what draw spells are strictly better than augury in Std and Modern at 3-5 mana?
In modern? Thirst for Knowledge, Compulsive Research, Forbidden Alchemy all come to mind instantly. Mulldrifter probably even counts. And Jace Beleren.
Edit: Can't believe I forgot Gifts Ungiven. Or Vendillion Clique. Or Cryptic Command.
In standard, there isn't a lot of good card draw.
Who is claiming strictly better? I even said this card may have a niche in the metagame. But the card is too risky for most decks. Finding only one out in the top 5 will lose games for you, and it will happen often enough to affect results if your deck cannot turn the downside of the card into an upside.
If we are sticking to UR control decks in standard, Thoughtflare will generally be better for consistently digging for outs, Opportunity will be better as a Sphinx's Revelation look-alike, and Divination might have to be used if earlier drawing is needed. These options are more consistent in their effects, and control thrives on consistency.
Outside of Instants/Sorceries, Jace, Architect of Thought immediately comes to mind.
I will repeat: This card may have a niche in standard because of its minuscule card pool.
I hope you were kidding about modern. While nothing is strictly better, decks that want this card will probably want Gifts Ungiven more, and that is all that really needs to be said there.
Fact or Fiction and Gifts Ungiven are two of the most powerful card-drawing effects of all time.
Both were restricted in Vintage.
A card does not need to be as good as them to be "playable".
People keep looking at it as a control "answers" card, and well... yeah. Sometimes you can get the wrong answers.
But there are no wrong questions. In a deck executating a proactive, redundant game plan, the extra cards are going to be brutal.
What this card can do is dig for gas. In a more aggressive deck, the chance that you absolutely need a specific card is much lower than in a more controlling shell. If you're the aggressor, you just want threats, and with this card you can often create situations where you either get one or two major threats, or two or three smaller ones, both of which are welcome results when you're low on fuel. Decks like those with Pyromancer and Guttersnipe in them, for example, I could see using this card, since they'll usually be able to get value out of their spells regardless of which ones you give them. Competitively, I feel like this will mostly show up in fringe decks, but it's definitely a fun card and I, for one, am happy with it. There will be a lot of situations where you'll have to get creative with how you split the piles and try to confuse your opponent.
It's kind of funny how everyone is saying that it's the opposite of Fact or Fiction, but almost no one is considering playing it differently from Fact or Fiction.
I'd argue the EXACT inverse. If you see a card and only think about when it would be good, you are probably a terrible player. In fact, you should consider when a card is bad way before you think of situations where it is good. But, ultimately you need to consider all options and their likelihood.
Here is a fact about this card: It is very good when you don't need it to be very good. When you are simply casting this to gain card advantage, it is a pretty good spell. It will probably end up averaging you nearly a full card over Inspiration. The *quality* of those 3 cards you get vs. the *quality* of cards you get from Inspiration will probably be slightly lower though, and so it is probably best to look at this card as an Inspiration that draws you 2.5 cards (but rarely the best of them) when you are simply looking to gain card advantage.
Here is another fact about this card: It is VERY bad when you do need it to be good. When you're losing, and you need an answer, you are possibly better off topdecking vs. actually casting this card.
So this obviously brings up the next question: How often are you going to be in a position where you need answers?
- Well, in my opinion, often enough that the small utility gained from playing this over something else when you are in good shape is not enough to make up for the massive utility lost when you play this over a different card that might help you when you're in trouble.
People underestimate just how often it is that you'll be "in trouble." Well the answer is that you'll be in trouble in more than 50% of the games you play. Every game you lose will be one where you didn't have sufficient answers when you needed them. Even in games that you win there will be times when you had your back against the wall, but pulled answers in tight spots.
I add all this up and I see a card that, despite it's downsides, is probably an upgrade on Inspiration overall and thus should make it into some UR standard decks that are looking for card draw. There isn't a lot in UR that can abuse the graveyards at the moment, but if there were, it would improve the value of the card.
