Everyone is allowed an opinion. However, regardless of the presence of Fetch lands or what is in your deck, Ponder is always a better card. I could go very in-depth on the statistics on this, but just trust in the simple math. Looking at 4 different cards is always better than looking at 3, always. There is a reason Ponder and not Preordain is restricted in Vintage. It has more digging power to find the cards you need, when you need them. That is the whole point of cantrips.
I get into this discussion primarily with newer players, and I feel it comes down to the fact that Brainstorm and Ponder to a lesser extent force a player to make harder decisions. If you Ponder and find 1 good card, and two bad cards what do you do? If you Preordain and find one bad and one good card it seems fairly simple. However, the Player who Pondered has more information than the one who Preordain's and can make a a more informed decision.
It may seem that because the player who preordained gets to keep the good card but not the bad one is in better shape than the player who decided to shuffle, looking for a specific card. This is however not the case, as statistically he has a higher chance of finding the right card.
Everyone is allowed an opinion. However, regardless of the presence of Fetch lands or what is in your deck, Ponder is always a better card. I could go very in-depth on the statistics on this, but just trust in the simple math. Looking at 4 different cards is always better than looking at 3, always. There is a reason Ponder and not Preordain is restricted in Vintage. It has more digging power to find the cards you need, when you need them. That is the whole point of cantrips.
I was under the impression that ponder is restricted in Vintage not because of the number of cards you see. I thought its because of the optional shuffle.
On the cantrip thesis, they are used to effectively replace themselves after doing something (i.e. spreading seas is a cantrip). I may be wrong on this. Oh well, "C'est la vie".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Failing to Find" Since March 2010.
Current Capt. of Team "Ju"
I play this:
Standard:
Rotation is coming...
Modern: GGGSTOMPY
ZOO (Goyf-less)
Legacy:
Brewing
EDH:
Too many to name.
The conclusion is that the expected value of the next 3 cards drawn would be better using preordain vs ponder.
Food for thought!
For the record, this is entirely unscientific. In statistics you cannot assume that a card you see (in the case of Ponder) is the same as the third card you cannot see with preordain. All unknown cards have a percentage to be any cards remaining in the deck. They are neither good or bad, simply they exist.
The data you present is based on a wrong presumption.
The instances where preordain seem better than ponder are invalidated by this assumption, because of the fundamentals of statistics. You cannot compare the two situations as though they are the same.
Avg(E(x) 2.07 1.93
The conclusion is that the expected value of the next 3 cards drawn would be better using preordain vs ponder.
Food for thought!
For the record, this is entirely unscientific. In statistics you cannot assume that a card you see (in the case of Ponder) is the same as the third card you cannot see with preordain. All unknown cards have a percentage to be any cards remaining in the deck. They are neither good or bad, simply they exist.
The data you present is based on a wrong presumption.
The instances where preordain seem better than ponder are invalidated by this assumption, because of the fundamentals of statistics. You cannot compare the two situations as though they are the same.
You are both wrong.
SicksEyeUrn failed to account for the probability of each pattern occurring. In other words, that analysis is only correct if all those patterns are equally likely. If your deck is equally likely to have 3 bad cards on top as 3 good cards, then you're doing it wrong. Note also that the chart could change drastically based upon the situation.
Ponder gives you more information, and is better for digging for a single specific card.
Preordain provides better incremental advantage.
Note: I did not read the entire thread, only the first and last pages.
If the OP question reflects Standard play, I have a love affair with Pyromancer Ascension, so I would play both all day, every day.
Yeah. The only thing that really matters is that there are now 12 1-mana U cantrips for Pyromancer Ascension (4 Ponder, 4 Preordain, 4 probe). :D. How many is too many??
And look at the Pauper decklists on MTGO, Preordain sees much more play than ponder outside of storm decks.
Pauper is a little weird though mostly because there aren't that many efficient shuffle effects. Brainstorm of all cards is legal in pauper and sees very little play in blue-control decks because it is difficult to shuffle and brainstorm gets better the higher power level your cards are.
There is a reason that Preordain is played in 0 legacy decks that are not already running 4x Brainstorm and 4x Ponder........ You can really tell who reads this thread by the votes here.
One of the first posters had it correct, statistics dont lie. Ponder you have the option of 3 known cards and 1 unknown. Preordain you have the option of 2 known cards and 1 unknown.
