Incorrect. The difference here is statistically insignificant and not even worth considering in any attempt to judge the power level of the card.
The odds that they will draw another copy of this creature naturally, or draw a different but equivalent threat, or draw a utility card they need are very high. The few instances in which this card provides them with a better card more quickly than they otherwise would have gotten it through natural means are almost exactly counterbalanced by the equal number of instances where playing this card denies them access to a better threat or needed utility card for an extra turn.
Go ahead and calculate those odds. I'll wait. Let me know how they turn out for you. I mean, you can't claim that math is on your side and then not show it... not if you want to actually convince anybody that what you're saying is true.
Go ahead and calculate those odds. I'll wait. Let me know how they turn out for you. I mean, you can't claim that math is on your side and then not show it... not if you want to actually convince anybody that what you're saying is true.
JUST AGREE WITH HIM BRO!
YOYO time ebb is amazing removal, memory lapse is the perfect answer to everything.
Please read the thread, I already addressed card quality in great detail. But even if you were to argue that it makes a difference in the card quality of their next several draws (which it does not, to any statistically relevant extent), that is still not the same thing as being a tempo-based change rather than qualifying as removal.
Thread had several new posts while I was typing. In any case, let me make another argument as to why this effects card quality. If I were playing a typical jund deck, would it be okay for me to put a Putrid Leech on top of my library before we drew our opening hand? Odds are good that I'll get an equivalent threat anyways, so it shouldn't matter that I'm placing it on my library.
Of course that isn't alright, though. Because that guarantees I'll get a creature in addition to any creatures I'd normally get, at the cost of a random card. So my opening hand would probably look pretty nice, with a higher density of creatures than usual. This is essentially what happens with an ousted creature, though. You'd probably see a creature in the next three or so cards anyways, but this puts one additional one in.
It's a tempo play, because it costs them time where they don't have their creature out and swinging, and causes them to waste the mana they cast, as well as the mana to recast it. It's only psuedo-removal because the threat will show its face again. For comparison, imagine if it were Excommunicate. If I boomeranged your creature at end of turn, that's not removal, it's a tempo play. If I excommunicate your creature, it's still tempo, because in both cases, the creature shows up again next turn swinging. Oust is the same, except two turns later. Which doesn't really make it twice as good, just a little more useful against really dangerous threats, giving you time to draw permanent removal.
Dude, Oust is awesome, regardless if Goryus is overestimating the card. It reminds me of condemn which was decent white removal back in the day. When Path rotates, white players will use this as removal.
Thread had several new posts while I was typing. In any case, let me make another argument as to why this effects card quality. If I were playing a typical jund deck, would it be okay for me to put a Putrid Leech on top of my library before we drew our opening hand? Odds are good that I'll get an equivalent threat anyways, so it shouldn't matter that I'm placing it on my library.
Of course that isn't alright, though. Because that guarantees I'll get a creature in addition to any creatures I'd normally get, at the cost of a random card. So my opening hand would probably look pretty nice, with a higher density of creatures than usual. This is essentially what happens with an ousted creature, though. You'd probably see a creature in the next three or so cards anyways, but this puts one additional one in.
It's a tempo play, because it costs them time where they don't have their creature out and swinging, and causes them to waste the mana they cast, as well as the mana to recast it. It's only psuedo-removal because the threat will show its face again. For comparison, imagine if it were Excommunicate. If I boomeranged your creature at end of turn, that's not removal, it's a tempo play. If I excommunicate your creature, it's still tempo, because in both cases, the creature shows up again next turn swinging. Oust is the same, except two turns later. Which doesn't really make it twice as good, just a little more useful against really dangerous threats, giving you time to draw permanent removal.
Exept for the fact that Oust is a 1-for-1 while Boomerang is card disadvantage... Oust is good early game removal and good removal in a race because it can play as a tempo card, and making them redraw an early creature is actually decreasing their overall card quality most of the time. The reason this card will be good is that it gives you time to find a permanent answer to a problem without losing card parity. This is like a kicked Into the Roilin that it generates a tempo advantage while maintaining card parity, it would have been 'fairly' costed at 1W without the life gain, and in a control deck I'd much rather give my opponent 3 life than pay an extra 1. All in all, this is a powerful card that people are criminally misevalutating.
Go ahead and calculate those odds. I'll wait. Let me know how they turn out for you. I mean, you can't claim that math is on your side and then not show it... not if you want to actually convince anybody that what you're saying is true.
I find it amusing that you resort to this. It's even funnier that I'm going to call you out and take you up on it.
We'll start with a deck where the break down looks like this:
20 lands
20 threats
20 spells
Further, we'll say the threats go in an increasing order of scariness, and label them A, B, C, D, E.
Let's pick turn 3 as an arbitrary point at which Oust is played. (I have to pick somewhere, the math is different at every different point, but the end result is about the same.)
