Ancestral Testament2 Artifact
Psychometry (As you cast this spell or whenever it leaves the stack, you may shuffle up to three cards from your hand into your library, then draw that many cards.) 4, Exile Ancestral Testament from any revealed zone: Draw three cards. "It is not what's written that tells your fate—but what your heart discerns of it."
Realm of the Ancients1R Enchantment
If you control no creatures, Realm of the Ancients can't be countered.
Giant spells you cast cost 1 less to cast for each basic Mountain you control. "Abandon all hope—ye who enter here—and all ye who glimpse its existence."
Realm of the Ancients is a perfectly cromulent magic card that 100% fits within the rules of MTG. It's a bit strong if you have low drop giants in standard (3 mana to adventure and cast bonecrusher on turn 3 is mean) but should be decent in formats with more expensive giants as it doesn't impact the board on it's own. It took you a very long time but the screaming demons in your head finally aligned with the actual rules of this game.
Realm of the Ancients is a perfectly cromulent magic card that 100% fits within the rules of MTG. It's a bit strong if you have low drop giants in standard (3 mana to adventure and cast bonecrusher on turn 3 is mean) but should be decent in formats with more expensive giants as it doesn't impact the board on it's own. It took you a very long time but the screaming demons in your head finally aligned with the actual rules of this game.
Again, congratulations on a card well-designed.
Making a call here to show how tactical enchantments at the two spot can prime adaptability for deck structures. With other ones, and contemporaries, they can form a spread that secure the percentile clench.
Taking the second one first: Realm of the Ancients is... fine. Two mana to give all your Giants Affinity for Mountains may be slightly too cheap, but at least it functions in the rules. The can't be countered will pretty much never be relevant, but it works as trinket text.
Ancestral Testament show a complete lack of understanding of game balance or how rules work. Casting the spell means you get to pay two mana four two uncounterable filter-three-card effects (because, yes "As you cast this spell or when it leaves the stack" triggers twice no matter how much you don't want it to) and it would cost around THREE mana to get a SPELL that does this ONCE.
The second ability says "3: Draw three" because <drumroll> the graveyard is a revealed zone and <drumroll> a card in exile can still be "exiled" in which case it just doesn't change zones. However, even if that wasn't the case, a colorless three mana draw effect that cannot be countered is beyond overpowered.
Learn the rules, learn the game. Then you can actually execute well on your ideas and people would actually respect you and take you seriously.
Its BS buzzword soup that he made up that either doesn't mean anything or it means something else and hes's using it in the wrong way. Just like pretty much everything else he says in an attempt to sound intellectual that actually does the opposite.
It refers to probability factoring in your deck's contents. To secure a successful consistency to access a content at the start of the game, or for it to see enduring utility through the mid-late game, the percentile clench of that content (or spread combination) defines your success for better or worse.
For example,
4 copies of something gives you a 48% chance of drawing it in your opening hand.
But now, say you run 4 copies of something and then 3 copies of a contemporary. You now have 7 total copies in your spread, which gives you a percentile clench of 82% to draw their utility in your opening hand. The way that probability works, percentages at or below the 50% threshold actually play out with less success than they suggest they have. So 4 copies is going to play out worse than 50% across 5 games.
As your percentile clench approaches and exceed the 100% threshold, the odds increase, but never exceed 99% until it's exponentially proportionate to the full contents (300% out of 100% for example). Until the percentile clench reaches or exceeds this, you will simply have a 99.999~% chance whose probable factor now plays out in reverse, and sees that you have a 99.999% chance where 1 out 100 games are destine to fail; or 1 out of 1,000 games are destine to fail; or 1 out of 10,000 games are destine to fail—and so on—as the percentile clench exceeds the 100% threshold.
When regarding the [enduring properties] of probability factoring, the percentage of the utility's contents remaining, as the deck's contents decreases, now decides the percentile clench. And thus, how reliable or unreliable that utility will be (at your disposal or access) as they are used up and the deck's contents wane down.
So creating contemporary content, at the same place on the mana curve, enables spreads to be form in a deck structure to secure a successful percentile clench for that utility. This can include not only cards that do the same or similar thing (Crusade + Divine Sacrament), but also cards that can provide access to copies of that utility.