I look at modern, and I simply see better alternatives. Sure, Snapcaster Mage has good synergy with this card because it helps to alleviate the disadvantages to the card. But there are other cards that draw and stick stuff in the graveyard as well. Considering the increased speed and card quality in that format, I simply don't see this making a dent.
TL/DR version: This is a surprisingly playable "win-more" draw card. Should see some standard play, but will not be a gamebreaker.
Well, being in a losing position isn't exactly an uncommon situation. You should be able to broadly estimate how cards perform when you're in control of the game, when you're even, and when you're behind.
I agree with you in that it seems standard playable, despite all the trash I talked about it above. There just simply aren't better options for instant card draw around that cmc in standard, save maybe thoughtflare.
Of those only thirst is instant speed and it only gives you CA if you play artifacts. Alchemy gives no CA.
Gifts need specific deck (that no one managed to build yet).
Cryptic doesn't really compete for the same slot.
As far as draw-go is concerned, augury looks pretty good. Even being up there among top choices is enough.
Opportunity is different slot. 4 vs. 6 cmc don't really compete.
Thoughtflare seems good, but if no one played it before at 5, I doubt people will suddenly play it now. I'm not expert in draw-go, but I guess 5 was revelation territory, because for 5 it gives you same +1 CA.
Forbidden Alchemy is an instant. And better than this if you're playing Snapcaster.
It also gets considerably better if the deck playing it can take advantage of the cards going into the graveyard as well (good thing snappy's rotating).
Veritas. Aequitas.
Wha...?
Chill of Foreboding just mills 5 from both players, with flashback, for 3 mana, at sorcery speed. Why would that ever be comparable to a card that draws at least 2 (only ever draws less than that if you let it), at 4 mana, at instant speed?
Between this comment and the whole discussion around Ashiok, I feel like people are losing track of the fact that milling a library generally doesn't help you win the game at all (literally: you are on average no better off milling a card than doing nothing) unless you can mill an enemy out entirely.
Forbidden alchemy serves a different role than this, whether you're playing with Snapcaster or not. FA only gives you one card, and you get to chose the one you need the most. Steam augury gives you 2.5 cards not of your choice. Of course Forbidden Alchemy is better if you're trying to use Steam Augury to filter your draws, SA doesn't do that. But SA is a lot better at producing immediate card advantage. 2.5 cards in hand and 2.5 cards in the graveyard immediately 4 on turn 4, vs. 1 card in hand and 3 in the yard on turn 3 and a second in hand and 3 more in the yard turn 7 at the earliest. I don't understand how you can even compare them, they serve totally different purposes in deck construction.
"I am confident that if anyone actually
penetrates our facades, even the most
perceptive would still be fundamentally
unprepared for the truth of House Dimir."
Forbidden Alchemy is different, yes, and better. You get the best card out of your top 4. You'll never get that with Augury. Not like it matters, because rotation.
Anyway, this thread just keeps repeating itself. Augury is fine if: (1) you have two cards in the top 5 you want; or (2) the opponent does not know what it is that you really want to draw. However, neither of these are optimal because: (1) if you have a deck that is likely to have redundant answers in your top 5, then you probably shouldn't be spending 5 on dedicated card draw; and (2) it is a very bad idea to bet on your opponents being bad at magic.
In pretty much every other situation, Augury is pretty stinky. "But but but you might draw 3 cards." Yes, it's true. There are conceivable piles where the opponent would be right to give you 3 or even 4 cards instead the bomb you dug for. It may even be true that you can consistently get 3 cards off of this guy as long as you make your pile correctly. 2 spells versus 3 lands seems like a pretty reliable way to get 3 in your hand, for instance.
But what the naysayers keep saying, and the proponents keep overlooking, is that you are going to get your 3 WORST cards. If you split them equally on a regular basis, you are usually going to get an Inspiration out of this. An inspiration which will never give you the card your opponent thinks is the best for you. An inspiration that lets your opponent trash your best card so you will not draw it. That's why people keep making that comparison. If you reliably draw 3, you are reliably drawing the 3 worst cards in your top 5. Keep that in mind.
