[New Card] Ponder - A Cantrip Almost As Good As Brainstorm! [Archive]

SuckerPunch

09-02-2007, 02:16 PM

Think - U
Instant (C)
Look at the top three cards of your library. You may put them back in any order or shuffle your library.
Draw a card.

:eek:

Here's the link... http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=88011&page=7

Check Rancored Elf's Post #103.

The card is almost as good as Brainstorm, way better than Serum Visions, Impulse and Portent.

It has one major advantage over Brainstorm. If you are desperately searching for a particular card, this essentially lets you dig four cards to try and get it, where as Brainstorm fails you if it's the fourth card down.

So it will be an automatic 4 of in Threshold and Solidarity. The question is, should MUC be running it? Landstill? What else?

Edit: Since this thread has quickly turned into a debate about what cantrip base thresh should use from now on, I just wanted to throw my opinion on the table.

4 Brainstorm
4 Think
4 Serum Visions/Portent - The difference in powerlvl btwn these two is so negligable that it's not worth debating IMHO, run whichever you like
3 Mental Note/Predict - Depending on whether you run 14 creatures and want to beat with them fast, or just run 10 creatures and the counterbalance/top plan and want to play a slower more controlling game.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Edit:

The card is now called Ponder and is a sorcery :( Still solid though.

Ponder - U
Sorcery (C)
Look at the top three cards of your library. You may put them back in any order or shuffle your library.
Draw a card.

Jaynel

09-02-2007, 02:23 PM

Better than Opt in Solidarity. Better than Sleight of Hand in Spring Tide.

SuckerPunch

09-02-2007, 02:25 PM

That goes without saying.

The question is, should the decks that currently run 4 Brainstorms as their only cantrips (as the alternatives are all significantly worse), be finding ways to make room for 4 more?

BreathWeapon

09-02-2007, 03:34 PM

Those cantrips do have the advantage of being a Sorcery for Tarmogoyf, but considering Think is > either of those cantrips by itself and > than either of those cantrips with Counterbalance, that card is a 4x for certain.

The more interesting question is whether or not it's good enough for Storm combo.

Edit, Bleh, GAT gets better in T1.

frogboy

09-02-2007, 03:37 PM

It's significantly worse than Serum Visions. Portent at instant speed as a real cantrip is still terrible.

Alfred

09-02-2007, 03:45 PM

It's significantly worse than Serum Visions. Portent at instant speed as a real cantrip is still terrible.

Why is it worse? Especially with shuffle effects? It would give you the card that you wanted out of the top three as soon as you cast it, and you wouldn't have to deal with the other two you didn't.

Nihil Credo

09-02-2007, 03:48 PM

It's significantly worse than Serum Visions. Portent at instant speed as a real cantrip is still terrible.
http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/7060/wtf2va7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

frogboy

09-02-2007, 03:51 PM

Alfred: Because you don't always have a shuffle effect, and Brainstorm obviously has priority on your first one.

Nihil: Do you have a point?

Alfred

09-02-2007, 04:02 PM

Alfred: Because you don't always have a shuffle effect, and Brainstorm obviously has priority on your first one.

Well, thank goodness this card has a shuffle effect built in! Humour aside, when you are drawing through a large portion of your deck with Brainstorm and this card, finding more than one shuffle effect will probably not be that difficult.

The shuffle effect is even built in, so if you want to get rid of the top two Brainstormed cards, this can do it for you too. It actually makes Brainstorm better! Serum Visions doesn't do that.

It also lets you look at 4 cards AS SOON as you cast it. If you need a card like a counterspell, creature, removal, etc. immediately, this is way better than Serum Visions, which requires you wait a turn before getting it (unless it was the first card).

Now add in Instant speed, so you can keep your options open during an opponent's turn? That sounds WAY better than Serum Visions to me.

frogboy

09-02-2007, 04:06 PM

Well, thank goodness this card has a shuffle effect built in!

Yeah, that's super convienent except for the fact that you can't take a good card and make the bad cards go away.

finding more than one shuffle effect will probably not be that difficult.

When I test with lists using Portent this issue comes up all the time and makes me actively want to hurt the person who is responsible for Portent being in the deck.

I'm not really sure why I bother.

BreathWeapon

09-02-2007, 04:17 PM

Being able to cast Think or Stifle/Spellsnare instead of just being able to cast Serum Visions and either lose to combo or let a Fetchland/Tarmogoyf resolve is strong, but it also significantly increases the odds of drawing/cantripping into a Force of Will or Daze compared to Serum Visions. Opening up first turn mana, with out having to use Opt to do it, gives Threshold more options to consider at this point.

Obfuscate Freely

09-02-2007, 04:18 PM

Portent at instant speed as a real cantrip is still terrible.

You've thrown statements like this around several times in the past few days, and this seems like as good a place as any to call you out on it. Portent is great, and this new card is even better, which makes it amazing.

Serum Visions is generally not as good as either. The major difference is that the card Visions replaces itself with is random; whereas Portent/Think happily replaces itself with the best card out of the top three.

Yes, Portent and Think leave it up to you to deal with the next two cards, while Visions will take care of that for you, but the damage may have already been done at that point. Besides that, we're talking about decks with 7-8 fetchlands in them, at the least. You usually also have access to other ways of clearing the top of the library, like Predict, Mental Note, Worldy Tutor, etc.

The other big reason Portent (and Think) is better than Visions is that it simply digs deeper if you're looking for something specific (say, a second land). If what you need isn't in the top three cards, you can shuffle, and then draw, while Serum Visions would have already handed you a blank and told you to fuck off.

Honestly, I thought we had all turned this corner already. Portent is good. Think is even better. Get over it.

EDIT: Several people made posts while I was typing mine. They're pretty much all right, and Frogboy is still wrong.

When I test with lists using Portent this issue comes up all the time and makes me actively want to hurt the person who is responsible for Portent being in the deck.
There doesn't seem to be much to say, except... you seem to be the only one.

Alfred

09-02-2007, 04:21 PM

Yeah, that's super convienent except for the fact that you can't take a good card and make the bad cards go away.

Shuffle effects can do that.

When I test with lists using Portent this issue comes up all the time and makes me actively want to hurt the person who is responsible for Portent being in the deck.

I'm not really sure why I bother.

So you're saying that you wouldn't play more than 4 Brainstorms in a deck because you might not have the shuffle effect to get rid of the "bad cards on top of your deck"?

xsockmonkeyx

09-02-2007, 04:29 PM

It's significantly worse than Serum Visions. Portent at instant speed as a real cantrip is still terrible.

Did Portent rape your mother or something?

Sanguine Voyeur

09-02-2007, 04:35 PM

Alfred

09-02-2007, 04:38 PM

I'm going to ask this here because I don't want to start a new thead.

What's the point of twelve to fifteen cantrips in a deck? (High Tide and Threshold aside.)
What's the best way to use a million cantrip deck?

Is this an argument against Neo-Portent? Because you don't really have to run 12-15 cantrips to run it. It's the second best cantrip, so you would only have to be concerned about running 5-8 cantrips.

Artowis

09-02-2007, 04:40 PM

So you're saying that you wouldn't play more than 4 Brainstorms in a deck because you might not have the shuffle effect to get rid of the "bad cards on top of your deck"?