Turn 3, they play a "C" class threat. In response, you use Oust.
Turn 5, they will now have a guaranteed "C" class threat available to be cast. The odds of them having NOT drawn a DIFFERENT "C" class threat, a "D" class threat, or an "E" class threat that they could play by that point are about 7.4%.
So, in this example, you give them a slightly better quality threat than what they could have cast turn 5 in 7.4% of cases. The actual improvement in these 7.4% of cases is still minor - the gain for them is the difference between getting an A or B class threat and getting a C class threat, so the gain in this case is the difference between the values of those threats. (More accurately, it would be the difference between the quality of the card you used it on and the average quality of a card in their deck, which in good decks is very small; but I have no absolute way to gauge quality, and am not sure how to approach that mathematically).
Now, that minor effect is still being grossly over-inflated, because some of the 20 spells are probably more valuable to them on turn 5 than the threat is. Let's say that only 1 spell qualifies (a 4-of, for calculatory ease). That drops the odds of giving them something better than they would have already had to only 2.5%.
Now, that minor effect is STILL being grossly over-inflated, because there are also situations where they are mana screwed, or waiting on a particular card, but that card's appearance is delayed an additional turn because of Oust. There are also situations where they WOULD HAVE drawn a BETTER threat by that point, but did not because of Oust. So the small utility they gain in these 2.5% of cases is not even as big as the small amount I already described, on the average.
The fact of the matter is: most good decks are filled with good cards. For the most part, the player is happy to draw almost all of them. Setting one card in their library to a specific one of the cards from their deck does not consitute a strong effect.
Often true in Constructed, where there is a lot of redundancy in decks. Usually false in Limited, where absolute removal can get rid of their one bomb and Oust cannot.
I find it amusing that you resort to this. It's even funnier that I'm going to call you out and take you up on it.
We'll start with a deck where the break down looks like this:
20 lands
20 threats
20 spells
Further, we'll say the threats go in an increasing order of scariness, and label them A, B, C, D, E.
Let's pick turn 3 as an arbitrary point at which Oust is played. (I have to pick somewhere, the math is different at every different point, but the end result is about the same.)
Turn 3, they play a "C" class threat. In response, you use Oust.
Turn 5, they will now have a guaranteed "C" class threat available to be cast. The odds of them having NOT drawn a DIFFERENT "C" class threat, a "D" class threat, or an "E" class threat that they could play by that point are about 7.4%.
So, in this example, you give them a slightly better quality threat in 7.4% of cases. The actual improvement in these 7.4% of cases is still minor - the gain for them is the difference between getting an A or B class threat and a C class threat, in this case.
Now, that minor effect is still being grossly over-inflated, because some of the 20 spells are probably more valuable to them on turn 5 than the threat is. Let's say that only 1 spell qualifies (a 4-of, for calculatory ease). That drops the odds of giving them something better than they would have already had to cast on turn 5 to only 2.5%.
Now, that minor effect is STILL being grossly over-inflated, because there are also situations where they are mana screwed, or waiting on a particular card, but that card's appearance is delayed an additional turn because of Oust. So the actual effect is even less than the minor increase in card quality that happens 2.5% of the time.
The fact of the matter is: most good decks are filled with good cards. For the most part, the player is happy to draw almost all of them. Setting one card to in the library to a specific one of the cards from their deck is a does not consitute a strong effect.
It is funny that you find it amusing that we ask you to back up your claims with "facts". Well, at least you did. The problem is that you will not always target a "C" threat, and will more like target an "A" threat, possibly a Baneslayer Angel to put a face to it rather than a Noble Hierarch. In this case, you are adding a confirmed power draw for your opponent. It is true that cards in library are not worth as much as a card anywhere else, but having information on it is worth something.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you don't wear your seatbelt, the police will shoot you in the head."
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
Everyone knows that good luck and good game are such insincere terms that any man who does not connect his right hook with the offender's jaw on the very utterance of such a phrase is no man I would consider as such.
To clarify, as some people have responded to my post with points I wasn't really debating:
I'm not saying Oust is on level with boomerang. Obviously oust doesn't cost you the card. But it's the same purpose. Delay a threat, make them respend mana (Unless you're that guy boomeranging lands :P).
I'm not saying Oust is bad. It's a decent card, maybe great. I'd play with it a bit.
What I am saying is that Oust serves the function of tempo and pseudo removal.
What I am saying is that Oust does not essentially exile the target.
Mostly what I'm saying is that the card quality is not negligible. With 24 lands, you have a 40% chance of drawing a land in that 2nd-from-top card. With Oust, you have a 0% chance of drawing a land. In relation to the chances of drawing a better card in that spot instead (where Oust saves you the trouble by giving them an inferior card), I tend to use my removal on the most relevant threat on the board. It's usually going to be in the D and E threats. But even then, last thing I want to do is guarantee that whatever I'm removing will come back. It's not like a random shuffle into the library like Progenitus. It's 2nd from top. If the game lasts two more turns, it can come back. Guaranteed. As opposed to leaving things to chance, where there's the 40% chance that he draws a blank land, plus the additional chance of any A-C class lesser or equivalent threats that I'd rather he drew.