"But my deck only has good cards so the 3 worst is fine." Alright, here again we have the redundancy issue. If your deck is all good, why are you wasting a five drop slot on raw card draw instead of just continuing to draw good stuff?
This card is playable -- if there is a deck that just wants raw card advantage. For example, if we have a powerful effect that you pay for by discarding cards, then the idea of forcing your opponent to give you 3 crap cards to fuel the engine is fine. In that respect, it's kind of like how Land Tax works very well with Scroll Rack. There is no such deck, or cards really, in standard.
It is also workable in reanimator, as people said, because if you get access to all five anyway it's gravy. A deck full of Recoup effects, for example, is fine with this. But, as people pointed out, the closest thing we have to this - Snappy - is rotating. So there's no deck there either.
Bottom line: this card is bad at the moment and would take some very specific types of printing to make it worthwhile.
Also, if you know your opponent knows you need 1 specific card in that moment to win/not lose, why would you divide the piles at a 2/3 split? It seems like a lot of people attacking this card are not only assuming your opponent has perfect information, but also that you are an idiot.
If I need a sweeper and the split is Verdict, another draw spell, and 3 lands, I am definitely splitting the pile as 1/4. Yes, that draw spell and those 3 lands were not the cards I needed, but you forced your opponent to give you a massive amount of card advantage and a card that could give you another shot at drawing the sweeper.
Point is, if you are assuming your opponent is going to pick perfectly each time, why put yourself at a disadvantage by not drawing as many cards as possible?
Further point: If you look at 5 cards and there's only 1 out amongst them, you need to consider how greatly the odds of another out being on top of your deck have become. Getting all that information might seem irrelevant at the time, but it does increase the chances the card you need is amongst the rest of your deck by a considerable margin.
It gets even better if it seems like you need a sweeper and you have one in your hand.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Indeed. Skilled players will be able to weigh the potential costs of choosing to lose maybe more life, or give up more board presence, in order to create situations wherein they can achieve greater net advantage with skill intensive cards like this one.
I fully understand the argument that this card can not get you out of a really bad spot given certain circumstances. But given the righteousness of people detracting this card, the situations they ascribe to it seem like even a successful recovery would merely be a hiccup to eventual defeat. If I am dead on board without a removal spell and I do get one, whose to say I'm not still dead on board next turn? There are times even when the successful Fact or Fiction is not enough, and it's not a card to compare this to in anything but functionality because it is obviously too strong to be printed in Standard. At 4 mana, what better card draw is there for Red/Blue?
You know what the only two real answers are? Jace and Chandra. And both of them are grinding, incremental card advantage machines, and both suffer from a host of other abilities that are not relevant to an Instant. The biggest argument for why this will see play is that there is nothing better in its colours at its cost, and it is good enough despite its negative qualities.
Worse cards than this have seen play in Standard. I imagine some of them have won the Pro Tour. The detractors of this card are angry they didn't get Fact or Fiction, and are hyperbolically expanding a relevant but oversimplified scenario of when the card plays poorly.
I am a "detractor" of this card. And it has nothing to do with me being angry it isn't Fact or Fiction. In fact, I'd be angry if they did print that, because that card was clearly overpowered.
And yet, I'm here explaining that I think this card is standard playable. Not because it is a great card (it isn't) but because there aren't really better alternatives. It is a card that is on par with, or maybe a sliver better than Inspiration. (In standard) And this is only if you're in those colors, and in the right deck. It obviously becomes way better than Inspiration if you can exploit the graveyard, but there really isn't much that can do that at the moment. So then I wonder why people are getting so worked up over what amounts to a "better Inspiration" if you're winning and a "horrible Inspiration" if you're losing. Risk/Reward and all that, but I evaluate it about the same overall.
The only thing I'm a detractor to are the people claiming this card is "almost" fact or fiction. That is laughable. It is a borderline playable standard card, and unlikely to be used heavily in any other competitive deck in any other format. I'm sure it will be experimented with in things that use Snapcaster. But I don't think it will make the cut.