Please don't tell me your comparing any cantrip to Brainstorm with this. Like Brainstorm is fucking amazing and no cantrip even comes close to it, so nice ridiculous question here.

Sanguine Voyeur

09-02-2007, 04:44 PM

Is this an argument against Neo-Portent?No, it's just a cantrip related question.
Because you don't really have to run 12-15 cantrips to run it. It's the second best cantrip, so you would only have to be concerned about running 5-8 cantrips.I just think there could be a use for the digging power of Brainstorm, Portent, Neo-Portent, and maybe two or three Predicts.

FoolofaTook

09-02-2007, 04:49 PM

Think - U
Instant (C)
Look at the top three cards of your library. You may put them back in any order or shuffle your library.
Draw a card.

Better than Portent by quite a bit given you get immediate replacement at instant speed.

Portent still has the defensive possibility of screwing up the opponent by Portenting him, however at Sorcery speed it never seems to be worth using that way.

SuckerPunch

09-02-2007, 04:49 PM

I will probably be running

4 Brainstorm
4 Think
4 Serum Visions
2 Portent/Mental Note
2 Predict

I do like how Serum Visions interacts with Brainstorm/Think/Portent effects, getting you the second good card, and letting you get rid of the crappy one.

It's a shuffle effect when you don't have a fetchland handy imo. Same goes for Mental Note - which has the great bonus of filling up the yard.

Alfred

09-02-2007, 04:50 PM

Please don't tell me your comparing any cantrip to Brainstorm with this. Like Brainstorm is fucking amazing and no cantrip even comes close to it, so nice ridiculous question here.

I'm actually answering his argument against it. If one of his only arguments against this new card is that you might not have a shuffle effect to clear away the other cards you don't want, that's a problem for additional Brainstorms as well.

Not that I would actually think that finding multiple shuffle effects is actually a problem.

Eldariel

09-02-2007, 04:51 PM

I'm going to ask this here because I don't want to start a new thead.

What's the point of twelve to fifteen cantrips in a deck? (High Tide and Threshold aside.)
What's the best way to use a million cantrip deck?

Basically, keeping a cantrip available at all times so you can find exactly what you need at whichever point you need it, to play higher quality cards (since you need less total) and to fill your graveyard for effects. Oh, and to pick up Storm-count. Other decks than Threshold and Tide can benefit of those, although as already said, 8 is more common outside decks using them as engines (for example, Meathooks that just uses them to filter).

Raider Bob

09-02-2007, 04:53 PM

The only reason to play Portant over Think is to look at your opponents top 3 cards and screw your opponent. The fact that this card does not target makes it less effective than Portant in Tempo based decks, especially the UG version of thresh that is so popular now.

frogboy

09-02-2007, 04:55 PM

So you're saying that you wouldn't play more than 4 Brainstorms in a deck because you might not have the shuffle effect to get rid of the "bad cards on top of your deck"?

The card is not the equivalent of Brainstorm because Brainstorm can take bricks out of your hand. The best Think + Shuffle does for you is you don't draw bricks. With SV you may hit a brick on your first draw but your next two you never will. With Think you might have to draw two.

Yes, Portent and Think leave it up to you to deal with the next two cards, while Visions will take care of that for you, but the damage may have already been done at that point. Besides that, we're talking about decks with 7-8 fetchlands in them, at the least. You usually also have access to other ways of clearing the top of the library, like Predict, Mental Note, Worldy Tutor, etc.

My fetchlands are usually used setting up Brainstorm and my mana base; yeah, Portent is good when you're flooded with fetches but SV is better when you're not.

In my testing I found relying upon my other cantrips to make Portent work set me back on tempo. In the midgame, it's even worse.

Honestly, the only reason I haven't written the entire thing off is because the Hatfields like it so I figure there's probably some merit, I just don't see what it is. What're the one land Portent no other cantrip hands you're keeping, anyway?

noobslayer

09-02-2007, 05:02 PM

What you are all failing to realize is this is a subtle way for RnD to power down our beloved Tarmogoyf. By printing instant speed versions of good sorcery speed cards, we will begin to run fewer and fewer sorceries, thus weakening our overall Tarmogoyf strategy.

Is it worth it? Should we continue to run Portent with this new revelation? When will we get an instant speed Pyroclasm? Why does any of this fucking matter?

MattH

09-02-2007, 05:15 PM

Probably shouldn't be running Portent NOW; assuming this spoiler is accurate, there'll be no reason at all come November.

Alfred

09-02-2007, 05:22 PM

The card is not the equivalent of Brainstorm because Brainstorm can take bricks out of your hand. The best Think + Shuffle does for you is you don't draw bricks. With SV you may hit a brick on your first draw but your next two you never will. With Think you might have to draw two.

Setting up Brainstorm with a fetchland is obviously better than setting up a "Think" with with a fetchland, but you still need a fetchland for both to get around the drawbacks.

You said that it happened all of the time where you weren't able to find another shuffle effect to fix Portent, then it would also be the case that you wouldn't be able to find shuffle effects for additional (>4) Brainstorms.

Furthermore, you assume that only 1 of the three cards on top of your library is worth something. However, if 3 of the cards are all cards you want, Think is almost definately better, because you get to choose which one you want at the moment. If none of the cards are the ones you want, Think is better than Visions because you get to shuffle them away and draw another card.

Think is better than Serum Visions if you have a fetchland. Think is better than Serum Visions if you just played a Brainstorm (the shuffle effect). Think is better than Serum Visions if you need a specific card out of the three immediately. Think is better when you need to choose between a search spell and a disruption spell (instantness). Think is better than Serum Visions when you are digging for a solution. Think is better than Serum Visions when your opponent's play on his turn changes the card that you would want to take.

My fetchlands are usually used setting up Brainstorm and my mana base; yeah, Portent is good when you're flooded with fetches but SV is better when you're not.

In my testing I found relying upon my other cantrips to make Portent work set me back on tempo. In the midgame, it's even worse.

Honestly, the only reason I haven't written the entire thing off is because the Hatfields like it so I figure there's probably some merit, I just don't see what it is. What're the one land Portent no other cantrip hands you're keeping, anyway?

I actually find that Serum Visions is reliant on other cantrips too. If you need one of the scry'd cards immediately, you have to burn another cantrip to put it into your hand.

Think is also better than Portent in a way you might not have thought. Think allows you to find and play non-instant cards on your turn immediately after casting it, like in Threshold when you need a land or a creature.

I believe the best thing about this new card is that it turns the top of your deck into your hand, in much the same way as Sensei's Divining-Top does, and is something that Serum Visions can't really boast.

In decks that rely on having answers ready at all times (like Threshold does), the ability to, AT ANY TIME, look at the top 3, or 4 with the shuffle ability, for a solution is incredible. As an emergency button (OH GOD I NEED A FORCE OF WILL RIGHT NOW) it's even better than Brainstorm, because you get to see more cards.

Obfuscate Freely

09-02-2007, 05:30 PM

frogboy

09-02-2007, 05:59 PM

Actually that begs an excellent question: How many people in the Portent camp are routinely casting Brainstorm on turn one?