In this light you could think of it as pseudo card advantage too. On the surface it looks like card parity, but in that 2nd from top slot of your deck you still have a 40% chance of a blank land, while he gains a 100% chance of a relevant spell. Two turns from now, he'll be sure to be up at least one relevant card, while you don't have quite the same odds.
It is funny that you find it amusing that we ask you to back up your claims with "facts". Well, at least you did. The problem is that you will not always target a "C" threat, and will more like target an "A" threat, possibly a Baneslayer Angel to put a face to it rather than a Noble Hierarch. In this case, you are adding a confirmed power draw for your opponent. It is true that cards in library are not worth as much as a card anywhere else, but having information on it is worth something.
It's amusing because he only used that argument because he knew the math to be very complicated, and so assumed I would back down. That kind of scare tactic is the lamest form of argument.
The situation is much less different than you might expect when targeting a baneslayer angel. Assuming that there are 3 other baneslayers in the deck, that Baneslayer is the highest quality / biggest threat card in the deck, and that they cast the first Baneslayer on turn 5 (and thus have had a total of 7 turns to find a second), there is only about a 21% chance that you are giving them a way to replace the Baneslayer when they could not have done that naturally. And in those 21% of cases, again, the benefit you are giving them is a difference between the value to them of having a baneslayer, and the value to them of having another good card from their deck. Finally, that doesn't count the numerous times they crack a fetch land, or the game ends before turn 7, etc.
In general, the "side effect" of this spell "giving them back" a threat is irrelevent and not even worth considering. Even in the scariest possible situations (you use it on their biggest, highest quality threat as early as possible), the "benefit" is still typically negligible. And as I showed earlier, in "average" cases, it only exhibits its extremely minor positive effect for the opponent in less than 2.5% of games.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If God spoke to you, and commanded you to kill your own children, would you do it?
If your answer is "No," then your morality does not come from God's commandments.
If your answer is "Yes," then please, please reconsider.
It's amusing because he only used that argument because he knew the math to be very complicated, and so assumed I would back down. That kind of scare tactic is the lamest form of argument.
The situation is much less different than you might expect when targeting a baneslayer angel. Assuming that there are 3 other baneslayers in the deck, that Baneslayer is the highest quality / biggest threat card in the deck, and that they cast the first Baneslayer on turn 5 (and thus have had a total of 7 turns to find a second), there is only about a 21% chance that you are giving them a way to replace the Baneslayer when they could not have done that naturally. And in those 21% of cases, again, the benefit you are giving them is a difference between the value to them of having a baneslayer, and the value to them of having another good card from their deck. Finally, that doesn't count the numerous times they crack a fetch land, or the game ends before turn 7, etc.
In general, the "side effect" of this spell "giving them back" a threat is irrelevent and not even worth considering. Even in the scariest possible situations (you use it on their biggest, highest quality threat as early as possible), the "benefit" is still typically negligible. And as I showed earlier, in "average" cases, it only exhibits its extremely minor positive effect for the opponent in less than 2.5% of games.
I didn't respond before because you a) gave an example of a bad play (wasting your removal on a mediocre threat) and b) didn't actually show your math. You just made up numbers. I actually wanted you to do the math, because I was certain that I am better at it than you. Unfortunately, you don't show your work, so you make it impossible for me to actually point out your errors.
So, I'll ACTUALLY do the work for you.
4 Baneslayers in a deck.
In the case where they have only drawn one Baneslayer:
I cast Oust on their Baneslayer.
Odds of them having drawn two Baneslayers by turn n+2 are the odds that they had one on top of their library times the odds that there was a second behind it after I cast Oust.
Odds of the first case are 3/X where X is the size of their library.
Odds of the second are 1, because I put the 'slayer there with an Oust.
Total probability of finding 2 'slayers by turn n+2 = 3/X
Odds of them having drawn exactly one Baneslayer by turn n+2 are the odds that they had none on their library times the odds that there was a second behind that after I cast Oust.
Odds of none on top are (X-3)/X
Odds of the second are 1
Total probability is (X-3/X)
Odds of them having drawn zero Baneslayers by turn n+2 are the odds that they had none on top or at the second card.
Odds of the first case are (X-3)/x
Odds of the second case are 0 after I cast Oust
Total odds are 0
I cast Terminate on their Baneslayer instead.
Odds of them having drawn two Baneslayers by turn n+2 are the odds that they had two on top of their library. To do this correctly we have to use combinatorics, because we want to avoid double counting.