The difference is that cards in Legacy are leaps and bounds stronger then cards available in standard at any one time, and even more so when combined synergisticly. That is why Ponder is played there, you see more good cards and can make a better decisions.
However, in Standard, you have a preponderence of sub-par role filler cards. This is a format where reliability and consistencey reign supreme (Caw-Blade anyone?) and to fill that role Preordain is much better. If you Ponder you will be lucky to see 2 Good cards at any one time (even if you can't use them) meaning you will take the good one and lose 2 draws of sub-par cards or shuffle it away for random hopes. Preordain gets rid of the junk that you don't need and gives you more consistency for the stuff you do need.
So in Legacy where all of your cards are good and seeing more of them is better, Ponder is where it is at. In Standard, where you want a smoother, more reliable game where you draw less bad cards, Preordain is where it is at.
We don't play Magic in a vacuum and we can't evaluate cards that way either.
Everyone is allowed an opinion. However, regardless of the presence of Fetch lands or what is in your deck, Ponder is always a better card. I could go very in-depth on the statistics on this, but just trust in the simple math. Looking at 4 different cards is always better than looking at 3, always. There is a reason Ponder and not Preordain is restricted in Vintage. It has more digging power to find the cards you need, when you need them. That is the whole point of cantrips.
I get into this discussion primarily with newer players, and I feel it comes down to the fact that Brainstorm and Ponder to a lesser extent force a player to make harder decisions. If you Ponder and find 1 good card, and two bad cards what do you do? If you Preordain and find one bad and one good card it seems fairly simple. However, the Player who Pondered has more information than the one who Preordain's and can make a a more informed decision.
It may seem that because the player who preordained gets to keep the good card but not the bad one is in better shape than the player who decided to shuffle, looking for a specific card. This is however not the case, as statistically he has a higher chance of finding the right card.
I seriously don't understand why it's so difficult for so many to understand.
Again, it depends on everything else.
Your example of the "simple math" would be fine and dandy if we're playing a deck that really only wants to find one card to try and win. But a lot of decks, mostly in standard or whatever, don't work that way.
Ignoring how great Preordain was with Jace The Mind Sculptor, look at most of your U/B or U/W control decks. They'll try and trade resources left and right before coming out ahead. THAT is their gameplan. That means that later in the game, Preordain was often still going to be better for them because they weren't looking for a "get out of jail free" card that flat-out wins them the game. They were looking for the right cards (PLURAL) to overwhelm you with their card quality versus yours.
And that is ignoring how vastly superior a really early Preordain was to a Ponder effect. Obviously, most of us know by now that Preordain had more value later in the game... but sometimes you had to cast the early Preordain (mostly to make sure you hit your land drops) and there should be NO QUESTION that Preordain worked better than Ponder in that situation.
Basically, that's the problem with your "simple math" - it's FAR too simple and completely ignores how the game of Magic actually gets played.
It may seem that because the player who preordained gets to keep the good card but not the bad one is in better shape than the player who decided to shuffle, looking for a specific card. This is however not the case, as statistically he has a higher chance of finding the right card.
...the worst thing is that you totally seem to have a lot of appreciation of how one card works versus the other.
But I bolded the very relevant part of your argument.
If you ARE looking for a very specific card then you want Ponder. THAT is very, very true. That's why you should probably just assume you want Ponder if you're some sorta combo deck.
Alas, many decks in standard are slow control decks that aren't generally looking for one specific card. Again, they'll trade resources and probably beat you later with planeswalkers. They'll "get around to it" and if you're sorta just "getting around to it" then you should probably assume that you're better off with Preordain (unless, like in legacy, you're probably just going to be shuffling your deck on pretty much every freaking turn anyways).
For the record, this is entirely unscientific. In statistics you cannot assume that a card you see (in the case of Ponder) is the same as the third card you cannot see with preordain. All unknown cards have a percentage to be any cards remaining in the deck. They are neither good or bad, simply they exist.
The data you present is based on a wrong presumption.
The instances where preordain seem better than ponder are invalidated by this assumption, because of the fundamentals of statistics. You cannot compare the two situations as though they are the same.
For the record, you are wrong. I won't bother explaining why because judging by your argument you would not understand.