Alfred: Brainstorm no shuffle is way better than Portent no shuffle except when all three cards are bad.

Think is better than Serum Visions if you have a fetchland. Think is better than Serum Visions if you just played a Brainstorm (the shuffle effect). Think is better than Serum Visions if you need a specific card out of the three immediately. Think is better when you need to choose between a search spell and a disruption spell (instantness). Think is better than Serum Visions when you are digging for a solution. Think is better than Serum Visions when your opponent's play on his turn changes the card that you would want to take.

My position is that this is all irrelevant because of the circumstances where you're forced to draw a random brick. Worse, two. I guess it occurs to me I do most of my testing with Portent in Countersliver, which doesn't have much else for mitigating Portent's drawback, but still.

SuckerPunch

09-02-2007, 06:01 PM

My position is that this is all irrelevant because of the circumstances where you're forced to draw a random brick.

And what do you call the random brick that Serum Visions forces you to draw?

Volt

09-02-2007, 06:03 PM

Actually that begs an excellent question: How many people in the Portent camp are routinely casting Brainstorm on turn one?

I generally hold onto Brainstorm as long as I can, unless I have multiples. Portent is a waaay better first turn play than Brainstorm. So is Serum Visions, for that matter.

Alfred

09-02-2007, 06:09 PM

Alfred: Brainstorm no shuffle is way better than Portent no shuffle except when all three cards are bad.

Or unless only 1 of the cards on top is better than the cards in your hand, then it's the same. So if all 3 are bad, or only 1 card is good, they are essentially just as bad without a shuffle effect.

Also, after drawing the two cards, in effect the same thing will have happened, which is what you are going to be doing if you don't have a shuffle effect.

My position is that this is all irrelevant because of the circumstances where you're forced to draw a random brick. Worse, two.

By adding extra Thinks, you're also adding more shuffle effects to your deck, which makes both Brainstorms, and the Thinks themselves better. And I really don't see how any of those things are irrelevant. They are completely relevant.

KillemallCFH

09-02-2007, 06:30 PM

I generally hold onto Brainstorm as long as I can, unless I have multiples. Portent is a waaay better first turn play than Brainstorm. So is Serum Visions, for that matter.Agreed. I'd never cast first turn BS with Portent/SV in hand. I'm not very fond of casting SV first turn either, as I find it is MUCH better used when you know that the top card of your library doesn't suck, but it is still better than BS in that situation.

kabal

09-02-2007, 07:01 PM

It would seem those Germans (or at least 1) prefers the Brainstorm/Serum Visions/Sleight of Hand configuration in their UGR NQG.

http://www.wizards.com/sideboard/images/gernat07/force.jpg (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgevent/gernat07/welcome#5)
* Picture from German Legacy Champs '07

Nihil Credo

09-02-2007, 07:09 PM

Obfuscate Freely

09-02-2007, 07:21 PM

Having kept a hand of: Land, Brainstorm, Portent, plus unknown cards...

- If I'm on the play, I go with Portent unless all of the following are true: I have a Stifle, I have a second land, I don't have a Force of Will, and I might be facing combo or Wasteland.

- If I'm on the draw, I might also go with Brainstorm over Portent if I have a Spell Snare and a second land in hand, just because T1 Snare on the draw is such a beating.
If you have a reactive spell you want to play instead of a cantrip, that's fine. However, if you don't end up playing that spell, you should almost always move to your next turn without playing Brainstorm.

You are never maximizing Brainstorm by playing it on the opponent's endstep, unless you have some way of clearing the top of your deck at instant speed (such as a fetchland in play). Thus, first-turn Brainstorm is usually only correct in emergency situations (digging for Force in response to Belcher, for example).

Nihil Credo

09-02-2007, 08:17 PM

If you have a reactive spell you want to play instead of a cantrip, that's fine. However, if you don't end up playing that spell, you should almost always move to your next turn without playing Brainstorm.

You are never maximizing Brainstorm by playing it on the opponent's endstep, unless you have some way of clearing the top of your deck at instant speed (such as a fetchland in play). Thus, first-turn Brainstorm is usually only correct in emergency situations (digging for Force in response to Belcher, for example).
I see your point; however, my main reason for playing a turn 1 cantrip in order to maximize my chances of Turn 2 Tarmogoyf with FoW/Daze backup.

To waste my turn 1 mana for the sake of an extra "discard", I'd have to know beforehand that I'm setting myself up for the long game.

Bovinious

09-02-2007, 09:50 PM

AngryTroll

09-02-2007, 10:54 PM

Guys this isnt hard, if this new card "Think" is true, the order of the cantrips is this:

Brainstorm > Think > Portent > Serum Visions > Predict > Sleight of Hand > My Ass > Mental Note.

EDIT: Opt is in there somewhere, probably better than my ass and maybe Sleig

While I agree with the first part of that, Predict and Mental Note are amazing when a deck is set up to use them. For example, a list of UGW Thresh I have built runs 4 Geese, 4 Goyfs, 4 Werebears, and 2 Enforcers. In that deck, Mental Note is amazing. In a Thresh deck with Counterbalance/Top main, and BStorm and Portent, Predict is also amazing.

And if your opening hand is 1 land, 1 Portent, and 5 other cards...there are going to be a lot of times that you can keep it. I mean, that means those five cards are either creatures, counters, or Swords. So there are times that that hand is perfectly acceptable. Trop, Portent, Goyf, Daze, Force, Swords, Force or something is about as strong as it gets.

Zilla

09-02-2007, 11:29 PM

Brainstorm > Think > Portent > Serum Visions > Predict > Sleight of Hand > My Ass > Mental Note.
You accidentally put Portent before Serum Visions. You also forgot to put a Crack Rock after Sleight of Hand.

Obfuscate Freely

09-02-2007, 11:37 PM

You accidentally put Portent before Serum Visions.
At least Frogboy was willing to debate the issue, instead of just being glib.

Bovinious

09-02-2007, 11:43 PM

It wasnt an accident, it was truthery. And this isnt really an "issue", Im starting to think people are intimidated by the 6 or whatever lines of text on Portent, and dont feel like reading it and thinking about what it actually does, and assume Serum Visions is better because it has 5 words in its textbox/a gay new card face/better art/insert any absurd reason youd think Portent < Serum Visions here.

Volt

09-02-2007, 11:53 PM

Oh, let's not get too snippy, folks. Although I favor Portent slightly, I think legitimate arguments can be made for Serum Visions.

The real question is what's going to get cut from existing Thresh builds to make room for Think? Do we cut the sorcery speed cantrips, since they're strictly inferior? How much would that hurt goyf? Or do we cut Predict/Mental Note, thereby sacrificing card advantage/speed? It's an interesting dilemma.

Phantom

09-03-2007, 12:05 AM

Portent people are so cute.

@Volt: Actual content in the thread! God bless ya. I'd probably cut Note/Predict and just go for the manliness that is:

4 Brainstorm
4 Think
4 Serum Visions

One mana hands and shuffle effects FTW.

I would NOT be afraid to cut all my sorceries if testing told me that was the way to go. If there's one thing about Goyf, he really takes care of himself, thanks to what had to be a misprint (the part about ALL yards).

