At average players start with 2 to 3 lands in the opening hand, all you need to do is mindtwist 3 to 4 cards to win.
I'm pretty sure that's just not true in legacy. CMC curves in legacy are incredibly low to the ground.
That's also not true in math, the cards from mindtwist are random, discarding 3 random cards is not the same as discarding 3 non-land cards. You're just very wrong.
If you'd been told to discard 3 or 4 cards you get to pick 3 or 4 cards. Discarding 3 or 4 random cards is out of your control. Sure there is no guarantee the opponent is completely screwed but the odds are the opponent is screwed and not able to recover. There is a reason why for a short time Hymn was banned.
Explain to me your statement. How have you determined that the "odds are the opponent is screwed?" The reasoning provided in your previous post is completely insane. You have not provided any information, you have simply pretended to answer the question while actually avoiding it.
Is the card going to be played or not... that depends on the meta.
I doubt this to be true in any meaningful amount.
I have no control on what is banned or what can come off the ban list. All I can do (and the same goes with you and anybody else posting this) is ASSUME WHY THE CARD IS ON THE BAN LIST. JUST LIKE WE CAN ASSUME THE CARD IS SAFE.
This statement is utterly meaningless. It has no relevance to anything said whatsoever.
At average players start with 2 to 3 lands in the opening hand, all you need to do is mindtwist 3 to 4 cards to win.
I'm pretty sure that's just not true in legacy. CMC curves in legacy are incredibly low to the ground.
That's also not true in math, the cards from mindtwist are random, discarding 3 random cards is not the same as discarding 3 non-land cards. You're just very wrong.
I think people are assessing Karlov under the same assumptions we made when (mis)assessing Tarmogoyf.
Back then people said "7/8 for 1G is busted, but it's too much work to make it happen". They didn't consider the scenario that by turn 3 Goyf was often a 1G 3/4 with no effort, or a 4/5 with just a little effort.
And it was the 'just a little effort' side of Goyf that made the card so strong that it is a Modern format pillar and is at least viable in Legacy.
Karlov in Soul Sisters is the 7/8 or 8/9 version of Goyf. Karlov in an Abzan Attrition Legacy port, however, which runs DRS and (maybe) one or two Soul Warden effects might just be a reliable 2 mana 4/4.
2 mana for a 4/4 in hatebear colours is definitely playable in Legacy.
The difference is that goyf gets bigger for just playing magic, playing cards makes goyf stronger. For Karlov you have to play in an exact way, one which doesn't necessarily benefit you all that much.
I'm pretty confident Black vise is going to do nothing, just find it a bit odd to have them announce that they want to both ban CA cards and unban CA-Punishing cards, probably would have preferred just unbanning CA-punishing cards. Would make format more interesting in general
I feel like we are walking on circles (my fault for not straight to the point before), so I will just ask you this:
What is a good card for you?
Depending on constraints, of such a power as to be within a reasonable grasp of the best card.
To me, Remand, Cryptic Command and Path to Exile are good cards, even if there are cards that are much better at what they do. I think they are good cards because they are Modern and Commander maindeck-able, and are strong for most standard environments.
The problem is that the original question was about cards in a vacuum, without regard to format or rules.
And in the hypothetical case where the best creature that existed was Archangel (and it saw play nowhere), I would still consider it bad compared to any other card, and worse, even if they were from different categories.
If the best creature was Archangel, Archangel would be a good card. Hence why Shivan Dragon used to be a great card. It is meaningless to say that the card is worse than AR, as they do not perform the same function, and thus their capability to do that function is incomparable.
I could argue that Ancestral Recall isn't a cantrip either, as someone some posts above me argued that it's a card advantage card.
AR I will concede is bordering on not being a cantrip. But it is certainly closer than a wheel.
And if we consider a loose enough definition of cantrip in order to classify Brainstorm and Ancestral Recall as cantrips, we'd have to consider every card that replaces itself.
If we used the loosest possible definition, sure, but why would we do such, and why would one be so obtuse?
At that point you may consider as well cards like Time Walk
Which doesn't replace itself as part of an effect.
This is why that definition is of low quality and shouldn't be discussed.
But if we are actually conservative and consider only one mana spells that do a small effect and draw a card for one mana, then Ponder and Preordain are the only unarguably better cantrips than Serum Visions.
Just because we discount tutors and wheel effects does not mean that we can only use 1 mana spells that replace themselves. That is a non sequitur and I would appreciate it if you would stop being so extreme.
It can't be second to AR, because AR is second to AR? What?
I never wrote that.