There are X cards in the library, 3 of which are Baneslayer Angels.
The number of possible combinations of cards to have on the top 2 cards of the deck X_choose_2 = X!/(2!*(X-2)!) = X*(X-1)/2
The number of possible ways to put 2 Baneslayers on top are 3_choose_2 = 3!/2! = 3.
Total odds that the top two cards are Baneslayers is number of ways to choose 2 Baneslayers / number of ways to choose any 2 cards = 3*2/(X*(X-1)) = 6/(X*(X-1))
Odds of them having drawn 1 Baneslayer and 1 other non 'slayer we will get to (easier to calculate once I've calculated the next case).
Odds of them having drawn no Baneslayers are the odds that the two cards on top were not Baneslayers. There are X-3 cards that are not Baneslayers, so we have (X-3)_choose_2 = (X-3)*(X-4)/2. Total number of possible draws is still X_choose_2 = X*(X-1)/2, so the odds are (X-3)*(X-4)/(X*(X-2)).
The odds of getting exactly one Baneslayer are the odds that you didn't get 2 and you didn't get 0, so 1-those results. 1-6/(X*(X-1))-(X-3)*(X-4)/(X*(X-1)).
Okay, like I said the math needs to show work, you can't just make up numbers. Let's compare:
Odds of drawing 2 Baneslayers:
Oust: 3/X
Terminate: 6/X*(X-1) = 3/X * 2/(X-1)
So, for X=45 (say) Oust is about 6.67% and Terminate is about 0.30%
So, if X=45, Oust is about 93.33% and Terminate is about 12.72%
Odds of drawing zero Baneslayers:
Oust: 0
Terminate: (X-3)*(X-4)/(X*(X-1))
So for X=45, Oust is 0 but Terminate is now up to 86.97%
So, there is a measurably difference between Oust and another removal spell. After an Oust you will expect to see about 1.07 Baneslayer Angels over the next 2 turns. After a Terminate you will expect to see about 0.13 Baneslayer Angels.
Of course, in a limited game, which is where removal is MOST important, the numbers change drastically. They generally only have 1 of their biggest threat, not 4. In this case, putting it two from the top is just a tempo issue, removal is actually removing it.
Oust intrigues me. I think that it's a skill-intensive card to play with and against, as demonstrated by continued intelligent arguments about the card. I find the flavor interesting for white, partly because the last card to put a card on top of a library a fixed X cards from the top was Lost Hours, which was black. Regardless, I like how it can be very effective against poor players, since you can scare them into not cracking a fetch (if they play one next turn) in order to not lose their precious fatty, when cracking the fetch anyway is often better since it doesn't set you back at turn. Likewise, it seems like it would be skill-intensive to play since the redraw factor means that you don't always want to save it for the biggest thing they have, even though that's the standard wisdom for size-unrestricted removal. Sorcery speed means that you need to think about whether or not to wait a turn, rather than simply slow-rolling it so that you can use it EOT if they play something bigger. Bravo! Gives me that much more of an incentive to sell my paths, something I was considering doing anyway once Shards block rotate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This deck is going to be so damn terrible. It's going to be SO BAD that Kanye is going to interrupt me, telling me that, "I'ma let you finish, but Measure of Wickedness is the WORST CASUAL DECK OF ALL TIME" just to try and make me feel better. Srsly.
Hey everybody-
i.e. means "that is," not "for example."
e.g. means "for example."
This is not arbitrary. i.e. stands for Latin "id est," while e.g. stands for "exemple gratia."
Remember this!!
I'm a Magic Rules Advisor!
Time of heroes: Cool card in Limited. But not really jaw dropping for me. I guess he can be a great partner for that blue guy that puts counters on your level up creatures...but I dont really see this card making a huge impact.
Oust: Nutty card. While not the best form of removal, definatly something for blue/white control players to consider. Pretty cool in Limited. I see this card more of a casual card, but I really hope to be proved wrong and this shows up in a deck somewhere.
Emerge Unscathed: This card is awesome. I know many-a-individuals who play with Sejiri Steppe so they, as well as I, will love this card. Great in Limited for a protection, and then swing in unblocked next turn. Definatly considering playing white.
I am simply amazed by how good Oust looks. I thought Path was pushing it, but...wow. This seems so much better. And a flat 3 life? Not based on P/T? That's incredibly good, especially in limited, but seems nice for constructed as well.
I love Oust simply for it's versatility. It can buy enough time against an opponent for you to win with a fast deck by getting rid of problem opposing creatures, and it allows you to reload on a whole heap of useful creatures whilst gaining life at the same time.
Example cool creatures to put back into position 2 in your library: Ranger of Eos, Knight of the White Orchid, Acidic Slime, Goblin Ruinblaster, Stoneforge Mystic, Bloodbraid Elf, Vendillion Clique, Siege-Gang Commander.