Volt

09-03-2007, 12:39 AM

Another question... How much does this new cantrip help Solidarity? Or is that deck too far gone for it to matter?

The Rack

09-03-2007, 12:52 AM

I like it better than Impluse even though it only digs 3. Hos is this worse than portent??...

Pinder

09-03-2007, 01:26 AM

Regardless as to whether Portent or Serum Visions is better, I think that this card is clearly better than both of them. I know that I'm running 4 BS and 4 Think instead of 4 BS 4 Portent once this thing hits. SV and Portent are now battling it out for the 3rd best cantrip slot.

One more topic of discussion; why the hell did they give it such a dumb name? I really hope 'Think' isn't what it actually turns out to be. They had to know that this thing was going to be a staple. I wonder if they next one they print is going to be called 'Consider', or maybe 'Sit and Wonder about Stuff'. Are they really digging for card names now?

Another question... How much does this new cantrip help Solidarity? Or is that deck too far gone for it to matter?

I think that, although this will certainly replace Opt in Solidarity, it really won't alleviate any of the reasons that Solidarity isn't Tier 1 anymore. It's just slower than a lot of other combo, and the added consistency it gives you really doesn't make up for it anymore in light of the resiliency fast combo has (think TES, Breakfast, CRET Belcher, even Ichorid).

Zilla

09-03-2007, 01:35 AM

At least Frogboy was willing to debate the issue, instead of just being glib.
I was being glib because there's nothing more to be said on the subject. Bringing it up at this point is akin to suggesting we start a rousing debate on whether or not Lackey should be banned. It's been so thoroughly discussed that further discussion isn't actually going to cover new ground. You either prefer Visions or you prefer Portent, and I suspect that, no matter what side of the fence you're on, you're not going to change your mind. All that's left is to make light of it, as far as I can see.

Machinus

09-03-2007, 02:17 AM

You either prefer Visions or you prefer Portent, and I suspect that, no matter what side of the fence you're on, you're not going to change your mind. All that's left is to make light of it, as far as I can see.

This is absurd. One card is right, and the other is wrong. Your position is equivalent to everyone playing whatever they think is the coolest card and them all being just as good as the next. Yay, everyone wins!

Illissius

09-03-2007, 02:31 AM

One more topic of discussion; why the hell did they give it such a dumb name? I really hope 'Think' isn't what it actually turns out to be. They had to know that this thing was going to be a staple. I wonder if they next one they print is going to be called 'Consider', or maybe 'Sit and Wonder about Stuff'. Are they really digging for card names now?

It's translated from Japanese, with the batch containing other such gems as "Change Body Into Forest" and "Banquet on Bottom of Foot". Know hope. It's most likely a synonym.

Citrus-God

09-03-2007, 03:36 AM

I was being glib because there's nothing more to be said on the subject. Bringing it up at this point is akin to suggesting we start a rousing debate on whether or not Lackey should be banned. It's been so thoroughly discussed that further discussion isn't actually going to cover new ground.

Well... here's the thing. Playstyles between Portent and Serum Visions doesnt differ. If this were a discussion on whether Cabal Rits should be ran overed Misdirections in The Meandeck, then yes, this would be an absurd discussion based on playstyles and personaly preferences.

You either prefer Visions or you prefer Portent, and I suspect that, no matter what side of the fence you're on, you're not going to change your mind. All that's left is to make light of it, as far as I can see.

Well... not really. It's just a matter of being able to do what Threshold does well (answering), or just "thinking" you filtered out chaff midgame.

Like ObFreely said, it's being able to "Brainstorm," so you can find your FoW or other counters in general to stop that bomb, or counter your opponent's early turn plays. Being able to do this is what made people play Portent over Serum Visions, as well as other reasons (giving you access to 3 cards so you can set up your next turn better, finding a specific card, and other things). The fact we're arguing this right now proves from our point of view that this is worth arguing over, since we also have very strong reasoning for it was well.

Zilla

09-03-2007, 03:55 AM

Well... here's the thing. Playstyles between Portent and Serum Visions doesnt differ. If this were a discussion on whether Cabal Rits should be ran overed Misdirections in The Meandeck, then yes, this would be an absurd discussion based on playstyles and personaly preferences.
I never said that the difference between the cards had anything to do with playstyles. What I said was that there have been countless discussions on which is better, and no one can agree that one is definitively better than the other. I triple dog dare you to present a new argument on the subject. Go ahead. Enlighten us. Otherwise, it's the same discussion over and over again. Machinus proves my point perfectly; no matter what you say, he's going to believe what he believes, and nothing you say is going to change his mind. That being the case, why discuss it at all?

Mijorre

09-03-2007, 06:09 AM

Yes. The real issue at hand is how many weird catch-phrases we can think up when playing a deck that has Think and Think Twice.
"I guess I'll just have to think again! Muhahaha!"
"Let me think about it. Twice!"
"I think you'll be revising your plans soon enough when I am through with my thinking."
And how would we name said think.dec?
"Mac ~ Think differently?"

DarkAkuma

09-03-2007, 06:32 AM

If this card is real, im getting a foil playset of them asap (something I NEVER do). Im a member of the Portent fan camp, and this will replace Serum Visons immediately if I play both, or Portent if all I have else, is Brainstorm.

Its right in time too. I just recently started switching from playing agro more, to control and combo.

Maveric78f

09-03-2007, 06:36 AM

I would play in threshold this set of cantrips :
4 Branstorm
4 Think
3 Predict

And I would maybe remove daze for counterspell, because I will be able now to play only at instant speed, waiting for the good creatures and to play them with backup.

Bryant Cook

09-03-2007, 08:13 AM

Obfuscate Freely

09-03-2007, 08:24 AM

Maveric78f

09-03-2007, 08:24 AM

You need a sorcery for Tarma-Ibroketheformatinhalf-goyf.

Absolutely not. What for ? Your opponent will either play tarmogoyf before you or play by himself a sorcery. I prefer to play @ end-of-turn of my opponent than in my main phases.

I hate people playing baubles and seals in order to pump up the tarmogoyf. You don't even know if you're boosting your opponent's tarmo or yours while playing these suboptimal cards.

Goaswerfraiejen

09-03-2007, 10:01 AM

Absolutely not. What for ? Your opponent will either play tarmogoyf before you or play by himself a sorcery. I prefer to play @ end-of-turn of my opponent than in my main phases.

I hate people playing baubles and seals in order to pump up the tarmogoyf. You don't even know if you're boosting your opponent's tarmo or yours while playing these suboptimal cards.

While I agree that playing sub-optimal cards that don't really fit your strategy solely in order to pump Tarmogoyf is a mistake, I disagree with the rest of what you said.

Relying on your opponent to make your deck good (or to validate a strategy) is a mistake. Especially if you could run a card that already fits your strategy quite well (ex. Serum Visions). You can reasonably expect your opponent to provide lands and instants in the graveyard since just about every deck plays them. Creatures are iffy, but still fairly likely. Sorceries, however, rank behind creatures in commonality--especially now that everyone wants to run Think over Serum Visions. There simply aren't that many sorceries being played. If you have room for three sets of cantrips, then it's fine. But if you only have room for two sets, you have to give this some serious thought. Personally, I think that, if you're running Tarmogoyf, some of those cantrips will have to be Serum Visions (unless you're running other sorceries). To run Think instead is to fall prey to the danger of cool things that fit your deck less well than slightly less cool things. Just because Think is better than Serum Visions on paper (something of which I'm not entirely convinced, but I'm not saying it's bad at all) does not mean that it's better in a given deck.