You listed three cards which could arguably be second to AR. One was AR. It's not a major point though, and I'm surprised you would put any effort into it by denying it, rather than just calling a mistake a mistake.
Comparable. And in the proper deck, it is better.[/quote]
I will remind you, though I'm sure this is unnecessary as you've read the entire conversation, that this is about cards in a vacuum.
There is an extra /quote in your post which throws off Curse's formatting, so I'll just be including your responses from hereon out.
Again, that depends on your definition of "cantrip".
Not really, so long as one is being reasonable. You've even classified the other definitions as being extreme.
It is a valid statement. Comparisons are always relative to something, that even on the definition of what comparing is.
And it makes sense how to, when comparing something as a whole, to not compare to the best?
I was basing my arguments on Magic as a whole, not just Legacy and Vintage.
Which doesn't include "OP" cards, which are only OP when compared to SV?
On the context of Vintage, Legacy, Pauper and EDH, Serum Visions is definitely a bad card. Comparing it to Duel Commander, Modern, Standard, Block and several limited formats, it's actually pretty good.
Which is comparing it to Magic as a whole and in a vacuum without the constraints of formats how?
I actually wish Modern was much more competitive so that Serum Visions were a bad card, but the truth is that it isn't.
How can you write that you are basing your arguments on magic as a whole, and then things like this?
Let's say someone says "Stoneforge Mystic is more powerful than Serum Visions". Would you try to argue "No! Because that's an entirely different category and utterly irrelevant! It makes no sense to compare creatures to cantrips!".
I'm sure you wouldn't.
I absolutely would, because that statement doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "Long distance runners are more athletic than power lifters!" in that it is simply meaningless. They exist on entirely different axes. It's the same as comparing a card with Dredge to a normal card.
So you agree Brainstorm is a overpowered card compared to most of the cards on MTG.
To the cantrips of MtG it is the second best.
Thus, it's not fair to say that Serum Visions is bad just because it's worse than one of the best cards ever printed.
Wrong. It is perfectly fair to say, under the stipulations originally put forth in the discussion, that SV is a bad card, even is BS is a good card.
I read the whole conversation.
I have called your bluff.
It's good in modern, duel commander, it would be good on standard, it would be good on most blocks.
The statement that it would be good in a format if it were legal is irrelevant, and not data. Is it good in Duel Commander? Or is it merely playable due to constrained options?
It's good enough compared to most magic cards, and good enough for modern. Not that many cards happen to actually be good in modern.
"Good enough" is meaningless. And it being good enough for Modern is equally meaningless.
Probably best to PM me your next response, as I can feel the Mods distaste for such an off topic conversation.
Not even sort of! There's a huge difference between being second and being where SV is!
I do agree with you to some extent in the sense that "good" and "bad" depend on the other cards we can compare with, and that talking about cards without comparing them to anything else would be ridiculous. But the cantrips we are talking about are just overpowered compared to the rest of the MTG cards.
No! That's not actually valid! The statement "AR being so much better is a statement about it's power, not SV's weakness" is complete bull*****. You can wish that the field weren't so competitive, but it is. SV has to compete with cards more powerful than it, that's what makes it awful.
To reach AR power level, there would need to be a one mana hasty 6/6 creature or a instant spell that discarded three cards for one mana.
No! Because that's an entirely different category and utterly irrelevant! It makes no sense to compare creatures to cantrips!
Changed to AR because AV is not that powerful.
While Brainstorm is not as broken as AR, I think we can agree that it's way above the power of any other card in modern's card pool.
I think we can agree that goats have fur.
That's another irrelevant fact we can agree on.
This is how I know you entered the conversation without reading. I specifically said that the card was only good in Modern, and terrible everywhere else. He is the one to say it is good outside of modern. SV is good in Modern, but not good in a vacuum, which is what he was saying.
Ponder and Preordain are more powerful than you are giving them credit for.
Yes, when compared to other cantrips it is awful. That makes it an awful cantrip.
Then by your logic, Brainstorm is an awful cantrip because compared to Ancestral Recall it is awful.
1) It isn't awful compared to AR.
2) It's the second best cantrip. SV isn't even top 5. Those two situations are radically different.
Counterspell is an awful counterspell because when compared to Mana Drain it sure seems pretty bad.
Counterspell isn't that great in a vacuum, it's less awful than SV, but it's not fabulous.
You seem to still not be grasping the fact that something is not awful simply because stuff that is way overpowered is better. That speaks more to the overpowered nature of those other cards.
How is it a good card then? If when compared to so much of the field it is awful? It speaks to how powerful everything else is, but that equally speaks to how awful the card is.