My land destruction deck in standard will like this as removal as Path to Exile is terrible when trying to mana screw your opponent. I can reload Land D, or make it harder for them to draw enough mana producers.
I didn't respond before because you a) gave an example of a bad play (wasting your removal on a mediocre threat) and b) didn't actually show your math. You just made up numbers. I actually wanted you to do the math, because I was certain that I am better at it than you. Unfortunately, you don't show your work, so you make it impossible for me to actually point out your errors.
So, I'll ACTUALLY do the work for you.
4 Baneslayers in a deck.
In the case where they have only drawn one Baneslayer:
I cast Oust on their Baneslayer.
Odds of them having drawn two Baneslayers by turn n+2 are the odds that they had one on top of their library times the odds that there was a second behind it after I cast Oust.
Odds of the first case are 3/X where X is the size of their library.
Odds of the second are 1, because I put the 'slayer there with an Oust.
Total probability of finding 2 'slayers by turn n+2 = 3/X
Odds of them having drawn exactly one Baneslayer by turn n+2 are the odds that they had none on their library times the odds that there was a second behind that after I cast Oust.
Odds of none on top are (X-3)/X
Odds of the second are 1
Total probability is (X-3/X)
Odds of them having drawn zero Baneslayers by turn n+2 are the odds that they had none on top or at the second card.
Odds of the first case are (X-3)/x
Odds of the second case are 0 after I cast Oust
Total odds are 0
I cast Terminate on their Baneslayer instead.
Odds of them having drawn two Baneslayers by turn n+2 are the odds that they had two on top of their library. To do this correctly we have to use combinatorics, because we want to avoid double counting.
There are X cards in the library, 3 of which are Baneslayer Angels.
The number of possible combinations of cards to have on the top 2 cards of the deck X_choose_2 = X!/(2!*(X-2)!) = X*(X-1)/2
The number of possible ways to put 2 Baneslayers on top are 3_choose_2 = 3!/2! = 3.
Total odds that the top two cards are Baneslayers is number of ways to choose 2 Baneslayers / number of ways to choose any 2 cards = 3*2/(X*(X-1)) = 6/(X*(X-1))
Odds of them having drawn 1 Baneslayer and 1 other non 'slayer we will get to (easier to calculate once I've calculated the next case).
Odds of them having drawn no Baneslayers are the odds that the two cards on top were not Baneslayers. There are X-3 cards that are not Baneslayers, so we have (X-3)_choose_2 = (X-3)*(X-4)/2. Total number of possible draws is still X_choose_2 = X*(X-1)/2, so the odds are (X-3)*(X-4)/(X*(X-2)).
The odds of getting exactly one Baneslayer are the odds that you didn't get 2 and you didn't get 0, so 1-those results. 1-6/(X*(X-1))-(X-3)*(X-4)/(X*(X-1)).
Okay, like I said the math needs to show work, you can't just make up numbers. Let's compare:
Odds of drawing 2 Baneslayers:
Oust: 3/X
Terminate: 6/X*(X-1) = 3/X * 2/(X-1)
So, for X=45 (say) Oust is about 6.67% and Terminate is about 0.30%
So, if X=45, Oust is about 93.33% and Terminate is about 12.72%
Odds of drawing zero Baneslayers:
Oust: 0
Terminate: (X-3)*(X-4)/(X*(X-1))
So for X=45, Oust is 0 but Terminate is now up to 86.97%
So, there is a measurably difference between Oust and another removal spell. After an Oust you will expect to see about 1.07 Baneslayer Angels over the next 2 turns. After a Terminate you will expect to see about 0.13 Baneslayer Angels.
Thank you for completely destroying his hyperbolic argument.
that is some loose mathematics my friend, your point is valid, but the mathemaics you're putting up makes my eyes bleed.
anyways, surely oust is not for BSA's? we alrerady have path and O-ring, Oust is for the cheap dirty 'time-walk'...eg opp t1, forest, tap, noble hierarch. our turn, plains, tap,oust hierarch. that feels like a pretty busted tempo advantage
The cards are all sweet, but let's talk about Oust. First off, I wanted Puncturing Light to be playable. That's unlike now. But, Oust is amazing. To be people arguing that it is not straight up removal, ask yourself this question: Is Remand a straight up counter? Is Memory Lapse? While Oust might look weak to some because you know they will get their threat back, the tempo you can create by removing any threat from attacking for a few turns is incredible. It is similar to the two cards I mentioned because it is interested in what is going on right now; if you kill your opponent before his creature can be relevant again, did it matter that you did not kill it? Also, people are not taking into account that this ability works against Totem Armor, Regeneration, and Indestructibility, has no targeting restriction, and is dirt cheap- in the early game against an aggro deck, where it is arguable that their creature density is so high that every creature is equal, this feels way stronger than a Path to Exile.
