That's simply not true. You are just as likely to get rid of cards they DONT want to draw as cards they DO want to draw. They're still drawing a card each turn, you aren't denying them that. As with any milling effect, all you're doing is slightly shifting the percent chances of hitting certain cards in their deck, either for good or bad. Over time, the strategic impact of pure Ingest is effectively zero.
I'm not going to underestimate Ingest, but its potential is due to Processors. In a vacuum, it is entirely without strategic value.
While this is largely true, there are implications against some decks. For example, against a slower controlling deck with only a few win conditions, incidentally exiling some of those significantly decreases your opponent's ability to win the game. This also can have a significant impact on Tutors.
Unlike Mill, Ingest never puts the cards into your opponent's graveyard, so it provides no benefit to them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
dont overestimate ingest, cause the top card of ur library is unknown in most cases, especially with the scry lands gone now. so actually you dont care if he removes it, could also be a card you dont want to draw.
and u also rarely get to play your whole deck. so it doesnt matter if u end the game with 30 cards in ur library or just 15.
I would counter your argument with the exact same logic. Sure, you could easily ingest a handful of garbage. But you could also ingest Dragonlord Oujtai and company. It's not a home run mechanic by any means, but it fuels the processors and removes threats.
Doesn't work like that. Sure you COULD mill what they want...Or you could mill what they don't want and leave what they did want on top and then you helped them. Statistically (without scry being taken into effect) this has zero effect on the game over time.
That's simply not true. You are just as likely to get rid of cards they DONT want to draw as cards they DO want to draw. They're still drawing a card each turn, you aren't denying them that. As with any milling effect, all you're doing is slightly shifting the percent chances of hitting certain cards in their deck, either for good or bad. Over time, the strategic impact of pure Ingest is effectively zero.
I'm not going to underestimate Ingest, but its potential is due to Processors. In a vacuum, it is entirely without strategic value.
While this is largely true, there are implications against some decks. For example, against a slower controlling deck with only a few win conditions, incidentally exiling some of those significantly decreases your opponent's ability to win the game. This also can have a significant impact on Tutors.
Unlike Mill, Ingest never puts the cards into your opponent's graveyard, so it provides no benefit to them.
That's true, but it strikes me as fringe. If Ingest is seeing enough Constructed play for it to be a real threat, Controlling decks will adapt relatively easily by just adding one or two more win-cons to their deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
I understand where you are coming from, but you are still removing the top card of your opponents deck when they connect. I'm not saying it should be a strategy, but every card that's exiled is one less they have to draw. I think people underrate the Ingest mechanic. If it was tacked on to high cmc creatures, sure, it's lame. But you can start pulling them as early as turn 3, maybe sooner with additional spoilers. I kept my opening hand of 7 because I plan on drawing into the cards to make my hand work. Every time the top card is ingested, that's one less option I get to draw, one less land to keep me on curve. Don't underestimate the power of mill this coming standard, you will be surprised.
That's simply not true. You are just as likely to get rid of cards they DONT want to draw as cards they DO want to draw. They're still drawing a card each turn, you aren't denying them that. As with any milling effect, all you're doing is slightly shifting the percent chances of hitting certain cards in their deck, either for good or bad. Over time, the strategic impact of pure Ingest is effectively zero.
I'm not going to underestimate Ingest, but its potential is due to Processors. In a vacuum, it is entirely without strategic value.
This is why I don't understand people's perception that mill is always bad. Let me clarify that I am referencing the ingest mechanic to this specific spoiler. So you're saying you'd rather not exile anything? Or that you wouldn't mind having a card taken from the top of you're library every turn? More than 2+ every turn? Losing lands early game? It makes you consider your plays that much more. It's not milling with the threat of reanimation or shuffle effects, those cards are exiled. It will make you miss land drops. It will make you draw cards that could be utterly useless. It will take away threats to your own board state. And yes, it could remove useless cards and let them get their answers, but that's the same as saying "Card sucks, dies to removal". This set revolves around the big baddies. Even the most playable allies are 4+cmc. Start losing those cards, or even lands, and it warps the game. Well just have to wait and see I guess
The top card of your library is not magic. Milling has the same impact if take the top card or the bottom card (ignoring deck stacking shenanigan with spells). Milling doesn't help nor hinder your opponent. You mill his win con as often as you dig him closer to it. It has no impact on the quality of his draw. NONE.