SicksEyeUrn failed to account for the probability of each pattern occurring. In other words, that analysis is only correct if all those patterns are equally likely. If your deck is equally likely to have 3 bad cards on top as 3 good cards, then you're doing it wrong. Note also that the chart could change drastically based upon the situation.
Ponder gives you more information, and is better for digging for a single specific card.
Preordain provides better incremental advantage.
Note: I did not read the entire thread, only the first and last pages.
I think I was pretty clear in stating my assumption that the chance of drawing G and the chance of drawing B were 0.5. In that scenario, I think it is clear that each scenario has an equal likely chance of occurring. Think of flipping a coin. That is why I structured the analysis this way. G simply represents a card that a player wants to see, and is not necessarily good or bad or rather is good or bad only in the context of the current board state. You can disagree with my assumptions but other than the poster which pointed out the combination I had missed, you cannot argue the math.
And for the record, both preordain and ponder give you access to the top 3 cards. So the odds of you drawing the exact card you need (provided they are a 4 of in the deck) is at most 4/53 = 7.5% better with Ponder vs Preordain. However this may be reason enough for some to elect to run Ponder.
Edit: For those complaining about the math, put up or shut up. Anecdotal statements and hyperbole have not disproved 1 + 1 = 2 in the last 10,000 years and I do not expect them to do so any time soon but if it makes yourself feel like you know what you are talking about then knock yourself out.
And for the record, both preordain and ponder give you access to the top 3 cards. So the odds of you drawing the exact card you need (provided they are a 4 of in the deck) is at most 4/53 = 7.5% better with Ponder vs Preordain. However this may be reason enough for some to elect to run Ponder.
I love how everyone is trying to do math here for something that is really very simple to understand and doesn't require it.
...but yeah, your math is pretty screwed up there, too, mate.
Well, your math isn't terribly screwed up (though it is bad)... but your logic and, especially, what you're saying IS totally screwed up.
both preordain and ponder give you access to the top 3 cards.
Ponder shows you 3 cards every time. Preordain shows you 2 every time. You can see, optionally, a fourth card with Ponder. You can see, optionally, a third card with Preordain.
Numbers don't mean anything unless they're applied to something. The game we're playing isn't called Magic: the Numbers, where because your numbers are larger based on math done in a vacuum means you win. The cards each do different things in different decks and formats. A straight comparison between the two without taking either of those things into consideration first is an invalid one because of the mere fact that the game we are all playing isn't Magic: the Numbers.
If you are using it early to get a land, Ponder is much much better. You don't want to put your business spells on the bottom of your library just to get to a land. Doing so will reduce your future draws by the before mentioned .16 to 2%.
Preordain takes 3 or so draws before it catches up to Ponder, and it needs to only place cards on the bottom that you never want to see again (not just ones you don't want right now.)
It hasn't been mentioned a lot here, but Preordain is Insane in multiples! This is probably the best argument for using it. As the benefits to future draws stack.
Preordain also gets better the more you draw, as you are able to take advantage of the small increase in future card quality. If you don't have any ways to draw cards then Ponder is probably better.
If you are using it early to get a land, Ponder is much much better. You don't want to put your business spells on the bottom of your library just to get to a land. Doing so will reduce your future draws by the before mentioned .16 to 2%.
The problem with that is that you can Ponder and see ONE land and two non-land. Sure, you get the land... but you then know that you're not going to be getting another one in the very immediate future. What do you do? Do you shuffle and gamble? Yes, if you're playing a deck that needs very few land then Ponder is better at making sure you get that one land... but, again, Ponder is just better at making sure you get that ONE card you really want. In standard, most of the decks that played Preordain were actually MUCH better off with an early Preordain than they would have been with an early Ponder. Forgetting the fact that they will eventually shuffle and their "business spells" won't stay at the bottom, they usually wanted to use the card to make sure they made multiple land drops in the immediate future.
Preordain was MUCH better than Ponder if you had to play it early because you wanted to make sure you made land drops in your early turns.
But, again, it really depends on everything else in your deck.
Preordain takes 3 or so draws before it catches up to Ponder, and it needs to only place cards on the bottom that you never want to see again (not just ones you don't want right now.)
Sorry, this actually doesn't even make sense to me.
It hasn't been mentioned a lot here, but Preordain is Insane in multiples! This is probably the best argument for using it. As the benefits to future draws stack.