Taking the second one first: Realm of the Ancients is... fine. Two mana to give all your Giants Affinity for Mountains may be slightly too cheap, but at least it functions in the rules. The can't be countered will pretty much never be relevant, but it works as trinket text.
Ancestral Testament show a complete lack of understanding of game balance or how rules work. Casting the spell means you get to pay two mana four two uncounterable filter-three-card effects (because, yes "As you cast this spell or when it leaves the stack" triggers twice no matter how much you don't want it to) and it would cost around THREE mana to get a SPELL that does this ONCE.
The second ability says "3: Draw three" because <drumroll> the graveyard is a revealed zone and <drumroll> a card in exile can still be "exiled" in which case it just doesn't change zones. However, even if that wasn't the case, a colorless three mana draw effect that cannot be countered is beyond overpowered.
I was on the ropes about that technicality. I don't believe an exile card should be able to be exiled again, unless it's changing face (going face-down for example—or from face-down to face up). In the least, this dynamic should be added to the rules to better clarify, and provide cleaning functionality abroad.
As for the testament, I think you're underthinking the design. Put it all together on a blue spell and take another look.
At five mana, you will say the effect is fair. Psychometry is worth one mana—and draw three cards is worth 4. If you're splitting the effect across a turn, now you have time and interactivity that sees further fair measure.
Also consider that if you're doing it all at once, you're tapping out, and passing the turn. So it basically says, end the turn.
It might end up on the restricted list for Legacy/Vintage, but it's not wrong. It's just absolute precision.
EDIT: Also note that it's only basic Mountains—so it's far apart from Affinity.
Honest question: What do you get out of posting your work here?
I have seen little to no evidence of you actually listening to criticism, speaking in a way that other people understand, or otherwise engaging with the people around here in a positive manner.
Are you just trying to engage in the therapy of getting yelled at like I am engaging in the therapeutic process of digitally yelling at you? I mean, this is cheaper than actual therapy but I do admit some lingering curiosity.
Honest question: What do you get out of posting your work here?
I have seen little to no evidence of you actually listening to criticism, speaking in a way that other people understand, or otherwise engaging with the people around here in a positive manner.
Are you just trying to engage in the therapy of getting yelled at like I am engaging in the therapeutic process of digitally yelling at you? I mean, this is cheaper than actual therapy but I do admit some lingering curiosity.
At five mana, you will say the effect is fair. Psychometry is worth one mana—and draw three cards is worth 4. If you're splitting the effect across a turn, now you have time and interactivity that sees further fair measure.
Actually, no, even at 5 mana I wouldn't say this is fair, but that's not what this is. At 2UU as a sorcery, yes draw three is reasonable. You have it at 3 at instant speed as an activated ability (because this can be discarded or revealed in hand/library without getting cast and still be activated) so that any color can use it more efficiently that blue can draw as a sorcery.
At five mana, you will say the effect is fair. Psychometry is worth one mana—and draw three cards is worth 4. If you're splitting the effect across a turn, now you have time and interactivity that sees further fair measure.
Actually, no, even at 5 mana I wouldn't say this is fair, but that's not what this is. At 2UU as a sorcery, yes draw three is reasonable. You have it at 3 at instant speed as an activated ability (because this can be discarded or revealed in hand/library without getting cast and still be activated) so that any color can use it more efficiently that blue can draw as a sorcery.
It's not "instant speed" technically. If you're passing the turn, you're giving your opponent priority. It would be only if you had priority.
It's not "instant speed" technically. If you're passing the turn, you're giving your opponent priority. It would be only if you had priority.
You still get priority during your opponents turn after they pass priority... Because that's when you can cast instants and activate abilities on their turn... Hence the shorthand "at instant speed"... You poor sweet summer child, I guess you really don't understand how activated abilities work, do you?
It's not "instant speed" technically. If you're passing the turn, you're giving your opponent priority. It would be only if you had priority.
You still get priority during your opponents turn after they pass priority... Because that's when you can cast instants and activate abilities on their turn... Hence the shorthand "at instant speed"... You poor sweet summer child, I guess you really don't understand how activated abilities work, do you?
That doesn't amount to anything. They can remove it when they have priority. You can respond, they can respond with priority.