The fact that when arbitrary constrictions are placed on it, Modern, it becomes playable, does not make it a decent card.
If not for the "arbitrary constriction" of Mana Drain being banned in Legacy, how much play would Counterspell see? Clearly Counterspell is awful.
It already sees none. Counterspell isn't awful, but it's not that fantastic.
And Dark Ritual is awful as well because you're only playing with that due to the "arbitrary constriction" of Black Lotus being banned.
That's just not true. At all. A storm deck would play both if it included black.
(it might see play if Black Lotus is unbanned to be Black Lotus #5+, but let's not forget that the 4-of rule is honestly an arbitrary constriction as well!)
1) That's not true either, if there was not number constriction, I'm decently sure other cards would still be played.
2) The 4-of rule is not the same level of constriction as the format of modern. It is FAR more universal. Do not be so deliberately dishonest as to equate the two.
By the way, fun fact: Even before Ponder and Preordain were banned, Serum Visions was playable. A deck got into the Top 8 at the first Modern Pro Tour playing 4 copies of Serum Visions.
How many times? How did it compare to the number of Ponders and Preordains, because that data is beyond completely irrelevant.
So even with the "arbitrary constrictions" of Ponder and Preordain being unbanned, Serum Visions was seeing play.
1) Changed 'banned' to 'unbanned' because I'm decently sure that's what you meant.
2) In, according to you, ONE deck in ONE Top 8, it wasn't taking down tournaments, it saw some fringe play. You cannot count that as near what it is in present modern. Please tell me you aren't being serious in saying that on such event makes it 'viable' or 'playable' or 'prevalent'
You say it is good in a vacuum is to compare it to other cantrips, where it does not hold up, it only works when placed in an environment such as Modern, i.e. not a vacuum. Seriously, you keep saying it's objectively a good card, but when compared to other cantrip options, it's terrible.
Two things.
1) My examination of it in a vacuum was not to compare it to other cantrips (I compared it to other cantrips, but that was outside of my "in a vacuum" part). I stated that, for 1 mana, replacing itself and setting up your next draw is actually pretty decent.
Then your definition is completely useless. You are evaluating the card in an environment where it is the only card. That is worthless as data. So worthless I question how one could convince oneself to see it as useful.
That said, it's difficult to evaluate a card in a true vacuum because
It goes against all reason to pretend that a card is the only card in existence?
without any point of reference everything becomes completely subjective.
And yet you do decide to do it? And yet you think it useful after admitting here that you basically call it good because you like it?
For example, Black Lotus is only good when you know how much mana other cards cost.
No, if we're using your complete vacuum without any other cards or rules in the format, that point is irrelevant because you can have as many as you want!
2) Considering you just claimed my problem with it in a vacuum was to compare it to other cards
No, I meant that by comparing it in a vacuum, I thought you just meant with other cantrips. A vacuum in that the rules of modern, the presence of Fetchlands, etc. were not used. That would be a reasonable use of the word vacuum, what you are doing is not.
, it's odd that you decide to do that yourself
I do no such thing! We have drastically different definitions of comparing things in vacuums, as has been evident, for you at least, for multiple posts, to then say something like this either shows a drastic misunderstanding of what I said, or direct dishonesty.
More importantly, Serum Visions is actually a pretty good card in a vacuum. People just think it's bad because they're comparing it to cantrips that are overpowered to begin with. Even the absurdly powerful Brainstorm looks bad when you compare it to Ancestral Recall.
No, SV is terrible everywhere except Modern. In a vacuum it is terrible.
In a vacuum it's a 1-mana cantrip that helps you set up your next draw fairly effectively. For 1 mana that's actually pretty powerful. So no, it's not terrible in a vacuum.
Your argument is that it's "terrible everywhere except Modern." But by "everywhere" you really just mean "Vintage and Legacy" which again comes from the fact their cantrips are so overpowered that a card like Serum Visions isn't played. Of course a good-but-reasonable card isn't seeing play when you can play with crazy powerful stuff like Brainstorm (and not necessarily 'crazy powerful' but still rather overpowered cards like Ponder or Preordain).
I mean, by your argument Path to Exile is terrible, but it's actually a pretty good card. It's just outclassed by an even more overpowered card in non-Modern formats.
Yes, when compared to other cantrips it is awful. That makes it an awful cantrip. The fact that when arbitrary constrictions are placed on it, Modern, it becomes playable, does not make it a decent card.
You say it is good in a vacuum is to compare it to other cantrips, where it does not hold up, it only works when placed in an environment such as Modern, i.e. not a vacuum. Seriously, you keep saying it's objectively a good card, but when compared to other cantrip options, it's terrible.