Preordain also gets better the more you draw, as you are able to take advantage of the small increase in future card quality. If you don't have any ways to draw cards then Ponder is probably better.
Again, I'm actually a little lost on exactly what your logic is... but it does seem a little faulty to me.
Ponder can be silly when you look the top cards, shuffle and draw one of them.
Theres no risk involved when using Preordain.
So in Legacy where all of your cards are good and seeing more of them is better, Ponder is where it is at. In Standard, where you want a smoother, more reliable game where you draw less bad cards, Preordain is where it is at.
We don't play Magic in a vacuum and we can't evaluate cards that way either.
preordain. it's better draw filtering for the average deck because with scry you ensure you won't see the cards you put away at least barring shuffle effects.
With Ponder being back for m12, obviously it will replace Preordain post rotation. However, what about pre-rotation? Do you think one heavily outclasses the other or do you think a mix of the two would be ideal?
So... we are talking about standard right... since every other format has had ponder (and preordain) for a long time...
With that out of the way, preordain is better in a standard enviroment... i mean... Jace is gone and preordain still sees play in blue decks while ponder does not...
Power-wise... Ponder digs more cards = better especially in decks that run A LOT of shuffle effects, but this standard is NOT one with that many shuffle effects even with fetch lands, most decks don't run more than 3 - 5 of those so it's mostly irrelevant (except in combo decks in wich most of the time you are just looking for one card to win)
It hasn't been mentioned a lot here, but Preordain is Insane in multiples! This is probably the best argument for using it. As the benefits to future draws stack.
Preordain also gets better the more you draw, as you are able to take advantage of the small increase in future card quality. If you don't have any ways to draw cards then Ponder is probably better.
Obviously, depends on deck, but this is probably the most relevant argument for preordain. Without shuffle effects, preordain can be used to completely filter cards with the scry. This gets more powerful with each one played (and other scry effects), but as soon as you shuffle, you lost any benefit. Ponder on the other hand always retains the same power at all times, and can be thrown into a deck without designing around it. With fetches being so important right now, preordain seems under-powered, but if tutors and fetches start seeing less play (unlikely as it is), it would be a much more powerful card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
6*9=42
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I get into this discussion primarily with newer players, and I feel it comes down to the fact that Brainstorm and Ponder to a lesser extent force a player to make harder decisions. If you Ponder and find 1 good card, and two bad cards what do you do? If you Preordain and find one bad and one good card it seems fairly simple. However, the Player who Pondered has more information than the one who Preordain's and can make a a more informed decision.
It may seem that because the player who preordained gets to keep the good card but not the bad one is in better shape than the player who decided to shuffle, looking for a specific card. This is however not the case, as statistically he has a higher chance of finding the right card.
http://hgcube.blogspot.com/ (help me Make my Custom CUBE!)
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=382498
The "Make a Proxy Thread
Redit Proxy Article "current gallery"
MY LEGACY ALTERS
I was under the impression that ponder is restricted in Vintage not because of the number of cards you see. I thought its because of the optional shuffle.
On the cantrip thesis, they are used to effectively replace themselves after doing something (i.e. spreading seas is a cantrip). I may be wrong on this. Oh well, "C'est la vie".
Current Capt. of Team "Ju"
I play this:
Rotation is coming...
Modern: GGGSTOMPY
ZOO (Goyf-less)
Legacy:
Brewing
EDH:
Too many to name.
For the record, this is entirely unscientific. In statistics you cannot assume that a card you see (in the case of Ponder) is the same as the third card you cannot see with preordain. All unknown cards have a percentage to be any cards remaining in the deck. They are neither good or bad, simply they exist.
The data you present is based on a wrong presumption.
The instances where preordain seem better than ponder are invalidated by this assumption, because of the fundamentals of statistics. You cannot compare the two situations as though they are the same.
http://hgcube.blogspot.com/ (help me Make my Custom CUBE!)
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=382498
The "Make a Proxy Thread
Redit Proxy Article "current gallery"
MY LEGACY ALTERS
/thread.
You are both wrong.
SicksEyeUrn failed to account for the probability of each pattern occurring. In other words, that analysis is only correct if all those patterns are equally likely. If your deck is equally likely to have 3 bad cards on top as 3 good cards, then you're doing it wrong. Note also that the chart could change drastically based upon the situation.