Do you honestly think it matters if it's sorcery speed or not? If have to counter, you're tapped out anyways, and will have to activate during your next turn.
That doesn't amount to anything. They can remove it when they have priority. You can respond, they can respond with priority.
Yes, you can always respond to your opponents actions when they pass priority. Good job.
Of course a counterspell in immaterial here. If you counter the spell being cast, they are just as able to activate the ability from their graveyard, and effects that counter activated abilities are overall too weak and niche for normal play... Which is something anyone who understands Magic play would know...
That doesn't amount to anything. They can remove it when they have priority. You can respond, they can respond with priority.
Yes, you can always respond to your opponents actions when they pass priority. Good job.
Of course a counterspell in immaterial here. If you counter the spell being cast, they are just as able to activate the ability from their graveyard, and effects that counter activated abilities are overall too weak and niche for normal play... Which is something anyone who understands Magic play would know...
That's why they put them all together on Disallow.
That doesn't amount to anything. They can remove it when they have priority. You can respond, they can respond with priority.
Yes, you can always respond to your opponents actions when they pass priority. Good job.
Of course a counterspell in immaterial here. If you counter the spell being cast, they are just as able to activate the ability from their graveyard, and effects that counter activated abilities are overall too weak and niche for normal play... Which is something anyone who understands Magic play would know...
That's why they put them all together on Disallow.
And yet Disallow sees very little play. Almost as though its not a good card.
And you still seem oblivious to the point that you have two undercosted abilities, neither of which care if the spell actually resolves, stapled to the same card using colorless costs and each is effectively usable independent of the other. Its like you don't understand basic concepts like card advantage or the color pie.
So care to backup your Math since the numbers don't add up if you have a four of the chance of having one or more in your starting hand is (given a deck of size 60 which is the minimum for contructed decks) is ~ 39,9% (which you can calculate yourself on sites like stattrek which is significantly lower than your number. If you mean with mulligan the number goes up depending on how low you are willing to go.
With willingness to go to 6 its:
(about 60% to see no copy of a chosen card in your starting seven again check for your self on sites like stattreck so)
The chance to get it in the first hand + the chance to not get it in the first but the second so
0,399+ (0,60*0,399) = 0,399 + 0,239 = 0,638 = 63,8% and that is significantly higher than your number and just goes up from there up to about 97% if your willing to go to one.
if you have 7 of a card (so 3/4 split of similar cards) the base chance is not 82% like you said but about 60% (again you can check for your self on math sites )
The way that probability works, percentages at or below the 50% threshold actually play out with less success than they suggest they have. So 4 copies is going to play out worse than 50% across 5 games.
No that is not how probability works you are right that just because the probability is like 50% that does not mean 50% of 5 games you are going to have it it means your chance is in each of those games is 50% chance to have it the the "threshold of 50%" or any arbitrary number you plug in doesn't matter about that. And it can play out worse or better not just worse. What you essentially said was if I flip a coin 5 times and I said head five times there is no possibility that it lands on it 3 times or more which is not the case.
I think what you meant is the chance to have it 3+/5 times which is the same as not having it 3+/5 times if the chance is 50% so even if you meant that that was just mathematically wrong.
So giving all that I'd like you to back up your math.
Edit: Removed An Error I made Point hasn't changed.
So care to backup your Math since the numbers don't add up if you have a four of the chance of having one or more in your starting hand is (given a deck of size 60 which is the minimum for contructed decks) is ~ 39,9% (which you can calculate yourself on sites like stattrek which is significantly lower than your number. If you mean with mulligan the number goes up depending on how low you are willing to go.
Okay, it was an estimated amount by memory.
4 x 7 = 28
28 / 60 = 46.66667 - Rounded up is 47%
Let's not nitpick the triviality of a single percent. It doesn't matter in probability factoring because the playout is so incredibly erratic, and will see the success playout doesn't change until a significant range in the percentage is increased or decreased.
So care to backup your Math since the numbers don't add up if you have a four of the chance of having one or more in your starting hand is (given a deck of size 60 which is the minimum for contructed decks) is ~ 39,9% (which you can calculate yourself on sites like stattrek which is significantly lower than your number. If you mean with mulligan the number goes up depending on how low you are willing to go.