In Standard, you can combine this with Punishing Fire to get some re-usability from another removal spell. In Extended, you can cast this to remove a blocker and give Kavu Predator a permanent Giant Growth for 3 mana.
Just a note:
you actually use odds incorrectly, the correct term for what you're saying is 'chances' or 'probability'
in statistics, the odds of something is the ratio of the chance that something will happen versus something not happening
so, for example, if event A occurs 1 in ten times, the probability is 0.1, but the odds are 9:1
This is so ☺☺☺☺ing retarded. Wizards are a bunch of retards, I think I'm gonna quit, seriously. This is getting out of hand.
Scroll back, say, a year ago.
White had NO spot removal. That always was a trait of the color, the lack of spot removal compensated for its strong mass removal.
Now what? Path to Exile, Oust, ☺☺☺☺. This is retarded, whatever happened to black being the color that dominated spot removal? It's a ☺☺☺☺ing joke, nobody wants to stick to its constrictions of 'cost 3 or less', 'nonblack' Not when white gets utterly overpowered, set after set.
What does blue get? LET ME GUESS CANCEL AGAIN???
This game is ☺☺☺☺ing going down the drain. Every. Single. Time.
Level Up. Cascade. loldomainfail. Re-edit Cycle. TO DO NOTHING WITH IT.
Get your ☺☺☺☺ together, Wizards, I'm sick of your ☺☺☺☺ing fail.
This is so ☺☺☺☺ing retarded. Wizards are a bunch of retards, I think I'm gonna quit, seriously. This is getting out of hand.
Scroll back, say, a year ago.
White had NO spot removal. That always was a trait of the color, the lack of spot removal compensated for its strong mass removal.
Now what? Path to Exile, Oust, ☺☺☺☺. This is retarded, whatever happened to black being the color that dominated spot removal? It's a ☺☺☺☺ing joke, nobody wants to stick to its constrictions of 'cost 3 or less', 'nonblack' Not when white gets utterly overpowered, set after set.
What does blue get? LET ME GUESS CANCEL AGAIN???
This game is ☺☺☺☺ing going down the drain. Every. Single. Time.
Level Up. Cascade. loldomainfail. Re-edit Cycle. TO DO NOTHING WITH IT.
Get your ☺☺☺☺ together, Wizards, I'm sick of your ☺☺☺☺ing fail.
Did you just compare a counter and a removal spell? Two completely different things my friend. Oh and blue got Jace and several other goodies, so please go cry me a river.
As for Oust, I'm not that good at math so I will leave that to others, but by now I think almost anyone agrees that Oust is not hard-removal. That said I still believe it's a great card that can change the pace of the game quite a bit.
Go ahead and calculate those odds. I'll wait. Let me know how they turn out for you. I mean, you can't claim that math is on your side and then not show it... not if you want to actually convince anybody that what you're saying is true.
JUST AGREE WITH HIM BRO!
YOYO time ebb is amazing removal, memory lapse is the perfect answer to everything.
Thread had several new posts while I was typing. In any case, let me make another argument as to why this effects card quality. If I were playing a typical jund deck, would it be okay for me to put a Putrid Leech on top of my library before we drew our opening hand? Odds are good that I'll get an equivalent threat anyways, so it shouldn't matter that I'm placing it on my library.
Of course that isn't alright, though. Because that guarantees I'll get a creature in addition to any creatures I'd normally get, at the cost of a random card. So my opening hand would probably look pretty nice, with a higher density of creatures than usual. This is essentially what happens with an ousted creature, though. You'd probably see a creature in the next three or so cards anyways, but this puts one additional one in.
It's a tempo play, because it costs them time where they don't have their creature out and swinging, and causes them to waste the mana they cast, as well as the mana to recast it. It's only psuedo-removal because the threat will show its face again. For comparison, imagine if it were Excommunicate. If I boomeranged your creature at end of turn, that's not removal, it's a tempo play. If I excommunicate your creature, it's still tempo, because in both cases, the creature shows up again next turn swinging. Oust is the same, except two turns later. Which doesn't really make it twice as good, just a little more useful against really dangerous threats, giving you time to draw permanent removal.
Karador EDH
Comments on decks welcome: http://tappedout.net/users/AradonTemplar/
Currently developing Set 1 of 3, 'Shadow': http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=436885
Exept for the fact that Oust is a 1-for-1 while Boomerang is card disadvantage... Oust is good early game removal and good removal in a race because it can play as a tempo card, and making them redraw an early creature is actually decreasing their overall card quality most of the time. The reason this card will be good is that it gives you time to find a permanent answer to a problem without losing card parity. This is like a kicked Into the Roilin that it generates a tempo advantage while maintaining card parity, it would have been 'fairly' costed at 1W without the life gain, and in a control deck I'd much rather give my opponent 3 life than pay an extra 1. All in all, this is a powerful card that people are criminally misevalutating.