Cait_Sith

09-03-2007, 10:02 AM

DeathwingZERO

09-03-2007, 10:05 AM

I'd have to agree with Maverick there. Just because a Sorcery in a graveyard pumps Goyf by +1/+1, it's hardly going to make Thresh any less...Threshy if it's an Instant you want to play with. Your still putting a card in the graveyard, and from what I've seen with the Thresh decks around, Goyf is already stupid absurd the turn he comes into play after land crack + instant -> Goyf as a 2/3 on turn 2, and get bigger as the game progresses. Do we really care that he potentially hits 3/4 on turn 3, as long as we hit one of those 4 ever important Sorceries? I mean, there's already 3 other Goyfs still in the deck, along with those creatures the deck is named after, ya know?

In my eyes, Goyf is only there to push the opponents harder while you work over the deck at your leisure to ensue your Thresh creatures seal the deal. If Goyf itself happens to go the distance on it's own, then that's just a bonus. It's in the deck because of it's absurd power level, but isn't it really great just because it's gameplan fits so well with Thresh already, not that it's better?

If Goyf becomes the center of attention when constructing Thresh builds, then we have an issue here. It's eventually not Thresh anymore at that point, it's Goyfatron.dec, with backup "Hulk get mad!" radioactive green critters, feeding off the refuse. Might as well keep playing terrible things like Bauble's to make sure it gets that extra edge, then. Can't have Goyf not see it's potential every game, otherwise it'd be merely as good as the rest of the creatures after Threshold, then it's $20 status could be compromised.

As far as the argument is concerned about Think vs Serum Visions vs Portent (re: staying on topic), here's a simple list of pros and cons to work with. I could care less what people choose to play personally, I'm just helping some of the people on the fence to think what they really want, and put it into one post to reference. Feel free to add in anything you think I've missed.

Serum Visions:

Pros-
*First turn play
*Sorcery, so pumps Goyf
*Cantrips
*Scry to "see" 3 total, and pitch bad topdecks for possible better

Cons-
*Sorcery, so it could cut you from "I need an answer NOW" plays
*Doesn't allow you to see the card you draw before it happens, giving you a chance of a garbage card off the draw
*Scrying away two bricks means your topdeck is unknown again

Portent:

Pros-
*First turn play
*Sorcery, pumps Goyf
*Draw ability
*Can see 3 cards on either your or opponents side, and shuffle if they suck or are bombs you don't want them having
*Shuffle rearranges topdeck, possibly raising the chance of better draws.

Cons-
*Sorcery, same problem as SV
*Draw ability is next turn, not immediate.
*Can cause the junk-junk-bomb setup on topdecks, effectively needing another draw spell to even out, or shuffle effect to pitch bad two after good is drawn
*Shuffling opponents library isn't the same answer as a counterspell, they could get the same, or even better off the new topdeck, potentially "wasting" the spell's main use
*Can see Bomb-Bomb-Bomb, making a tough decision to crack a Fetchland in a pinch
*Shuffle can still draw you into bad card off topdeck
*Shuffle is an "all or nothing", unlike Scry ability

Think:

Pros-
*First turn play
*Instant speed, can be EOT'd or played in response to something for answer
*Digs 3 immediately
*Can shuffle away garbage, no need for Fetchland
*Draws immediately
*Allows topdeck arrangement, a la SDT style

Cons-
*Instant (potential loss to Goyf P/T)
*Can see same problem as Portent of Brick-Brick-Bomb, and still need a shuffle if you really need that bomb
*Shuffle can still draw you into bad card off topdeck
*Can see Bomb-Bomb-Bomb, making a tough decision to crack a Fetchland in a pinch
*Shuffle is an "all or nothing", unlike Scry ability

So all in all, the three of them are all strictly worse than Brainstorm, obviously. But, it seems that the only real risk of Think is that it's not going to pump Goyf like Serum Visions or Portent. Portent allows for screwing with the opponents deck, which in itself might swing a game into your favor. Think has the ability to be cast in response, so you don't have to tap mana on your turn. SV allows you to ditch bad topdeck cards with Scry.

Personally though, I think that Think would be the obvious choice alongside Brainstorm as the #2 cantrip. Being able to see what you draw into before you draw it, having a shuffle built in if topdeck is garbage, and being instant speed means it's really only worse than Brainstorm because it doesn't get rid of junk in your hand so you can shuffle it away, and only worse than the other two because it's not a Sorcery. If you have room to fit a third, though, then all the better. At that point, you maximize everything the deck can do for Goyf, as others have stated. That just leaves you with the choice of "how many of cantrips 2 and 3 do I want?"

Maveric78f

09-03-2007, 10:45 AM

I like all what you said except 1 thing.
I would rather play 4*brainstorm + 4*think than 8*brainstorm because I don't consider that brainstorm is in every part better than think.
Firstly, the main problem of brainstorm is if you are looking for your land drop number2 and you don't find it in your first 3 cards. Think, portent and visions are all better than brainstorm in this role.
Secondary, brainstorm + sensei IS NOT combo, it's a bit redundant.
Thirdly, brainstorm + think as well as think + sensei ARE combos. You can play think just in order to remove your bad topdeck, that you already know.

DeathwingZERO

09-03-2007, 10:58 AM

I had completely forgotten about the builds popping up with CounterTop (or just Top) in the maindeck, so your points are indeed all valid. Thanks for the reminder of this alternate version.

Nihil Credo

09-03-2007, 11:15 AM

Uhm, how many decks don't play Tarmogoyf and don't put Sorceries in the graveyard?

Right now I can only think of Goblins, Solidarity, some 4C Landstill builds, and Faerie Stompy.

HdH_Cthulhu

09-03-2007, 12:59 PM

Damn the old discusion of how and wich cantrip...

Play the cantrips wich do you prefere! They all have pro and cons!

Alfred

09-03-2007, 01:04 PM

Damn the old discusion of how and wich cantrip...

Play the cantrips wich do you prefere! They all have pro and cons!

I really like Flare as a cantrip, should I play that?

Illissius

09-03-2007, 01:06 PM

If Goyf becomes the center of attention when constructing Thresh builds, then we have an issue here. It's eventually not Thresh anymore at that point, it's Goyfatron.dec, with backup "Hulk get mad!" radioactive green critters, feeding off the refuse.

For the record, I do think the name "Thresh" is an anachronism, and it should be called "Goyf" or something these days, instead. Either way, the name of the deck should have absolutely zero bearing on decisions about how to improve it. "Which choice makes it a better deck?" is the only question you should be asking.