More importantly, Serum Visions is actually a pretty good card in a vacuum. People just think it's bad because they're comparing it to cantrips that are overpowered to begin with. Even the absurdly powerful Brainstorm looks bad when you compare it to Ancestral Recall.
No, SV is terrible everywhere except Modern. In a vacuum it is terrible.
Generally speaking, Odric, Master Tactician does what you want this guy to do much, much better. As noted above me though there are political options with this one, but still...
So, this is just me loving flavor, but the General feels more like an actual general or tactician, planning battles ahead of time, not entering them himself. He manipulates the environment from afar. The art and tap ability really seal that. Odric however seems to charge into battle and control it through his own swordsmanship rather than pre-battle planning.
I feel Abzan is the true police deck in Modern. It makes most deck have to play an unfair game because its fair game is so strong. It has access to removal, disruption, threats, its the closest thing to a real police deck.
Is it policing what we want it to then? If it's forcing people into linear unfair decks, is that the desired state?
I really like enlightened tutor, as it's essentially a worldly tutor with added benefit of being able to search up an enchantment package.
The Oblivion Ring might be a bit slow I would think about swords to plowshares instead.
I think something can be done here with enlightened tutor, whether it be using scroll racksensei's divining top or something else, but I'd look into a utility package relating to artifacts and enchantments.
Given that you're automatically three color, standard Duals and Fetches are things you should invest in.
Explain to me your statement. How have you determined that the "odds are the opponent is screwed?" The reasoning provided in your previous post is completely insane. You have not provided any information, you have simply pretended to answer the question while actually avoiding it.
I doubt this to be true in any meaningful amount.
This statement is utterly meaningless. It has no relevance to anything said whatsoever.
I'm pretty sure that's just not true in legacy. CMC curves in legacy are incredibly low to the ground.
That's also not true in math, the cards from mindtwist are random, discarding 3 random cards is not the same as discarding 3 non-land cards. You're just very wrong.
The difference is that goyf gets bigger for just playing magic, playing cards makes goyf stronger. For Karlov you have to play in an exact way, one which doesn't necessarily benefit you all that much.
No, just way no. This is a point Soldier had right, if we are banning cards at the level of DTT, we would also bring justification for common staples.
It does no such thing.
Depending on constraints, of such a power as to be within a reasonable grasp of the best card.
The problem is that the original question was about cards in a vacuum, without regard to format or rules.
If the best creature was Archangel, Archangel would be a good card. Hence why Shivan Dragon used to be a great card. It is meaningless to say that the card is worse than AR, as they do not perform the same function, and thus their capability to do that function is incomparable.
I'm ignoring every other cantrip? How?
I maintain that there is a difference between second to AR and SV.
It really depends more on the quality of one's definition of cantrip.
AR I will concede is bordering on not being a cantrip. But it is certainly closer than a wheel.
If we used the loosest possible definition, sure, but why would we do such, and why would one be so obtuse?
Which doesn't replace itself as part of an effect.
This is why that definition is of low quality and shouldn't be discussed.
Just because we discount tutors and wheel effects does not mean that we can only use 1 mana spells that replace themselves. That is a non sequitur and I would appreciate it if you would stop being so extreme.
You listed three cards which could arguably be second to AR. One was AR. It's not a major point though, and I'm surprised you would put any effort into it by denying it, rather than just calling a mistake a mistake.
Comparable. And in the proper deck, it is better.[/quote]
I will remind you, though I'm sure this is unnecessary as you've read the entire conversation, that this is about cards in a vacuum.
There is an extra /quote in your post which throws off Curse's formatting, so I'll just be including your responses from hereon out.
Not really, so long as one is being reasonable. You've even classified the other definitions as being extreme.
And it makes sense how to, when comparing something as a whole, to not compare to the best?
Which doesn't include "OP" cards, which are only OP when compared to SV?
Which is comparing it to Magic as a whole and in a vacuum without the constraints of formats how?
How can you write that you are basing your arguments on magic as a whole, and then things like this?
I absolutely would, because that statement doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "Long distance runners are more athletic than power lifters!" in that it is simply meaningless. They exist on entirely different axes. It's the same as comparing a card with Dredge to a normal card.
To the cantrips of MtG it is the second best.
Wrong. It is perfectly fair to say, under the stipulations originally put forth in the discussion, that SV is a bad card, even is BS is a good card.
I have called your bluff.
The statement that it would be good in a format if it were legal is irrelevant, and not data. Is it good in Duel Commander? Or is it merely playable due to constrained options?
"Good enough" is meaningless. And it being good enough for Modern is equally meaningless.