Okay, it was an estimated amount by memory.
4 x 7 = 28
28 / 60 = 46.66667 - Rounded up is 47%
Let's not nitpick the triviality of a single percent. It doesn't matter in probability factoring because the playout is so incredibly erratic, and will see the success playout doesn't change until a significant range in the percentage is increased or decreased.
You were literally just linked to a calculator that shows that your percentage is off by 7%, not 1%.
If you multiply 7 (hand size) x 4 (number of copies in deck), you simply did your match wrong and are off by more than you thought. Again, I would think twice before you claim that you are smarter than a calculator.
If you multiply 7 (hand size) x 4 (willing to take 3 mulligans)... your method and math is still wrong. If you are willing to take 3 mulligans, your odds of seeing a card would be about 87% (The odds of not seeing the card in a hand is about 60% so the odds of not seeing in 4 hands is .6 x .6 x .6 x .6)
So care to backup your Math since the numbers don't add up if you have a four of the chance of having one or more in your starting hand is (given a deck of size 60 which is the minimum for contructed decks) is ~ 39,9% (which you can calculate yourself on sites like stattrek which is significantly lower than your number. If you mean with mulligan the number goes up depending on how low you are willing to go.
Okay, it was an estimated amount by memory.
4 x 7 = 28
28 / 60 = 46.66667 - Rounded up is 47%
Let's not nitpick the triviality of a single percent. It doesn't matter in probability factoring because the playout is so incredibly erratic, and will see the success playout doesn't change until a significant range in the percentage is increased or decreased.
You were literally just linked to a calculator that shows that your percentage is off by 7%, not 1%.
If you multiply 7 (hand size) x 4 (number of copies in deck), you simply did your match wrong and are off by more than you thought. Again, I would think twice before you claim that you are smarter than a calculator.
If you multiply 7 (hand size) x 4 (willing to take 3 mulligans)... your method and math is still wrong. If you are willing to take 3 mulligans, your odds of seeing a card would be about 87% (The odds of not seeing the card in a hand is about 60% so the odds of not seeing in 4 hands is .6 x .6 x .6 x .6)
Again, your math is simply wrong.
That calculator is finding the average. It's not finding the gross probability.
I used these mathematical proportions to build all my decks in Pokemon TCG.
Check Zombie Powder or Zombie Bot Net. Running 4 Battle Compressor + 4 Trainer's Mail as an extension (to create a spread)—that further included 4 N and 4 Professor Juniper—collectively possessing 184% percentile clench. And it plays out this way. It's able to successfully acquire Battle Compressor on the first turn. Typically by just the first two. And this is also with the deck stacked against you having to dish out 6 prize cards at the start of the game and muddling your consistency.
So care to backup your Math since the numbers don't add up if you have a four of the chance of having one or more in your starting hand is (given a deck of size 60 which is the minimum for contructed decks) is ~ 39,9% (which you can calculate yourself on sites like stattrek which is significantly lower than your number. If you mean with mulligan the number goes up depending on how low you are willing to go.
Okay, it was an estimated amount by memory.
4 x 7 = 28
28 / 60 = 46.66667 - Rounded up is 47%
Let's not nitpick the triviality of a single percent. It doesn't matter in probability factoring because the playout is so incredibly erratic, and will see the success playout doesn't change until a significant range in the percentage is increased or decreased.
You were literally just linked to a calculator that shows that your percentage is off by 7%, not 1%.
If you multiply 7 (hand size) x 4 (number of copies in deck), you simply did your match wrong and are off by more than you thought. Again, I would think twice before you claim that you are smarter than a calculator.
If you multiply 7 (hand size) x 4 (willing to take 3 mulligans)... your method and math is still wrong. If you are willing to take 3 mulligans, your odds of seeing a card would be about 87% (The odds of not seeing the card in a hand is about 60% so the odds of not seeing in 4 hands is .6 x .6 x .6 x .6)
Again, your math is simply wrong.
That calculator is finding the average. It's not finding the gross probability.
I used these mathematical proportions to build all my decks in Pokemon TCG.