This is why I don't understand people's perception that mill is always bad. Let me clarify that I am referencing the ingest mechanic to this specific spoiler. So you're saying you'd rather not exile anything? Or that you wouldn't mind having a card taken from the top of you're library every turn? More than 2+ every turn? Losing lands early game? It makes you consider your plays that much more. It's not milling with the threat of reanimation or shuffle effects, those cards are exiled. It will make you miss land drops. It will make you draw cards that could be utterly useless. It will take away threats to your own board state. And yes, it could remove useless cards and let them get their answers, but that's the same as saying "Card sucks, dies to removal". This set revolves around the big baddies. Even the most playable allies are 4+cmc. Start losing those cards, or even lands, and it warps the game. Well just have to wait and see I guess
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be a dick here, but you're still simply wrong. There is an equal chance of screwing your opponent with Ingest as there is in enabling them to find the cards they need. It adds a slight variance to individual games, sure, and if you're prone to confirmation bias you'll celebrate the games where you exile a land and then they get stuck, but you'll be doing yourself a disservice by thinking you've meaningfully improved your decks' chances of winning games by arbitrarily running Ingest. This isn't a new concept; you're falling into the same trap that countless newbies have been in.
Hypothetical test: Play three games.
For game 1, play normally.
For game 2, exile the top card of each player's deck before their draw step.
For game 3, Tome Scour each player each turn for the entire game.
Statistically, there will be no appreciable change in the odds of any player in any of these situations to draw their lands per turn. It's basic math.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
dont overestimate ingest, cause the top card of ur library is unknown in most cases, especially with the scry lands gone now. so actually you dont care if he removes it, could also be a card you dont want to draw.
and u also rarely get to play your whole deck. so it doesnt matter if u end the game with 30 cards in ur library or just 15.
I would counter your argument with the exact same logic. Sure, you could easily ingest a handful of garbage. But you could also ingest Dragonlord Oujtai and company. It's not a home run mechanic by any means, but it fuels the processors and removes threats.
Doesn't work like that. Sure you COULD mill what they want...Or you could mill what they don't want and leave what they did want on top and then you helped them. Statistically (without scry being taken into effect) this has zero effect on the game over time.
It doesn't work like a coin flip? Because that's essentially what I've been saying this entire time. I'd much rather have a 50-50 chance at taking away a threat than no chance at all. You're removing options. Simple as that. Great, they grabbed removal or a combo piece or whatever. Do they play it then? Do they have the mana to play it? When they cast it, will it even resolve? Stop looking at this in a vacuum. I'm not bringing this strategy to the board without knowing full well I could help them. Oblivion Sower turn 6 into Ulamog, the ceaseless hunger turn 7 made possible by ingest.
It doesn't work like a coin flip? Because that's essentially what I've been saying this entire time. I'd much rather have a 50-50 chance at taking away a threat than no chance at all. You're removing options. Simple as that. Great, they grabbed removal or a combo piece or whatever. Do they play it then? Do they have the mana to play it? When they cast it, will it even resolve? Stop looking at this in a vacuum. I'm not bringing this strategy to the board without knowing full well I could help them. Oblivion Sower turn 6 into Ulamog, the ceaseless hunger turn 7 made possible by ingest.
It's not a 50/50 chance of taking away a threat vs. not. It's a 50% chance of helping you and a 50% chance of hurting you. That may be a gamble you're willing to take, but don't act like it's actually a valuable or controllable effect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
One big factor most people are missing is that bombs are mostly not played as playset. This means, if ingest is hitting something good, chances are good that the opponent doesn't have another copy in the deck.
This is only true against specific styles of Control decks, and even then, it's of dubious value. Milling away one of my Dragonlord Ojutais is actually fine with me if I'm looking for a Languish.
That doesn't matter but think about loosing three or four cards every turn due to ingest.
Why? If I'm taking three or four hits every turn, I'm dying. You're never going to Ingest more than ~8 cards in a game at most before someone's life is zero.