Machinus

09-03-2007, 01:09 PM

I never said that the difference between the cards had anything to do with playstyles. What I said was that there have been countless discussions on which is better, and no one can agree that one is definitively better than the other. I triple dog dare you to present a new argument on the subject. Go ahead. Enlighten us. Otherwise, it's the same discussion over and over again. Machinus proves my point perfectly; no matter what you say, he's going to believe what he believes, and nothing you say is going to change his mind. That being the case, why discuss it at all?

You're quite mistaken. I never said anything about picking a side. Read it again - all I said is that there is definitely a right and a wrong answer. You reject reasoning altogether when you appeal to personal preference, and in doing so make the discussion absurd and useless. If you can't handle the argument and reasoning necessary to debate the topic, then don't participate by injecting useless claims into it. Playing with your cards because your friends like them is perfectly fine, but it doesn't have anything to do with them being good.

I'll be really nice and restate my point here in case it's still too complicated: There is a best choice.

TheRock

09-03-2007, 01:13 PM

The truth is that if absolutely EVERY SINGLE variable for the deck in question is analyzed, then statistics and game theory will reveal that one of those three cards (Portent, SV, or Think) will be the overall optimal choice. However, that's about as close to impossible as you can get, so there is no real way to prove that. My guess is that we're probably talking about nothing more than a few pennies to a dollar.

What that means is that the player is forced to make a decision. However, just like with the 60-card vs. 61-card debate, the worst thing that can happen is that the player makes a mistake in his/her decision. If there is a level of comfort with one particular set-up of cantrips or a feeling that the player can misplay certain card due to lack of experience or playstyle, then the decision will most likely be made without much hesitation.

Testing is one thing, but nobody should be testing during an actual tournament. And there is very little reason to worry about very small percentages that rarely have an effect on the game in a tournament either. So just play to win and don't worry about it.

EDIT - Machinus beat me to it - sorry about that.

Kronicler

09-03-2007, 01:50 PM

Adan

09-03-2007, 01:57 PM

I think when considering the Portent vs. SV debate, one needs to take into account the build of thresh itself as well as the functionality of the cards. For instance, I enjoy playing Quirion Dryad in my thresh deck. Just because of this one change, I think that SV is better in my deck because it draws me a card now which can allow me to continue growing my dryad. Portent, on the other hand, makes me wait to draw a card and therefore wait to grow my dryad.

Kronicler

Generally, Portent is superior to Serum Visions. ObFreeley already explained why, even long time ago when Threshold was quite new.
But when playing Dryad, Serum Visions is better than Serum Visions, simply because it's not a slow-trip so it can chain into other cantrips.

Strange, at the beginning, "think" was an Sorcery. Now it's an instant. If it's really going to be an Instant, it will be ridiculously broken. But even if it's only going to be Sorcery, it's still very good (and Tarmogoyf still remains big^^).

frogboy

09-03-2007, 02:02 PM

You reject reasoning altogether when you appeal to personal preference, and in doing so make the discussion absurd and useless. If you can't handle the argument and reasoning necessary to debate the topic, then don't participate by injecting useless claims into it.

Wow, there's a huge thread in the adept lounge that needs this new philosophy of not rejecting reason.

KillemallCFH

09-03-2007, 02:04 PM

Its simple. Relying on your opponent to play Sorceries is a major fallacy when you have plenty of good ones on hand. Do 4 Brainstorm, 3 Think, 3 Portent, 3 Predict. Perfect! Seriously, making your Tarmogoyf cap out at 3/4 against Goblins is rather silly.I whole-heartedly agree. That is the exact cantrip configuration I had planned on using. Maybe even 4 Portent, 2 Think; or 4 Portent, 3 Think, cutting a non-cantrip, depending on how hard of a time I am having getting a sorcery in the 'yard, though I suspect that 5 sorceries should be enough (I run 2 MD'd 'clasms).

Volt

09-03-2007, 02:18 PM

This new cantrip is too good not to play 4-of in a Thresh deck. You start with 4 Brainstorm + 4 Think, and go from there.

scrumdogg

09-03-2007, 03:17 PM

One more topic of discussion; why the hell did they give it such a dumb name? I really hope 'Think' isn't what it actually turns out to be. They had to know that this thing was going to be a staple. I wonder if they next one they print is going to be called 'Consider', or maybe 'Sit and Wonder about Stuff'. Are they really digging for card names now?

Could be a sly dig at pompous players who routinely spend 10 minutes on Brainstorm resolutions.....and also allows you to "In response, I put thinking on the stack"....would be even more awesome if they did make cards named Ponder & Sit & Wonder About Stuff..."in response to your Thinking, I'll Ponder..., well fine, I'll Sit & Wonder About Stuff in response, Daze your Stuff...."

Maveric78f

09-03-2007, 03:18 PM

This is so stupid to prefer to play sorceries instead of instants.

1/ your opponent's tarmogoyf will love you sorceries too
2/ your opponent is really likely to feed your tarmogoyf with instant
3/ threshold need to keep its mana open as long as possible. Instant are insanely good for threshold.

Zilla

09-03-2007, 03:20 PM

Then, your original post is worse than useless. You can't go around the forum taking random pot shots at ideas you disagree with, if you aren't willing to defend your point of view beyond that. It's irresponsible and cowardly.
Actually, it was humor. You ought to look into it sometime.

I'll be really nice and restate my point here in case it's still too complicated: There is a best choice.
No, there isn't. If one were strictly superior to the other, there would be a firm consensus on the matter, which there clearly is not. They each have certain advantages and disadvantages. You're comparing the two as though one were Lightning Bolt and the other were Shock. They're not. One is Seal of Fire and the other is Shock. And let me be clear: using this analogy, the difference between Shock and Seal is not one of personal preference; there are some situations where one is better, and others where the other is better. The same applies between Portent and Visions. Everyone knows the advantages and disadvantages of the two cards; it doesn't make any sense to reiterate them ad infinitum. That horse is dead already. Get off it.

Cait_Sith

09-03-2007, 03:29 PM

Actually, it was humor. You ought to look into it sometime.

Humor is for noobs and English teachers.

Maverick, you cannot formulate an argument based your opponents Tarmogoyofs because, magically, it tends to be the same size as yours. Your goal should be optimize your Tarmogoyf, not to worry about how big everyone's T-Penis is during a stalemate.

Also, why even mention about your opponents instants feeding your Tarmogoyf? It is extraneous to this discussion, since we are focusing on Thresh, which happens to run upwards of 10 instants.

Finally, Thresh doesn't need to keep its mana open as long as possible. The majority of its counterspells are Pitchs. Pitch spells thrive on mana being closed off so your opponent walks right into them.

Citrus-God

09-03-2007, 04:06 PM

I never said that the difference between the cards had anything to do with playstyles. What I said was that there have been countless discussions on which is better, and no one can agree that one is definitively better than the other.

Weird. Everyone who played with Portents played with a set of both Visions and Portents in the beginning (4/4/4/4 split of each cantrip). Everyone else who played Serum Visions denied Portent as a viable cantrip altogether.

Only cards I can recall that are based more on playstyles are Predict or Mental Note. But now with Tarmogoyf, this discussion is semi-obsolete.

So yes, we can agree which one is better. If you insist on debating that this discussion is pointless, then let's discuss Abortion and Gay Marriage.