Check Zombie Powder or Zombie Bot Net. Running 4 Battle Compressor + 4 Trainer's Mail as an extension (to create a spread)—that further included 4 N and 4 Professor Juniper—collectively possessing 184% percentile clench. And it plays out this way. It's able to successfully acquire Battle Compressor on the first turn. Typically by just the first two. And this is also with the deck stacked against you having to dish out 6 prize cards at the start of the game and muddling your consistency.
1. Google searches are not showing the term "gross probability" to be a thing.
2. I am not sure what you are saying about "average probability". If you play 10,000 games, you will draw at least 1 of four cards from the first seven cards in approximately 4,000 of them (40%) rather than the 4,700 (47%) that you estimate. That is a pretty large difference.
3. Your apparent calculation seems to be (Number of copies x number of cards drawn) / Number of cards in deck... which simply isn't the accurate way to measure this. Like, mathematically wrong. We have provided a calculator that shows you the correct value. If there is evidence that your calculation is correct, please link us to the appropriate formula showing what on earth you are trying to show.
The calculator is not finding the average thats not how hypergeometric calculations work.
Here is the Definition
In probability theory and statistics, the hypergeometric distribution is a discrete probability distribution that describes the probability of k successes (random draws for which the object drawn has a specified feature) in n draws, without replacement, from a finite population of size N that contains exactly K objects with that feature, wherein each draw is either a success or a failure.
Which describes drawing cards from a Deck exactly with k being the amount of cards we want to get in the starting hand(1+). n being our starting hand (7) out of N (60) cards with K being the amount of cards we play that we want to get.
Percentile clench and over 100% Probability are not a thing in probability calculations.
What you mean with procentile clecnh is just the probability of drawing a card from a certain set of cards thus hypergeometric distribution to calculate that, and that never goes above 100% since thats not thing in ANY probability calculation. The highest it can go is 100%
The Math you Provided for the 47/48 % doesn't calculate anything as far as probability goes.
You didn't provide how you came to the "184% percentile clench"
The calculator is not finding the average thats not how hypergeometric calculations work.
Here is the Definition
In probability theory and statistics, the hypergeometric distribution is a discrete probability distribution that describes the probability of k successes (random draws for which the object drawn has a specified feature) in n draws, without replacement, from a finite population of size N that contains exactly K objects with that feature, wherein each draw is either a success or a failure.
Which describes drawing cards from a Deck exactly with k being the amount of cards we want to get in the starting hand(1+). n being our starting hand (7) out of N (60) cards with K being the amount of cards we play that we want to get.
Percentile clench and over 100% Probability are not a thing in probability calculations.
What you mean with procentile clecnh is just the probability of drawing a card from a certain set of cards thus hypergeometric distribution to calculate that, and that never goes above 100% since thats not thing in ANY probability calculation. The highest it can go is 100%
The Math you Provided for the 47/48 % doesn't calculate anything as far as probability goes.
You didn't provide how you came to the "184% percentile clench"
These are terms I coined to describe my method of systematic mathematical proportion in tcg deck structure. And now we are getting too off topic.
I'm just going to describe that you are finding the average and that's not within the method of systematic mathematical proportion that I use, and have proven immensely accurate and successful.
Additionally, I would suggest you don't test any of my decks online, but try them on tabletop. The online venue had corruption issues that I wasn't able to resolve despite vehement and persistent efforts. But apparently, corruptee fed kiddies were/are pirating card codes and set up a racket there, so it doesn't surprise me at all.
Psychometry (As you cast this spell or when it leaves the stack, you may shuffle up to three cards from your hand into your library, then draw that many cards.)
The timing difference between the casting of a spell and that spell leaving the stack is miniscule enough that I would suggest not bothering with giving players that choice to begin with.
When you cast this spell, you may shuffle up to three cards from your hand into your library, then draw that many cards.
When this spell leaves the stack, you may shuffle up to three cards from your hand into your library, then draw that many cards.
I think it's kind of out of character for you to design a mechanic that doesn't also let your opponent draw cards.
Also, if Testament is going to allow you to exile it from exile, you may as well have it exile itself facedown as the cost of the ability. It's too strong an ability to cost at three colorless mana; if it costed around 6 or 7 it'd be pretty playable still but not be broken (so long as it doesn't have that infinite re-use)
Psychometry (As you cast this spell or when it leaves the stack, you may shuffle up to three cards from your hand into your library, then draw that many cards.)