This plays with the very nature of how we build our decks, our mana base and the mana curve. This is a perfect showcase how to make eldrazi feel more alien.
"This", being Ingest? Not even remotely.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
It doesn't work like a coin flip? Because that's essentially what I've been saying this entire time. I'd much rather have a 50-50 chance at taking away a threat than no chance at all. You're removing options. Simple as that. Great, they grabbed removal or a combo piece or whatever. Do they play it then? Do they have the mana to play it? When they cast it, will it even resolve? Stop looking at this in a vacuum. I'm not bringing this strategy to the board without knowing full well I could help them. Oblivion Sower turn 6 into Ulamog, the ceaseless hunger turn 7 made possible by ingest.
It's not a 50/50 chance of taking away a threat vs. not. It's a 50% chance of helping you and a 50% chance of hurting you. That may be a gamble you're willing to take, but don't act like it's actually a valuable or controllable effect.
Not to be a dick, but those are the exact same thing. Taking away a threat is taking away something that can hurt you. Ingest is going to fuel the late game.
It doesn't work like a coin flip? Because that's essentially what I've been saying this entire time. I'd much rather have a 50-50 chance at taking away a threat than no chance at all. You're removing options. Simple as that. Great, they grabbed removal or a combo piece or whatever. Do they play it then? Do they have the mana to play it? When they cast it, will it even resolve? Stop looking at this in a vacuum. I'm not bringing this strategy to the board without knowing full well I could help them. Oblivion Sower turn 6 into Ulamog, the ceaseless hunger turn 7 made possible by ingest.
It's not a 50/50 chance of taking away a threat vs. not. It's a 50% chance of helping you and a 50% chance of hurting you. That may be a gamble you're willing to take, but don't act like it's actually a valuable or controllable effect.
Sure, exiling two lands when they are low on lands feels good and does effect their chances to draw said lands you are just as likely to mill them into lands, as we have been saying. Some people think that they can play 5 games and have a statistical average but a general understanding of math tells you that this effect changes nothing on average assuming you are running no other cards that benefit from cards your opponent has in exile.
And assuming you aren't running anything else that cares about your opponent having exiled cards you are actually better off NOT exiling cards from the top (or anywhere in there library) because not only are you not changing anything statically but you are giving them a slight advantage as far as knowing what cards they can draw or how likely they are to draw it.
¨
It doesn't work like a coin flip? Because that's essentially what I've been saying this entire time. I'd much rather have a 50-50 chance at taking away a threat than no chance at all. You're removing options. Simple as that. Great, they grabbed removal or a combo piece or whatever. Do they play it then? Do they have the mana to play it? When they cast it, will it even resolve? Stop looking at this in a vacuum. I'm not bringing this strategy to the board without knowing full well I could help them. Oblivion Sower turn 6 into Ulamog, the ceaseless hunger turn 7 made possible by ingest.
¨
That's not how removing unknown cards work.
Say you are playing Hold 'em and if you so choose you may remove the top 10 cards of the deck, would you do it?
The answer is that it doesn't matter whatsoever. Yo have no knowledge of the cards you are removing and therefore they are irrelevant. There are a TON of math and game-theory confirming this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Not to be a dick, but those are the exact same thing. Taking away a threat is taking away something that can hurt you. Ingest is going to fuel the late game.
What does that even mean? I stated it's a 50% chance to HELP or a 50% chance to HURT. That's a zero net effect.
Ingest may work well if you can fuel processors with it, but that's besides the point that YOU were making; that Ingest somehow deprives opponents of land drops or specific draws.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
One big factor most people are missing is that bombs are mostly not played as playset. This means, if ingest is hitting something good, chances are good that the opponent doesn't have another copy in the deck.
This is only true against specific styles of Control decks, and even then, it's of dubious value. Milling away one of my Dragonlord Ojutais is actually fine with me if I'm looking for a Languish.
That doesn't matter but think about loosing three or four cards every turn due to ingest.
Why? If I'm taking three or four hits every turn, I'm dying. You're never going to Ingest more than ~8 cards in a game at most before someone's life is zero.
This plays with the very nature of how we build our decks, our mana base and the mana curve. This is a perfect showcase how to make eldrazi feel more alien.