Ponder gives you more information, and is better for digging for a single specific card.
Preordain provides better incremental advantage.
Note: I did not read the entire thread, only the first and last pages.
Yeah. The only thing that really matters is that there are now 12 1-mana U cantrips for Pyromancer Ascension (4 Ponder, 4 Preordain, 4 probe). :D. How many is too many??
:symu::symr: Melek WheelStorm
:symw::symg: Trostani Enchantress (updated 6/5)
:symg::symr::symu: Unexpected Results.dec
Thada Adel Stax WIP
Pauper is a little weird though mostly because there aren't that many efficient shuffle effects. Brainstorm of all cards is legal in pauper and sees very little play in blue-control decks because it is difficult to shuffle and brainstorm gets better the higher power level your cards are.
The difference is that cards in Legacy are leaps and bounds stronger then cards available in standard at any one time, and even more so when combined synergisticly. That is why Ponder is played there, you see more good cards and can make a better decisions.
However, in Standard, you have a preponderence of sub-par role filler cards. This is a format where reliability and consistencey reign supreme (Caw-Blade anyone?) and to fill that role Preordain is much better. If you Ponder you will be lucky to see 2 Good cards at any one time (even if you can't use them) meaning you will take the good one and lose 2 draws of sub-par cards or shuffle it away for random hopes. Preordain gets rid of the junk that you don't need and gives you more consistency for the stuff you do need.
So in Legacy where all of your cards are good and seeing more of them is better, Ponder is where it is at. In Standard, where you want a smoother, more reliable game where you draw less bad cards, Preordain is where it is at.
We don't play Magic in a vacuum and we can't evaluate cards that way either.
I seriously don't understand why it's so difficult for so many to understand.
Again, it depends on everything else.
Your example of the "simple math" would be fine and dandy if we're playing a deck that really only wants to find one card to try and win. But a lot of decks, mostly in standard or whatever, don't work that way.
Ignoring how great Preordain was with Jace The Mind Sculptor, look at most of your U/B or U/W control decks. They'll try and trade resources left and right before coming out ahead. THAT is their gameplan. That means that later in the game, Preordain was often still going to be better for them because they weren't looking for a "get out of jail free" card that flat-out wins them the game. They were looking for the right cards (PLURAL) to overwhelm you with their card quality versus yours.
And that is ignoring how vastly superior a really early Preordain was to a Ponder effect. Obviously, most of us know by now that Preordain had more value later in the game... but sometimes you had to cast the early Preordain (mostly to make sure you hit your land drops) and there should be NO QUESTION that Preordain worked better than Ponder in that situation.
Basically, that's the problem with your "simple math" - it's FAR too simple and completely ignores how the game of Magic actually gets played.
...the worst thing is that you totally seem to have a lot of appreciation of how one card works versus the other.
But I bolded the very relevant part of your argument.
If you ARE looking for a very specific card then you want Ponder. THAT is very, very true. That's why you should probably just assume you want Ponder if you're some sorta combo deck.
Alas, many decks in standard are slow control decks that aren't generally looking for one specific card. Again, they'll trade resources and probably beat you later with planeswalkers. They'll "get around to it" and if you're sorta just "getting around to it" then you should probably assume that you're better off with Preordain (unless, like in legacy, you're probably just going to be shuffling your deck on pretty much every freaking turn anyways).
For the record, you are wrong. I won't bother explaining why because judging by your argument you would not understand.
I think I was pretty clear in stating my assumption that the chance of drawing G and the chance of drawing B were 0.5. In that scenario, I think it is clear that each scenario has an equal likely chance of occurring. Think of flipping a coin. That is why I structured the analysis this way. G simply represents a card that a player wants to see, and is not necessarily good or bad or rather is good or bad only in the context of the current board state. You can disagree with my assumptions but other than the poster which pointed out the combination I had missed, you cannot argue the math.
And for the record, both preordain and ponder give you access to the top 3 cards. So the odds of you drawing the exact card you need (provided they are a 4 of in the deck) is at most 4/53 = 7.5% better with Ponder vs Preordain. However this may be reason enough for some to elect to run Ponder.