The timing difference between the casting of a spell and that spell leaving the stack is miniscule enough that I would suggest not bothering with giving players that choice to begin with.
The notion is that you can apply the Deus Ex Machinia effect after the effect of the spell itself.
Also, noted on the face-down suggestion, but it is better fixed by the amendment of the rules defining that exiled cards can't be exiled again unless they are changing face (face up to face down and vice versa).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Artifact
Psychometry (As you cast this spell or whenever it leaves the stack, you may shuffle up to three cards from your hand into your library, then draw that many cards.)
4, Exile Ancestral Testament from any revealed zone: Draw three cards.
"It is not what's written that tells your fate—but what your heart discerns of it."
Realm of the Ancients 1R
Enchantment
If you control no creatures, Realm of the Ancients can't be countered.
Giant spells you cast cost 1 less to cast for each basic Mountain you control.
"Abandon all hope—ye who enter here—and all ye who glimpse its existence."
Realm of the Ancients is a perfectly cromulent magic card that 100% fits within the rules of MTG. It's a bit strong if you have low drop giants in standard (3 mana to adventure and cast bonecrusher on turn 3 is mean) but should be decent in formats with more expensive giants as it doesn't impact the board on it's own. It took you a very long time but the screaming demons in your head finally aligned with the actual rules of this game.
Again, congratulations on a card well-designed.
Making a call here to show how tactical enchantments at the two spot can prime adaptability for deck structures. With other ones, and contemporaries, they can form a spread that secure the percentile clench.
Steely Resolve, Shared Triumph, Cover of Darkness, Ghostly Flame
All being examples of the archtype.
Battle Strain, Zombie Infestation, Oversold Cemetery, Unifying Theory, Ground Seal
To more technical means.
Ancestral Testament show a complete lack of understanding of game balance or how rules work. Casting the spell means you get to pay two mana four two uncounterable filter-three-card effects (because, yes "As you cast this spell or when it leaves the stack" triggers twice no matter how much you don't want it to) and it would cost around THREE mana to get a SPELL that does this ONCE.
The second ability says "3: Draw three" because <drumroll> the graveyard is a revealed zone and <drumroll> a card in exile can still be "exiled" in which case it just doesn't change zones. However, even if that wasn't the case, a colorless three mana draw effect that cannot be countered is beyond overpowered.
Learn the rules, learn the game. Then you can actually execute well on your ideas and people would actually respect you and take you seriously.
Its BS buzzword soup that he made up that either doesn't mean anything or it means something else and hes's using it in the wrong way. Just like pretty much everything else he says in an attempt to sound intellectual that actually does the opposite.
It refers to probability factoring in your deck's contents. To secure a successful consistency to access a content at the start of the game, or for it to see enduring utility through the mid-late game, the percentile clench of that content (or spread combination) defines your success for better or worse.
For example,
4 copies of something gives you a 48% chance of drawing it in your opening hand.
But now, say you run 4 copies of something and then 3 copies of a contemporary. You now have 7 total copies in your spread, which gives you a percentile clench of 82% to draw their utility in your opening hand. The way that probability works, percentages at or below the 50% threshold actually play out with less success than they suggest they have. So 4 copies is going to play out worse than 50% across 5 games.
As your percentile clench approaches and exceed the 100% threshold, the odds increase, but never exceed 99% until it's exponentially proportionate to the full contents (300% out of 100% for example). Until the percentile clench reaches or exceeds this, you will simply have a 99.999~% chance whose probable factor now plays out in reverse, and sees that you have a 99.999% chance where 1 out 100 games are destine to fail; or 1 out of 1,000 games are destine to fail; or 1 out of 10,000 games are destine to fail—and so on—as the percentile clench exceeds the 100% threshold.
When regarding the [enduring properties] of probability factoring, the percentage of the utility's contents remaining, as the deck's contents decreases, now decides the percentile clench. And thus, how reliable or unreliable that utility will be (at your disposal or access) as they are used up and the deck's contents wane down.