Gathering Magic
Goblin Artisans
Channel Fireball
Daily MTG Making Magic
Daily MTG Latest Developments
MTG Color Pie
I find it amusing that you resort to this. It's even funnier that I'm going to call you out and take you up on it.
We'll start with a deck where the break down looks like this:
20 lands
20 threats
20 spells
Further, we'll say the threats go in an increasing order of scariness, and label them A, B, C, D, E.
Let's pick turn 3 as an arbitrary point at which Oust is played. (I have to pick somewhere, the math is different at every different point, but the end result is about the same.)
Turn 3, they play a "C" class threat. In response, you use Oust.
Turn 5, they will now have a guaranteed "C" class threat available to be cast. The odds of them having NOT drawn a DIFFERENT "C" class threat, a "D" class threat, or an "E" class threat that they could play by that point are about 7.4%.
So, in this example, you give them a slightly better quality threat than what they could have cast turn 5 in 7.4% of cases. The actual improvement in these 7.4% of cases is still minor - the gain for them is the difference between getting an A or B class threat and getting a C class threat, so the gain in this case is the difference between the values of those threats. (More accurately, it would be the difference between the quality of the card you used it on and the average quality of a card in their deck, which in good decks is very small; but I have no absolute way to gauge quality, and am not sure how to approach that mathematically).
Now, that minor effect is still being grossly over-inflated, because some of the 20 spells are probably more valuable to them on turn 5 than the threat is. Let's say that only 1 spell qualifies (a 4-of, for calculatory ease). That drops the odds of giving them something better than they would have already had to only 2.5%.
Now, that minor effect is STILL being grossly over-inflated, because there are also situations where they are mana screwed, or waiting on a particular card, but that card's appearance is delayed an additional turn because of Oust. There are also situations where they WOULD HAVE drawn a BETTER threat by that point, but did not because of Oust. So the small utility they gain in these 2.5% of cases is not even as big as the small amount I already described, on the average.
The fact of the matter is: most good decks are filled with good cards. For the most part, the player is happy to draw almost all of them. Setting one card in their library to a specific one of the cards from their deck does not consitute a strong effect.
If your answer is "No," then your morality does not come from God's commandments.
If your answer is "Yes," then please, please reconsider.
Often true in Constructed, where there is a lot of redundancy in decks. Usually false in Limited, where absolute removal can get rid of their one bomb and Oust cannot.
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
I'm not saying Oust is on level with boomerang. Obviously oust doesn't cost you the card. But it's the same purpose. Delay a threat, make them respend mana (Unless you're that guy boomeranging lands :P).
I'm not saying Oust is bad. It's a decent card, maybe great. I'd play with it a bit.
What I am saying is that Oust serves the function of tempo and pseudo removal.
What I am saying is that Oust does not essentially exile the target.
Mostly what I'm saying is that the card quality is not negligible. With 24 lands, you have a 40% chance of drawing a land in that 2nd-from-top card. With Oust, you have a 0% chance of drawing a land. In relation to the chances of drawing a better card in that spot instead (where Oust saves you the trouble by giving them an inferior card), I tend to use my removal on the most relevant threat on the board. It's usually going to be in the D and E threats. But even then, last thing I want to do is guarantee that whatever I'm removing will come back. It's not like a random shuffle into the library like Progenitus. It's 2nd from top. If the game lasts two more turns, it can come back. Guaranteed. As opposed to leaving things to chance, where there's the 40% chance that he draws a blank land, plus the additional chance of any A-C class lesser or equivalent threats that I'd rather he drew.
In this light you could think of it as pseudo card advantage too. On the surface it looks like card parity, but in that 2nd from top slot of your deck you still have a 40% chance of a blank land, while he gains a 100% chance of a relevant spell. Two turns from now, he'll be sure to be up at least one relevant card, while you don't have quite the same odds.
Karador EDH
Comments on decks welcome: http://tappedout.net/users/AradonTemplar/
Currently developing Set 1 of 3, 'Shadow': http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=436885
It's amusing because he only used that argument because he knew the math to be very complicated, and so assumed I would back down. That kind of scare tactic is the lamest form of argument.
The situation is much less different than you might expect when targeting a baneslayer angel. Assuming that there are 3 other baneslayers in the deck, that Baneslayer is the highest quality / biggest threat card in the deck, and that they cast the first Baneslayer on turn 5 (and thus have had a total of 7 turns to find a second), there is only about a 21% chance that you are giving them a way to replace the Baneslayer when they could not have done that naturally. And in those 21% of cases, again, the benefit you are giving them is a difference between the value to them of having a baneslayer, and the value to them of having another good card from their deck. Finally, that doesn't count the numerous times they crack a fetch land, or the game ends before turn 7, etc.