Probably best to PM me your next response, as I can feel the Mods distaste for such an off topic conversation.
It is better. That does not make BS awful, that would be silly. That would be to disregard, every single other 1 mana cantrip, which would be insane.
Actually, it's second to AR.
Black and not a cantrip. That's a wheel effect.
It can't be second to AR, because AR is second to AR? What?
Just no. Not better than BS.
Not even sort of! There's a huge difference between being second and being where SV is!
No! That's not actually valid! The statement "AR being so much better is a statement about it's power, not SV's weakness" is complete bull*****. You can wish that the field weren't so competitive, but it is. SV has to compete with cards more powerful than it, that's what makes it awful.
No! Because that's an entirely different category and utterly irrelevant! It makes no sense to compare creatures to cantrips!
Changed to AR because AV is not that powerful.
I think we can agree that goats have fur.
That's another irrelevant fact we can agree on.
This is how I know you entered the conversation without reading. I specifically said that the card was only good in Modern, and terrible everywhere else. He is the one to say it is good outside of modern. SV is good in Modern, but not good in a vacuum, which is what he was saying.
Nope.
1) It isn't awful compared to AR.
2) It's the second best cantrip. SV isn't even top 5. Those two situations are radically different.
Counterspell isn't that great in a vacuum, it's less awful than SV, but it's not fabulous.
How is it a good card then? If when compared to so much of the field it is awful? It speaks to how powerful everything else is, but that equally speaks to how awful the card is.
It already sees none. Counterspell isn't awful, but it's not that fantastic.
That's just not true. At all. A storm deck would play both if it included black.
1) That's not true either, if there was not number constriction, I'm decently sure other cards would still be played.
2) The 4-of rule is not the same level of constriction as the format of modern. It is FAR more universal. Do not be so deliberately dishonest as to equate the two.
How many times? How did it compare to the number of Ponders and Preordains, because that data is beyond completely irrelevant.
1) Changed 'banned' to 'unbanned' because I'm decently sure that's what you meant.
2) In, according to you, ONE deck in ONE Top 8, it wasn't taking down tournaments, it saw some fringe play. You cannot count that as near what it is in present modern. Please tell me you aren't being serious in saying that on such event makes it 'viable' or 'playable' or 'prevalent'
Then your definition is completely useless. You are evaluating the card in an environment where it is the only card. That is worthless as data. So worthless I question how one could convince oneself to see it as useful.
It goes against all reason to pretend that a card is the only card in existence?
And yet you do decide to do it? And yet you think it useful after admitting here that you basically call it good because you like it?
No, if we're using your complete vacuum without any other cards or rules in the format, that point is irrelevant because you can have as many as you want!
No, I meant that by comparing it in a vacuum, I thought you just meant with other cantrips. A vacuum in that the rules of modern, the presence of Fetchlands, etc. were not used. That would be a reasonable use of the word vacuum, what you are doing is not.
I do no such thing! We have drastically different definitions of comparing things in vacuums, as has been evident, for you at least, for multiple posts, to then say something like this either shows a drastic misunderstanding of what I said, or direct dishonesty.
Yes, when compared to other cantrips it is awful. That makes it an awful cantrip. The fact that when arbitrary constrictions are placed on it, Modern, it becomes playable, does not make it a decent card.
You say it is good in a vacuum is to compare it to other cantrips, where it does not hold up, it only works when placed in an environment such as Modern, i.e. not a vacuum. Seriously, you keep saying it's objectively a good card, but when compared to other cantrip options, it's terrible.
Wouldn't Top Tier necessitate Tier 1, as that is the top tier?
No, SV is terrible everywhere except Modern. In a vacuum it is terrible.
So, this is just me loving flavor, but the General feels more like an actual general or tactician, planning battles ahead of time, not entering them himself. He manipulates the environment from afar. The art and tap ability really seal that. Odric however seems to charge into battle and control it through his own swordsmanship rather than pre-battle planning.
He'll be fine, Cryo's magical.
Is it policing what we want it to then? If it's forcing people into linear unfair decks, is that the desired state?
She strongly supports artifacts, and UW artifacts has worked wonderfully for me.
Cards are usually tagged, which I'll do for you here.
I really like enlightened tutor, as it's essentially a worldly tutor with added benefit of being able to search up an enchantment package.
The Oblivion Ring might be a bit slow I would think about swords to plowshares instead.
I think something can be done here with enlightened tutor, whether it be using scroll rack sensei's divining top or something else, but I'd look into a utility package relating to artifacts and enchantments.
Given that you're automatically three color, standard Duals and Fetches are things you should invest in.