Don't care about the flavor, I just want the unnamed 3-color combinations to get some attention in an upcoming block. It wouldn't be the worst idea in the world to follow up a gold heavy block with more options, and it seems like a good direction to go to support commander.
There is of course variance game to game. The card has a nearly 100% random effect on both players. Sometimes your going to give your reanimator opponent lands and Mulches and etc. while you hit 3s and 4s. Even though he should be gold in that matchup that variance in that game could screw you. There is variance of match ups and variance within games. Scary.
Nearly 100% random effect, huh. Playing Blackjack will net you a 100% random effect. Stacking particular cards in your deck of 60, including cards that will manipulate said deck, seriously mitigates the randomness. Knowing what your opponent is playing, or what he's likely to play, seriously mitigates the randomness. Those are facts of Magic, not just the Seer.
I'd love to play against you. I bet you nearly crap yourself every time your opponent draws a card. So scary.
Now your talking potentiality. Potentiality is a big rock sitting atop a hill. The potential for it to cause damage, given certain factors, i.e. someone using a lever and causing it to roll down said hill, is there of course. Potentiality is not destiny. Every card print has a certain amount of potentiality. The question is, is it worth the investment of money and time (the lever) to extract this cards potential? That I don't know but it doesn't feel like a $15 card.
The TL;DR was an immitation of another poster's arguments, which is why I placed it in quotation marks. You're right though, it's a big what-if. Which is why I can't help but feel that absolute statements about what's going to happen next month is just plain silly, especially when you consider how "scared" said poster is of unpredictable scenarios.
So should we instead look at the card in a vacuum? You don't like when I prove you wrong doing that. You don't like when I prove you wrong using actual decks. In case you're wondering, this is why I wont be responding to your posts now.
My arguments presuppose that a given player will know what the meta will look like when he plays the Seer, which isn't even out yet. Your arguments judge the card based upon an all-else-being-equal criteria, which is a) never the case and b) a piss poor way of evaluating the potential playability of a card. Or you try to shoehorn a single card from the next set, by itself, into the current meta and declare "it's bad! it's bad!". Why you insist on dealing in absolutes in a hypothetical argument is beyond me.
TL;DR: "Because it has the potential to be bad it will always be bad, and is therefor not worth playing."
At any rate, nice cop out - I'm used to people quitting when they realize they can no longer make a salient point. I look forward to not having more of your fallacious arguments directed at me.
Ok, now for the symmetry. What happens when you play mono red or Bant control where a majority of their decks cost 2 or less? Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. Symmetry.
You sideboard it out. The point is that you build your deck and your strategy to mitigate that "sometimes it's bad" factor in the first place.
Are you going to respond to what I said about your vacuum arguments?
I think as a sideboard, it could be okay. If you had a way to basically transform a B/U/x aggro deck into an anti-control deck via the sideboard, it might be interesting.
I think as a synergy, discard does work well with this card. But I don't think it will be relevant right now with all of the aggro decks around.
I'm also liking it a lot with Cyclonic Rift, which I'm sure others have already pointed out as well. Solid early answer against a little aggro, doesn't ding you for much life, and amazing mass bounce late game if your opponent does happen to draw into a lot of threats. I realize this is still very meta dependent at the moment, with certain ETB value cards floating around. Another thing to wait and watch for.
I forget, does the opponent get to see what you draw too, or are you just going to gloss over that downside of the card.
And you are also giving your opponent answers to what you are drawing.
Seer is essentially a 4/4 flier that will occasionally randomly help you win the game and occasionally randomly help your opponent win the game. Its effect is symmetrical in every sense other than when the cards are drawn, and personally, I don't think that is as good as others do.
I'm glossing over your arguments because each and every one of them is an attempt to compare this card in a vacuum. The cards you play along side it matter. Knowing ahead of time what potential decks your opponent might play matters.
It seems like you want to make a deck that counters the control decks... while at the same time making it very easy for the aggro decks - which are most of the field - to roll over you.
While I think the strategy will work if you get to the top 8, it won't get you into the top 8.
No, I don't want to make any kind of deck. I'm just exploring possibilities with an open mind, and I think there are quite a few of them in this instance. As some people have already pointed out, one of those possibilities would be keeping Seer as a sideboard option against the more ponderous deck archetypes.
Cards that cause pain to yourself are irrelevant to the conversation. Duskmantle is not possibly bad because it draws cards at the cost of life, if it is bad it is because it provides cards to your opponent and it costs them nothing. You are giving them cards. That is why the argument that Bob hurts you is terrible when comparing to Seer. They are not even remotely the same card.
The only card on your list that is comparable is Goblin Guide, and if Seer is good it is because it finds a deck that does not care about giving their opponent free cards, however, I find that unlikely considering Guide costs 1 and is played in burn decks, and this costs 4. I can't see how a deck that plays a 4 casting cost creature will not care about giving their opponent cards.