"This", being Ingest? Not even remotely.
How will getting a languish over Oujtai help you? Sure, you'll almost certainly nuke the "Ingesters", but at that point you'll be missing the high toughness cards that benefit from exiled cards. You continue to prove my point the more you try and disregard it. Please stop looking at these cards in the vacuum you continue to push.
Say you are playing Hold 'em and if you so choose you may remove the top 10 cards of the deck, would you do it?
The answer is that it doesn't matter whatsoever. Yo have no knowledge of the cards you are removing and therefore they are irrelevant. There are a TON of math and game-theory confirming this.
The difference here is in hold 'em you cant tutor for cards you want later on. Removing cards is strictly better in MTG as it removes potential threats that player would want to tutor for in the future. Sure it doesn't help anyone's statistics on their next random draw.. but it sure does help when it comes to attempting to dig for a specific card that now has a very real chance of no longer being available.
Say you are playing Hold 'em and if you so choose you may remove the top 10 cards of the deck, would you do it?
The answer is that it doesn't matter whatsoever. Yo have no knowledge of the cards you are removing and therefore they are irrelevant. There are a TON of math and game-theory confirming this.
The difference here is in hold 'em you cant tutor for cards you want later on. Removing cards is strictly better in MTG as it removes potential threats that player would want to tutor for in the future. Sure it doesn't help anyone's statistics on their next random draw.. but it sure does help when it comes to attempting to dig for a specific card that now has a very real chance of no longer being available.
Which is true but irrelevant considering my answer is aimed at the claim that:
"you can send the smaller "Ingesters" in to pull their top-deck. Your both removing threats to this guy, and increasing the chance land drops are missed, making that turn-6 and beyond land drop crucial".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Say you are playing Hold 'em and if you so choose you may remove the top 10 cards of the deck, would you do it?
The answer is that it doesn't matter whatsoever. Yo have no knowledge of the cards you are removing and therefore they are irrelevant. There are a TON of math and game-theory confirming this.
The difference here is in hold 'em you cant tutor for cards you want later on. Removing cards is strictly better in MTG as it removes potential threats that player would want to tutor for in the future. Sure it doesn't help anyone's statistics on their next random draw.. but it sure does help when it comes to attempting to dig for a specific card that now has a very real chance of no longer being available.
Which is not even remotely the point that was originally being made, and not especially relevant in Standard unless Toolbox Bring to Light is a thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
How will getting a languish over Oujtai help you? Sure, you'll almost certainly nuke the "Ingesters", but at that point you'll be missing the high toughness cards that benefit from exiled cards. You continue to prove my point the more you try and disregard it. Please stop looking at these cards in the vacuum you continue to push.
Man, it was clearly a hypothetical scenario. Don't insult me by attempting to tell me the "correct" play in a vague, theoretical game state.
My point was that, if you DO mill one of my win conditions, that in itself isn't even necessarily a good thing if I wasn't looking for a win condition at that stage in the game. I would have thought that clear.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
Honestly this will see play. I've been doing tests with cockatrice (yes the tests are biased due to not having the full spoiler) but the format will slow down enough for way more things to see play than we're giving credit to.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The essence of every world, every spell and every thought is power. Nothing else matters, because nothing else exists."
Which is true but irrelevant considering my answer is aimed at the claim that:
"you can send the smaller "Ingesters" in to pull their top-deck. Your both removing threats to this guy, and increasing the chance land drops are missed, making that turn-6 and beyond land drop crucial".
..I'd much rather have a 50-50 chance at taking away a threat than no chance at all. You're removing options. Simple as that.
So it is completely relevant to say it is strictly better, and not the same in holdem, and the chance at removing threats is deffinitly better than none at all.. nothing like hold 'em unless you're counting only top deck.
I am honestly at a loss here. Let's spell a few things out...
First, The hold'em example is the worst I've ever read. Adjusting the state of a Hold'em deck affects BOTH players, so yes, you wouldn't want to take anything away from it because it hurts you just as much as it hurts your opponent.
Second, it will never be a "zero net effect", considering you are removing something entirely every successful hit.