So creating contemporary content, at the same place on the mana curve, enables spreads to be form in a deck structure to secure a successful percentile clench for that utility. This can include not only cards that do the same or similar thing (Crusade + Divine Sacrament), but also cards that can provide access to copies of that utility.
I was on the ropes about that technicality. I don't believe an exile card should be able to be exiled again, unless it's changing face (going face-down for example—or from face-down to face up). In the least, this dynamic should be added to the rules to better clarify, and provide cleaning functionality abroad.
As for the testament, I think you're underthinking the design. Put it all together on a blue spell and take another look.
At five mana, you will say the effect is fair. Psychometry is worth one mana—and draw three cards is worth 4. If you're splitting the effect across a turn, now you have time and interactivity that sees further fair measure.
Also consider that if you're doing it all at once, you're tapping out, and passing the turn. So it basically says, end the turn.
It might end up on the restricted list for Legacy/Vintage, but it's not wrong. It's just absolute precision.
EDIT: Also note that it's only basic Mountains—so it's far apart from Affinity.
I have seen little to no evidence of you actually listening to criticism, speaking in a way that other people understand, or otherwise engaging with the people around here in a positive manner.
Are you just trying to engage in the therapy of getting yelled at like I am engaging in the therapeutic process of digitally yelling at you? I mean, this is cheaper than actual therapy but I do admit some lingering curiosity.
I want to know what happened to Ba Bi Bo Bu Be.
Actually, no, even at 5 mana I wouldn't say this is fair, but that's not what this is. At 2UU as a sorcery, yes draw three is reasonable. You have it at 3 at instant speed as an activated ability (because this can be discarded or revealed in hand/library without getting cast and still be activated) so that any color can use it more efficiently that blue can draw as a sorcery.
They were bad designs. That's what happened.
It's not "instant speed" technically. If you're passing the turn, you're giving your opponent priority. It would be only if you had priority.
Ba, maybe. I would still like to see Bi Bo Bu Be.
You still get priority during your opponents turn after they pass priority... Because that's when you can cast instants and activate abilities on their turn... Hence the shorthand "at instant speed"... You poor sweet summer child, I guess you really don't understand how activated abilities work, do you?
That doesn't amount to anything. They can remove it when they have priority. You can respond, they can respond with priority.
Do you honestly think it matters if it's sorcery speed or not? If have to counter, you're tapped out anyways, and will have to activate during your next turn.
We're back to square one.
Yes, you can always respond to your opponents actions when they pass priority. Good job.
Of course a counterspell in immaterial here. If you counter the spell being cast, they are just as able to activate the ability from their graveyard, and effects that counter activated abilities are overall too weak and niche for normal play... Which is something anyone who understands Magic play would know...
That's why they put them all together on Disallow.
And yet Disallow sees very little play. Almost as though its not a good card.
And you still seem oblivious to the point that you have two undercosted abilities, neither of which care if the spell actually resolves, stapled to the same card using colorless costs and each is effectively usable independent of the other. Its like you don't understand basic concepts like card advantage or the color pie.
...Probably because you don't.
With willingness to go to 6 its:
(about 60% to see no copy of a chosen card in your starting seven again check for your self on sites like stattreck so)
The chance to get it in the first hand + the chance to not get it in the first but the second so
0,399+ (0,60*0,399) = 0,399 + 0,239 = 0,638 = 63,8% and that is significantly higher than your number and just goes up from there up to about 97% if your willing to go to one.
if you have 7 of a card (so 3/4 split of similar cards) the base chance is not 82% like you said but about 60% (again you can check for your self on math sites )
No that is not how probability works you are right that just because the probability is like 50% that does not mean 50% of 5 games you are going to have it it means your chance is in each of those games is 50% chance to have it the the "threshold of 50%" or any arbitrary number you plug in doesn't matter about that. And it can play out worse or better not just worse. What you essentially said was if I flip a coin 5 times and I said head five times there is no possibility that it lands on it 3 times or more which is not the case.
I think what you meant is the chance to have it 3+/5 times which is the same as not having it 3+/5 times if the chance is 50% so even if you meant that that was just mathematically wrong.
So giving all that I'd like you to back up your math.
Edit: Removed An Error I made Point hasn't changed.
Okay, it was an estimated amount by memory.