Edit: For those complaining about the math, put up or shut up. Anecdotal statements and hyperbole have not disproved 1 + 1 = 2 in the last 10,000 years and I do not expect them to do so any time soon but if it makes yourself feel like you know what you are talking about then knock yourself out.
Tiamat, Chromatic Dragon RWUBG
Planeswalker - Tiamat
[+1] Sit on Nicol Bolas
[+0] Wait for him to beg for mercy, rule the multiverse.
[-7] Not necessary, she is the ultimate.
I love how everyone is trying to do math here for something that is really very simple to understand and doesn't require it.
...but yeah, your math is pretty screwed up there, too, mate.
Well, your math isn't terribly screwed up (though it is bad)... but your logic and, especially, what you're saying IS totally screwed up.
Ponder shows you 3 cards every time. Preordain shows you 2 every time. You can see, optionally, a fourth card with Ponder. You can see, optionally, a third card with Preordain.
Numbers don't mean anything unless they're applied to something. The game we're playing isn't called Magic: the Numbers, where because your numbers are larger based on math done in a vacuum means you win. The cards each do different things in different decks and formats. A straight comparison between the two without taking either of those things into consideration first is an invalid one because of the mere fact that the game we are all playing isn't Magic: the Numbers.
Buy from me on TCGPlayer::Twitter::Flickr
Preordain takes 3 or so draws before it catches up to Ponder, and it needs to only place cards on the bottom that you never want to see again (not just ones you don't want right now.)
It hasn't been mentioned a lot here, but Preordain is Insane in multiples! This is probably the best argument for using it. As the benefits to future draws stack.
Preordain also gets better the more you draw, as you are able to take advantage of the small increase in future card quality. If you don't have any ways to draw cards then Ponder is probably better.
The problem with that is that you can Ponder and see ONE land and two non-land. Sure, you get the land... but you then know that you're not going to be getting another one in the very immediate future. What do you do? Do you shuffle and gamble? Yes, if you're playing a deck that needs very few land then Ponder is better at making sure you get that one land... but, again, Ponder is just better at making sure you get that ONE card you really want. In standard, most of the decks that played Preordain were actually MUCH better off with an early Preordain than they would have been with an early Ponder. Forgetting the fact that they will eventually shuffle and their "business spells" won't stay at the bottom, they usually wanted to use the card to make sure they made multiple land drops in the immediate future.
Preordain was MUCH better than Ponder if you had to play it early because you wanted to make sure you made land drops in your early turns.
But, again, it really depends on everything else in your deck.
Sorry, this actually doesn't even make sense to me.
Again, I'm actually a little lost on exactly what your logic is... but it does seem a little faulty to me.
Theres no risk involved when using Preordain.
Thats how it works on my mind
EDIT: well I agreed 100% before his edit. Now I only agree with the first 50% of what he wrote.
Not enough knowledge for me to say squat about legacy vs standard.
Only to shuffle. Like the turn after a less good brainstorm.
1. Was Ponder in the same Standard format as fetchlands?
2. Would Preordain have been played if it was in M10?
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=317475478823307368#overview/src=dashboard
Like reading magic theory?
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2901104710618966704#overview/src=dashboard
Are you a navy Nuke?
http://blueconceptnavynuke.blogspot.com/2012/08/captains-mast-at-nnptc.html
So... we are talking about standard right... since every other format has had ponder (and preordain) for a long time...
With that out of the way, preordain is better in a standard enviroment... i mean... Jace is gone and preordain still sees play in blue decks while ponder does not...
Power-wise... Ponder digs more cards = better especially in decks that run A LOT of shuffle effects, but this standard is NOT one with that many shuffle effects even with fetch lands, most decks don't run more than 3 - 5 of those so it's mostly irrelevant (except in combo decks in wich most of the time you are just looking for one card to win)
My 2 cents
Best regards
this i concur.
Like anime? My AnimeList Profile: zero_99
You can find me on MODO ID: 07Ghost
Obviously, depends on deck, but this is probably the most relevant argument for preordain. Without shuffle effects, preordain can be used to completely filter cards with the scry. This gets more powerful with each one played (and other scry effects), but as soon as you shuffle, you lost any benefit. Ponder on the other hand always retains the same power at all times, and can be thrown into a deck without designing around it. With fetches being so important right now, preordain seems under-powered, but if tutors and fetches start seeing less play (unlikely as it is), it would be a much more powerful card.