I triple dog dare you to present a new argument on the subject.Back then in Meandeck Gifts era, would you rather run Burning Wish or the Maindecked Tendrils in Meandeck Gifts?

It's a matter of wanting a 2nd Yawgmoth's Will/3rd Time Walk/1 Tendrils, or a faster goldfish? Which is right and which is wrong? I think Tendrils is right because this made the deck ten times more deadlier. Besides, this argument ended a long time ago, because a faster goldfish is going to be much more suited for Vintage.

Go ahead. Enlighten us. Otherwise, it's the same discussion over and over again. Machinus proves my point perfectly; no matter what you say, he's going to believe what he believes, and nothing you say is going to change his mind. That being the case, why discuss it at all?He didnt pick a side in this argument, he simply said there is a right answer. I agree with him. I dont care if Serum Visions may be the right answer, as long as it has good reasons to back it up.

Volt

09-03-2007, 04:16 PM

He didnt pick a side in this argument, he simply said there is a right answer. I agree with him. I dont care if Serum Visions may be the right answer, as long as it has good reasons to back it up.

Actually, it's pretty clear which side Machinus is on, even if he didn't explicitly re-state it in the last 10 minutes. He is on the Portent side, and so am I. However, I don't think it's quite so cut and dry as some of you are making it out to be. I've played both Serum Visions and Portent in Thresh and MeatHooks. Portent feels better to me, but I don't know how to quantify it beyond saying that turn 1 Portent is clearly a better play than turn 1 Serum Visions. After that, things get murky.

Artowis

09-03-2007, 04:24 PM

I think I've solved the Portent vs. Serum Visions debate for everyone.

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6606/voteqj3.jpg

Citrus-God

09-03-2007, 04:27 PM

Actually, it's pretty clear which side Machinus is on, even if he didn't explicitly re-state it in the last 10 minutes. He is on the Portent side, and so am I. However, I don't think it's quite so cut and dry as some of you are making it out to be. I've played both Serum Visions and Portent in Thresh and MeatHooks. Portent feels better to me, but I don't know how to quantify it beyond saying that turn 1 Portent is clearly a better play than turn 1 Serum Visions. After that, things get murky.

Midgame, I think we have a better card than Serum Visions; Sensei's Divining Top. That card is much better than Serum Visions, hands down. However, Portent is a better first turn, like you said. Being able to Daze and FoW is amazing, as well as a set-up next turn.

Zilla

09-03-2007, 05:32 PM

goobafish

09-03-2007, 05:33 PM

goobafish

09-03-2007, 05:47 PM

I ran Opt. And frankly, it was amazing.

Check lists from Gencon prelims, Gencon main event, and German champs, the last 3 major events.

kabal

09-03-2007, 05:50 PM

Most decks in legacy play sorceries, there is a VERY good chance that your opponent will have a sorcery in their graveyard.

That is just it; can you rely on the fact that MOST decks will be playing sorcery during your match and draw? I would say no, and that is way people are debating the 3rd cantrip slot in NQG build once Think becomes legal.

One of the more popular decks, Goblins, typically does not run any sorcery. Granted, if you are playing Red version of NQG then you will be siding a playset of sorceries in the form of Pyroclasm. Again, I believe you don't want to rely on your opponent doing your job for you.

Goaswerfraiejen

09-03-2007, 05:51 PM

On the point of sorceries to feed goyf:
I am just going to throw this out there. Why does thresh need to play sorceries? Once there is a single sorcery in ANY graveyard, goyf gets the pump. Most decks in legacy play sorceries, there is a VERY good chance that your opponent will have a sorcery in their graveyard. If you are running any counters that are not free (stifle, snare, counterspell) it is very worthwhile to run instants, which is why I run Opt in the stead of Visions or Portent currently, and why my list will be running this "Think" card in that slot.

Most decks? Hardly. Combo runs a few, sure, but Goyf size is much less relevant for Threshold versus combo. Goblins doesn't. If we exclude Threshold (since we're proposing it cut its sorceries--that's what's going on, right? Or do we want to plug them back in elswhere?), then we're left with maybe a couple in Cephalid Breakfast--the only relevant (i.e. a matchup where it matters) and common deck running a significant number of sorceries, provided my memory isn't failing me, is UWB Fish/Deadguy Ale; that's not very many. Neither is having four in your own deck. On the other hand, if you run four and your opponent runs four, you've doubled your chances of pumping up Goyf. If you don't run even four, then you leave it entirely up to your opponent whether or not to pump Goyf that extra toughness. You're giving your opponent more control over your side of the board: and that's generally not good. That strategy can work, but only really if you're alone in doing it and if the card you're bringing in is a great deal better than the one you're cutting (which isn't the case here). If everyone starts doing it (i.e. relying on everyone else to provide Goyf-pumpage), then it really starts eating at your own strategy. I mean, you already give up on/rely on someone else to bring the enchantments and perhaps even artifacts; adding one more to that list is too much. Even two is really roughing it. It's like going to a potlach without food because everyone else is supposed to bring stuff.

Now, I agree that instant-speed cantrips are important as far as keeping mana open for hard counters goes, but I suspect that it's really something of a non-issue here: you just rely on 'Goyf far too much to risk it.

All in all, I don't think that "Think" is so much better than Serum Visions that it's worth cutting SV for it in a Gro-A-Goyf strategy (including Threshold. If you're running Predict, problem solved: cut that instead.

I don't expect anyone to listen to me right now (who ever does?) but in a month or so, I suspect it'll be a different story. Like when everyone ridiculed me for trying to re-adapt Sui to the Legacy metagame a few years ago. :tongue:

EDIT: I just want to add that the above is all a non-issue if you propose to bring sorceries into another component of the deck(s) that could benefit from "Think". Bringing Chain Lightning back to Red Thresh, for example, or (as was highlighted above, by the guy who just Sarnath'd me) by clever sideboarding (ex. Pyroclasm). There are ways around the problem, but it always has to be considered because it's too important to just let go, I think. Superiority on paper does not equal superiority within the context of a strategy.

goobafish

09-03-2007, 06:01 PM

That is just it; can you rely on the fact that MOST decks will be playing sorcery during your match and draw? I would say no, and that is way people are debating the 3rd cantrip slot in NQG build once Think becomes legal.

One of the more popular decks, Goblins, typically does not run any sorcery. Granted, if you are playing Red version of NQG then you will be siding a playset of sorceries in the form of Pyroclasm. Again, I believe you don't want to rely on your opponent doing your job for you.

Maybe that is where the question lies, in your comfort. I am totally comfortable with that. If you are playing a thresh mirror and neither have sorceries, then you wouldn't benefit anyways. Goblins is really not popular anymore, but yes, it does not run any sorceries, which makes the goyf smaller.

@ Goaswerfraiejen

Hardly? Come on. Most decks run sorceries, combo runs many (includes iggy, belcher, tes, breakfast), any black deck runs them (B/W or Mono B) because they almost all run duress. Most decks run sorceries. Another thing is that most decks run Goyf, meaning that whether you have a sorcery or not, your goyfs are the same size.