Third, the ingest mechanic activates on the simplest interaction in the game, dealing combat damage. No hoops to jump through, nothing. Defending the fact "losing the unknown card on top of my deck means nothing" means you are willing to let these creatures attack you unblocked.
If you want to look at it like a math equation, then do this. Take your deck and remove 5 random cards from it. Then look at what your strategy amounts to. If it's 5 lands gone, your chances of pulling lands is decreased making it harder to play your deck. If it's 5 non-lands, how did they interact with your deck? Was it removal to answer large threats? Was it your bombs to win the game for you? I mean, really, everybody is over analyzing this. Taking something away is always better than not, unknown or otherwise.
Which is true but irrelevant considering my answer is aimed at the claim that:
"you can send the smaller "Ingesters" in to pull their top-deck. Your both removing threats to this guy, and increasing the chance land drops are missed, making that turn-6 and beyond land drop crucial".
..I'd much rather have a 50-50 chance at taking away a threat than no chance at all. You're removing options. Simple as that.
So it is completely relevant to say it is strictly better, and not the same in holdem, and the chance at removing threats is deffinitly better than none at all.. nothing like hold 'em unless you're counting only top deck.
While this is largely true, there are implications against some decks. For example, against a slower controlling deck with only a few win conditions, incidentally exiling some of those significantly decreases your opponent's ability to win the game. This also can have a significant impact on Tutors.
Unlike Mill, Ingest never puts the cards into your opponent's graveyard, so it provides no benefit to them.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Doesn't work like that. Sure you COULD mill what they want...Or you could mill what they don't want and leave what they did want on top and then you helped them. Statistically (without scry being taken into effect) this has zero effect on the game over time.
That's true, but it strikes me as fringe. If Ingest is seeing enough Constructed play for it to be a real threat, Controlling decks will adapt relatively easily by just adding one or two more win-cons to their deck.
This is why I don't understand people's perception that mill is always bad. Let me clarify that I am referencing the ingest mechanic to this specific spoiler. So you're saying you'd rather not exile anything? Or that you wouldn't mind having a card taken from the top of you're library every turn? More than 2+ every turn? Losing lands early game? It makes you consider your plays that much more. It's not milling with the threat of reanimation or shuffle effects, those cards are exiled. It will make you miss land drops. It will make you draw cards that could be utterly useless. It will take away threats to your own board state. And yes, it could remove useless cards and let them get their answers, but that's the same as saying "Card sucks, dies to removal". This set revolves around the big baddies. Even the most playable allies are 4+cmc. Start losing those cards, or even lands, and it warps the game. Well just have to wait and see I guess
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be a dick here, but you're still simply wrong. There is an equal chance of screwing your opponent with Ingest as there is in enabling them to find the cards they need. It adds a slight variance to individual games, sure, and if you're prone to confirmation bias you'll celebrate the games where you exile a land and then they get stuck, but you'll be doing yourself a disservice by thinking you've meaningfully improved your decks' chances of winning games by arbitrarily running Ingest. This isn't a new concept; you're falling into the same trap that countless newbies have been in.
Hypothetical test: Play three games.
For game 1, play normally.
For game 2, exile the top card of each player's deck before their draw step.
For game 3, Tome Scour each player each turn for the entire game.
Statistically, there will be no appreciable change in the odds of any player in any of these situations to draw their lands per turn. It's basic math.
It doesn't work like a coin flip? Because that's essentially what I've been saying this entire time. I'd much rather have a 50-50 chance at taking away a threat than no chance at all. You're removing options. Simple as that. Great, they grabbed removal or a combo piece or whatever. Do they play it then? Do they have the mana to play it? When they cast it, will it even resolve? Stop looking at this in a vacuum. I'm not bringing this strategy to the board without knowing full well I could help them. Oblivion Sower turn 6 into Ulamog, the ceaseless hunger turn 7 made possible by ingest.
It's not a 50/50 chance of taking away a threat vs. not. It's a 50% chance of helping you and a 50% chance of hurting you. That may be a gamble you're willing to take, but don't act like it's actually a valuable or controllable effect.
This is only true against specific styles of Control decks, and even then, it's of dubious value. Milling away one of my Dragonlord Ojutais is actually fine with me if I'm looking for a Languish.