4 x 7 = 28
28 / 60 = 46.66667 - Rounded up is 47%
Let's not nitpick the triviality of a single percent. It doesn't matter in probability factoring because the playout is so incredibly erratic, and will see the success playout doesn't change until a significant range in the percentage is increased or decreased.
You were literally just linked to a calculator that shows that your percentage is off by 7%, not 1%.
If you multiply 7 (hand size) x 4 (number of copies in deck), you simply did your match wrong and are off by more than you thought. Again, I would think twice before you claim that you are smarter than a calculator.
If you multiply 7 (hand size) x 4 (willing to take 3 mulligans)... your method and math is still wrong. If you are willing to take 3 mulligans, your odds of seeing a card would be about 87% (The odds of not seeing the card in a hand is about 60% so the odds of not seeing in 4 hands is .6 x .6 x .6 x .6)
Again, your math is simply wrong.
That calculator is finding the average. It's not finding the gross probability.
I used these mathematical proportions to build all my decks in Pokemon TCG.
http://pkmntcgkill.blogspot.com/2016/10/
Check Zombie Powder or Zombie Bot Net. Running 4 Battle Compressor + 4 Trainer's Mail as an extension (to create a spread)—that further included 4 N and 4 Professor Juniper—collectively possessing 184% percentile clench. And it plays out this way. It's able to successfully acquire Battle Compressor on the first turn. Typically by just the first two. And this is also with the deck stacked against you having to dish out 6 prize cards at the start of the game and muddling your consistency.
1. Google searches are not showing the term "gross probability" to be a thing.
2. I am not sure what you are saying about "average probability". If you play 10,000 games, you will draw at least 1 of four cards from the first seven cards in approximately 4,000 of them (40%) rather than the 4,700 (47%) that you estimate. That is a pretty large difference.
3. Your apparent calculation seems to be (Number of copies x number of cards drawn) / Number of cards in deck... which simply isn't the accurate way to measure this. Like, mathematically wrong. We have provided a calculator that shows you the correct value. If there is evidence that your calculation is correct, please link us to the appropriate formula showing what on earth you are trying to show.
Here is the Definition
Which describes drawing cards from a Deck exactly with k being the amount of cards we want to get in the starting hand(1+).
n being our starting hand (7) out of N (60) cards with K being the amount of cards we play that we want to get.
Percentile clench and over 100% Probability are not a thing in probability calculations.
What you mean with procentile clecnh is just the probability of drawing a card from a certain set of cards thus hypergeometric distribution to calculate that, and that never goes above 100% since thats not thing in ANY probability calculation. The highest it can go is 100%
The Math you Provided for the 47/48 % doesn't calculate anything as far as probability goes.
You didn't provide how you came to the "184% percentile clench"
These are terms I coined to describe my method of systematic mathematical proportion in tcg deck structure. And now we are getting too off topic.
I'm just going to describe that you are finding the average and that's not within the method of systematic mathematical proportion that I use, and have proven immensely accurate and successful.
Additionally, I would suggest you don't test any of my decks online, but try them on tabletop. The online venue had corruption issues that I wasn't able to resolve despite vehement and persistent efforts. But apparently, corruptee fed kiddies were/are pirating card codes and set up a racket there, so it doesn't surprise me at all.
The timing difference between the casting of a spell and that spell leaving the stack is miniscule enough that I would suggest not bothering with giving players that choice to begin with.
When you cast this spell, you may shuffle up to three cards from your hand into your library, then draw that many cards.
When this spell leaves the stack, you may shuffle up to three cards from your hand into your library, then draw that many cards.
I think it's kind of out of character for you to design a mechanic that doesn't also let your opponent draw cards.
Also, if Testament is going to allow you to exile it from exile, you may as well have it exile itself facedown as the cost of the ability. It's too strong an ability to cost at three colorless mana; if it costed around 6 or 7 it'd be pretty playable still but not be broken (so long as it doesn't have that infinite re-use)
The notion is that you can apply the Deus Ex Machinia effect after the effect of the spell itself.
Also, noted on the face-down suggestion, but it is better fixed by the amendment of the rules defining that exiled cards can't be exiled again unless they are changing face (face up to face down and vice versa).