You make it sound like it's impossible to answer those extra cards that your opponent gets, which is even more extraordinary considering the Seer's colors - between black and blue you get bounce, counter, destruction and discard. And you get to see what those cards are when he gets them. That's huge when it comes to foiling your opponent's plays.
Maybe Seer will be huge, maybe he won't. But there's something to be said about how powerful he can be given the right circumstances. In a vacuum he's about as bad as Abyssal Persecutor was, but you didn't drop the persecutor unless you had an answer for him (Jace or a sac outlet - funny that we're discussing the same two colors). Same goes here - both are gambles, and both can be real game winners if you play them at the right time, in the right conditions.
At the very least I think we should give credit where credit is due. Wizards designed a mythic card without super obvious applications in the current meta, or in EDH, and it's making us think. At a certain point that's what Magic is (or should be) about - making smart plays when the consequences are unknown.
i play it =D
with arbor elf for extra cards
and in my Mimeoplasm EDH
I play a handful of zombies in my Mimeo deck, so I've been using Graveborn Muse as my CA engine of choice. I'm thinking of swapping them out though, maybe for a Bloodgift Demon. I need the room for better drops like Consuming Abberation (arguably better than Lord of Extinction), Mind Grind, and Sepulchral Primordial.
"You no take candle."
Why, is it less playable than Hellkite Tyrant or Giant Adephage? Or did you just mean the price?
Nearly 100% random effect, huh. Playing Blackjack will net you a 100% random effect. Stacking particular cards in your deck of 60, including cards that will manipulate said deck, seriously mitigates the randomness. Knowing what your opponent is playing, or what he's likely to play, seriously mitigates the randomness. Those are facts of Magic, not just the Seer.
I'd love to play against you. I bet you nearly crap yourself every time your opponent draws a card. So scary.
The TL;DR was an immitation of another poster's arguments, which is why I placed it in quotation marks. You're right though, it's a big what-if. Which is why I can't help but feel that absolute statements about what's going to happen next month is just plain silly, especially when you consider how "scared" said poster is of unpredictable scenarios.
My arguments presuppose that a given player will know what the meta will look like when he plays the Seer, which isn't even out yet. Your arguments judge the card based upon an all-else-being-equal criteria, which is a) never the case and b) a piss poor way of evaluating the potential playability of a card. Or you try to shoehorn a single card from the next set, by itself, into the current meta and declare "it's bad! it's bad!". Why you insist on dealing in absolutes in a hypothetical argument is beyond me.
TL;DR: "Because it has the potential to be bad it will always be bad, and is therefor not worth playing."
At any rate, nice cop out - I'm used to people quitting when they realize they can no longer make a salient point. I look forward to not having more of your fallacious arguments directed at me.
Please, tell me what the meta is going to look like next month so I can plan my purchases accordingly.
You sideboard it out. The point is that you build your deck and your strategy to mitigate that "sometimes it's bad" factor in the first place.
Are you going to respond to what I said about your vacuum arguments?
With Rakdos's Return.
I'm also liking it a lot with Cyclonic Rift, which I'm sure others have already pointed out as well. Solid early answer against a little aggro, doesn't ding you for much life, and amazing mass bounce late game if your opponent does happen to draw into a lot of threats. I realize this is still very meta dependent at the moment, with certain ETB value cards floating around. Another thing to wait and watch for.
I'm glossing over your arguments because each and every one of them is an attempt to compare this card in a vacuum. The cards you play along side it matter. Knowing ahead of time what potential decks your opponent might play matters.
No, I don't want to make any kind of deck. I'm just exploring possibilities with an open mind, and I think there are quite a few of them in this instance. As some people have already pointed out, one of those possibilities would be keeping Seer as a sideboard option against the more ponderous deck archetypes.
You make it sound like it's impossible to answer those extra cards that your opponent gets, which is even more extraordinary considering the Seer's colors - between black and blue you get bounce, counter, destruction and discard. And you get to see what those cards are when he gets them. That's huge when it comes to foiling your opponent's plays.
Maybe Seer will be huge, maybe he won't. But there's something to be said about how powerful he can be given the right circumstances. In a vacuum he's about as bad as Abyssal Persecutor was, but you didn't drop the persecutor unless you had an answer for him (Jace or a sac outlet - funny that we're discussing the same two colors). Same goes here - both are gambles, and both can be real game winners if you play them at the right time, in the right conditions.
At the very least I think we should give credit where credit is due. Wizards designed a mythic card without super obvious applications in the current meta, or in EDH, and it's making us think. At a certain point that's what Magic is (or should be) about - making smart plays when the consequences are unknown.
I play a handful of zombies in my Mimeo deck, so I've been using Graveborn Muse as my CA engine of choice. I'm thinking of swapping them out though, maybe for a Bloodgift Demon. I need the room for better drops like Consuming Abberation (arguably better than Lord of Extinction), Mind Grind, and Sepulchral Primordial.
Oh, don't be like that! I was just having a bit of fun, and believe it or not I was a little serious.