Why? If I'm taking three or four hits every turn, I'm dying. You're never going to Ingest more than ~8 cards in a game at most before someone's life is zero.
"This", being Ingest? Not even remotely.
Not to be a dick, but those are the exact same thing. Taking away a threat is taking away something that can hurt you. Ingest is going to fuel the late game.
Sure, exiling two lands when they are low on lands feels good and does effect their chances to draw said lands you are just as likely to mill them into lands, as we have been saying. Some people think that they can play 5 games and have a statistical average but a general understanding of math tells you that this effect changes nothing on average assuming you are running no other cards that benefit from cards your opponent has in exile.
And assuming you aren't running anything else that cares about your opponent having exiled cards you are actually better off NOT exiling cards from the top (or anywhere in there library) because not only are you not changing anything statically but you are giving them a slight advantage as far as knowing what cards they can draw or how likely they are to draw it.
That's not how removing unknown cards work.
Say you are playing Hold 'em and if you so choose you may remove the top 10 cards of the deck, would you do it?
The answer is that it doesn't matter whatsoever. Yo have no knowledge of the cards you are removing and therefore they are irrelevant. There are a TON of math and game-theory confirming this.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
What does that even mean? I stated it's a 50% chance to HELP or a 50% chance to HURT. That's a zero net effect.
Ingest may work well if you can fuel processors with it, but that's besides the point that YOU were making; that Ingest somehow deprives opponents of land drops or specific draws.
How will getting a languish over Oujtai help you? Sure, you'll almost certainly nuke the "Ingesters", but at that point you'll be missing the high toughness cards that benefit from exiled cards. You continue to prove my point the more you try and disregard it. Please stop looking at these cards in the vacuum you continue to push.
You are the kind of person I hate playing against
The difference here is in hold 'em you cant tutor for cards you want later on. Removing cards is strictly better in MTG as it removes potential threats that player would want to tutor for in the future. Sure it doesn't help anyone's statistics on their next random draw.. but it sure does help when it comes to attempting to dig for a specific card that now has a very real chance of no longer being available.
Which is true but irrelevant considering my answer is aimed at the claim that:
"you can send the smaller "Ingesters" in to pull their top-deck. Your both removing threats to this guy, and increasing the chance land drops are missed, making that turn-6 and beyond land drop crucial".
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Which is not even remotely the point that was originally being made, and not especially relevant in Standard unless Toolbox Bring to Light is a thing.
Man, it was clearly a hypothetical scenario. Don't insult me by attempting to tell me the "correct" play in a vague, theoretical game state.
My point was that, if you DO mill one of my win conditions, that in itself isn't even necessarily a good thing if I wasn't looking for a win condition at that stage in the game. I would have thought that clear.
No, part of the response you were quoting was:
So it is completely relevant to say it is strictly better, and not the same in holdem, and the chance at removing threats is deffinitly better than none at all.. nothing like hold 'em unless you're counting only top deck.
This card will be used in more formats than standard, it will be particularly relevant in EDH.
First, The hold'em example is the worst I've ever read. Adjusting the state of a Hold'em deck affects BOTH players, so yes, you wouldn't want to take anything away from it because it hurts you just as much as it hurts your opponent.
Second, it will never be a "zero net effect", considering you are removing something entirely every successful hit.
Third, the ingest mechanic activates on the simplest interaction in the game, dealing combat damage. No hoops to jump through, nothing. Defending the fact "losing the unknown card on top of my deck means nothing" means you are willing to let these creatures attack you unblocked.
If you want to look at it like a math equation, then do this. Take your deck and remove 5 random cards from it. Then look at what your strategy amounts to. If it's 5 lands gone, your chances of pulling lands is decreased making it harder to play your deck. If it's 5 non-lands, how did they interact with your deck? Was it removal to answer large threats? Was it your bombs to win the game for you? I mean, really, everybody is over analyzing this. Taking something away is always better than not, unknown or otherwise.
My quote was referring to Ingest as a whole, not Sire. I'm aware that Sire will see play in EDH.
Ingest is NOT a freeroll chance to exile a threat. It is a chance to Exile ANYTHING, good or bad. How are you not getting this?