In general, the "side effect" of this spell "giving them back" a threat is irrelevent and not even worth considering. Even in the scariest possible situations (you use it on their biggest, highest quality threat as early as possible), the "benefit" is still typically negligible. And as I showed earlier, in "average" cases, it only exhibits its extremely minor positive effect for the opponent in less than 2.5% of games.
If your answer is "No," then your morality does not come from God's commandments.
If your answer is "Yes," then please, please reconsider.
I didn't respond before because you a) gave an example of a bad play (wasting your removal on a mediocre threat) and b) didn't actually show your math. You just made up numbers. I actually wanted you to do the math, because I was certain that I am better at it than you. Unfortunately, you don't show your work, so you make it impossible for me to actually point out your errors.
So, I'll ACTUALLY do the work for you.
4 Baneslayers in a deck.
In the case where they have only drawn one Baneslayer:
Odds of drawing 2 Baneslayers:
Odds of drawing exactly 1 Baneslayer:
Odds of drawing zero Baneslayers:
So, there is a measurably difference between Oust and another removal spell. After an Oust you will expect to see about 1.07 Baneslayer Angels over the next 2 turns. After a Terminate you will expect to see about 0.13 Baneslayer Angels.
Hey everybody-
i.e. means "that is," not "for example."
e.g. means "for example."
This is not arbitrary. i.e. stands for Latin "id est," while e.g. stands for "exemple gratia."
Remember this!!
I'm a Magic Rules Advisor!
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
Time of heroes: Cool card in Limited. But not really jaw dropping for me. I guess he can be a great partner for that blue guy that puts counters on your level up creatures...but I dont really see this card making a huge impact.
Oust: Nutty card. While not the best form of removal, definatly something for blue/white control players to consider. Pretty cool in Limited. I see this card more of a casual card, but I really hope to be proved wrong and this shows up in a deck somewhere.
Emerge Unscathed: This card is awesome. I know many-a-individuals who play with Sejiri Steppe so they, as well as I, will love this card. Great in Limited for a protection, and then swing in unblocked next turn. Definatly considering playing white.
Example cool creatures to put back into position 2 in your library: Ranger of Eos, Knight of the White Orchid, Acidic Slime, Goblin Ruinblaster, Stoneforge Mystic, Bloodbraid Elf, Vendillion Clique, Siege-Gang Commander.
My land destruction deck in standard will like this as removal as Path to Exile is terrible when trying to mana screw your opponent. I can reload Land D, or make it harder for them to draw enough mana producers.
But yeah, as people on MTGS have said, Chapin doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to card evaluation.
Twitter
Thank you for completely destroying his hyperbolic argument.
0 Karn
W Darien
U Arcanis
B Geth
R Norin
G Yeva
UW Hanna
RB Olivia
WB Obzedat
UR Melek
BG Glissa
WR Aurelia
GU Kraj
BRU Nicol Bolas
RGB Prossh
BGW Ghave
GUB Mimeoplasm
WUBRG Sliver Overlord
GWU Treva, the Renewer
EDH Spike:
U Azami, Lady of Scrolls
Trades
anyways, surely oust is not for BSA's? we alrerady have path and O-ring, Oust is for the cheap dirty 'time-walk'...eg opp t1, forest, tap, noble hierarch. our turn, plains, tap,oust hierarch. that feels like a pretty busted tempo advantage
In Standard, you can combine this with Punishing Fire to get some re-usability from another removal spell. In Extended, you can cast this to remove a blocker and give Kavu Predator a permanent Giant Growth for 3 mana.
Just saying.
you actually use odds incorrectly, the correct term for what you're saying is 'chances' or 'probability'
in statistics, the odds of something is the ratio of the chance that something will happen versus something not happening
so, for example, if event A occurs 1 in ten times, the probability is 0.1, but the odds are 9:1
have a nice day
Scroll back, say, a year ago.
White had NO spot removal. That always was a trait of the color, the lack of spot removal compensated for its strong mass removal.
Now what? Path to Exile, Oust, ☺☺☺☺. This is retarded, whatever happened to black being the color that dominated spot removal? It's a ☺☺☺☺ing joke, nobody wants to stick to its constrictions of 'cost 3 or less', 'nonblack' Not when white gets utterly overpowered, set after set.
What does blue get? LET ME GUESS CANCEL AGAIN???
This game is ☺☺☺☺ing going down the drain. Every. Single. Time.
Level Up. Cascade. loldomainfail. Re-edit Cycle. TO DO NOTHING WITH IT.
Get your ☺☺☺☺ together, Wizards, I'm sick of your ☺☺☺☺ing fail.
hells yeah...
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
Did you just compare a counter and a removal spell? Two completely different things my friend. Oh and blue got Jace and several other goodies, so please go cry me a river.
As for Oust, I'm not that good at math so I will leave that to others, but by now I think almost anyone agrees that Oust is not hard-removal. That said I still believe it's a great card that can change the pace of the game quite a bit.