Zilla

09-03-2007, 06:18 PM

Hardly? Come on. Most decks run sorceries, combo runs many (includes iggy, belcher, tes, breakfast), any black deck runs them (B/W or Mono B) because they almost all run duress. Most decks run sorceries. Another thing is that most decks run Goyf, meaning that whether you have a sorcery or not, your goyfs are the same size.
I mostly agree with this standpoint. One of the things that makes Goyf so strong is that he takes care of himself. The likelihood of running into a deck not either a) running Goyfs of their own or b) sorceries, is extremely low. Aggro decks like Goblins and Angel Stompy are the most prominent of these, but they're also the least relevant, because they're being increasingly pushed out of the metagame by Goyf and fast combo.

If you can optimally run at least 4 sorceries of your own, it's a good idea, but it's not mandatory by any means.

Nihil Credo

09-03-2007, 06:36 PM

As I posted earlier, I support goobafish's position. The times where your opponent doesn't play sorceries, doesn't play Tarmogoyfs of his own, and the size of your 'Goyf is a relevant factor will almost surely be much rarer than the times where missing a Stifle/Snare/Counterspell will bite you in the ass.

Let us examine the DtB forum and the most "accepted" builds in the Estabilished forum (ie no No-Stick or Vaka Pox)

UWb Fish - usually runs MD or SB Duress, sometimes Vindicate, and sometimes splashes green for Tarmogoyf. Only a few builds play only Serum Visions (which will likely change to Think).

Landstill - Wrath, Damnation, Decree of Justice, Life from the Loam, Crime/Punishment

UGr Thresh - Tarmogoyfs
UGw Thresh - Tarmogoyfs

Belcher - Plenty of sorceries, although Goyf size isn't usually relevant

Survival - Tarmogoyfs of its own (plus usually Therapy/Duress)

Vial Goblins - Neither sorceries nor Goyfs

Life from the Loam - Its namesake, plus depending on the specific deck: Mulch, Gamble, Burning Wish, Devastating Dreams...

Cephalid Breakfast - Tarmogoyfs of its own (runs Therapies)

--- end DTB ---

Ichorid Combo: Therapies, Dread Returns, Breakthroughs, Analyses

SuiBlack - Duress, Hymn, sometimes Sinkhole

Affinity - Thoughtcast, MD/SB Therapies

TES - See Belcher

Solidarity - No sorceries or Goyfs (2)

Faerie Stompy - No sorceries or Goyfs (3)

Death and Taxes - Cataclysm

BW Confidant - Everything that isn't creature, land or Ritual; splashed often for Tarmogoyf

CounterSliver - No goyfs or sorceries (4)

Burn - Chain Lightning, Rift Bolt, Flamebreak...

Train Wreck - Duress, Hymn, Damnation, Decree of Pain...

Zilla Stompy - Tarmogoyfs of its own, plus Chain Lightning

Angel Stompy - Cataclysm

Aggro Loam - Tarmogoyfs and sorceries

------

So, we end up with four decks against which we'll miss having sorceries of our own (Goblins, Solidarity, Faerie Stompy, CounterSliver), and a couple which run few sorceries (Landstill, the two WW variants).

Considering Solidarity, X-Stompy and CounterSliver aren't very played, we're left with Goblins and Landstill (and against the former UGR will bring in Pyroclasms). Is an extra +1/+1 to Goyf against those two decks worth having to tap mana during your main phase? In my opinion no, even though those two are Tier 1 decks. Feel free to discuss.

Machinus

09-03-2007, 06:56 PM

No, there isn't. If one were strictly superior to the other, there would be a firm consensus on the matter, which there clearly is not.

Such an opinion rests on the dubious assumption that this question has been posed to a group of objective investigators with professional methods. Obviously that has not occured, and you know that.

One side of this argument has chosen an inferior card, because they either haven't tested it properly or they are just bad players. There is a best cantrip suite, and it is possible to deduce what it is from testing, results, and analysis. Anything else is casual magic.

Goaswerfraiejen

09-03-2007, 06:57 PM

Hardly? Come on. Most decks run sorceries, combo runs many (includes iggy, belcher, tes, breakfast), any black deck runs them (B/W or Mono B) because they almost all run duress. Most decks run sorceries.

Note that I acknowledged combo (against which Goyf size is irrelevant) and the two main decks with black (Fish and Deadguy). If you look at the list below, the number of non-combo decks running very few sorceries is pretty large: Threshold (since we're proposing it cut sorceries), FS, D&T, CounterSliver, Zilla Stompy, Angel Stompy, Agrro Loam. If there are only four sorceries between two decks, you can't reliably expect to see one in the graveyard. In any case, very few of these decks (as well as the control decks running a large number of sorceries) are particularly popular, which throws a wrench at our paper-based expectations.

Another thing is that most decks run Goyf, meaning that whether you have a sorcery or not, your goyfs are the same size.

Whether or not these decks also run Tarmogoyf is entirely irrelevant. You want your Tarmogoyfs to overpower their creatures. Enemy Tarmogoyfs don't matter: it's enemy creatures that matter. That's what you need to overpower: you'll never overpower an enemy Tarmogoyf without help from other cards--it just isn't possible.

goobafish

09-03-2007, 07:02 PM

As I posted earlier, I support Lam's position. The times where your opponent doesn't play sorceries, doesn't play Tarmogoyfs of his own, and the size of your 'Goyf is a relevant factor will almost surely be much rarer than the times where missing a Stifle/Snare/Counterspell will bite you in the ass.

Where did Lam post this? I believe he wants sorceries in his lists, I took them out of the list for gencon.

@Goaswerfraiejen
Goyf size is not irrelvant versus combo, it gives you an insane clock against them. I will not argue that some decks do not run sorceries, I simply said that MOST do, which was proven in the above post.

SuckerPunch

09-03-2007, 07:12 PM

What's all this hoopla about lack of sorceries.

4 Brainstorm
4 Think
4 Serum Visions/Portent - The difference in powerlvl btwn these two is so negligable that it's not worth debating IMHO, run whichever you like.
3 Mental Note/Predict - Depending on whether you run 14 creatures, or 10 creatures and the counterbalance/top plan.

I think both Serum Visions and Portent are much stronger than any of the instant alternatives that might take up their slots behind Think.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Zilla

09-03-2007, 07:14 PM

Such an opinion rests on the dubious assumption that this question has been posed to a group of objective investigators with professional methods. Obviously that has not occured, and you know that.
If such an investigation hasn't occured, how can the following assertion be anything but bluster?

One side of this argument has chosen an inferior card, because they either haven't tested it properly or they are just bad players. There is a best cantrip suite, and it is possible to deduce what it is from testing, results, and analysis. Anything else is casual magic.The only way to deduce that there is a "best" cantrip suite would be if a group of objective investigators used professional measures to determine it, which you've just finished saying has not occurred.

Time to pick an argument and stick with it. If you're sticking with the second, then by all means, kindly present your incontrovertible proof that one package is strictly superior to all others.

Machinus

09-03-2007, 07:21 PM

If such an investigation hasn't occured, how can the following assertion be anything but bluster?

I am making one argument, and you keep misunderstanding it. It doesn't matter what the question is, there is always a best option when making design choices.

I make no claims about which cantrip is better. It doesn't have anything to do with my posts. But there definitely is one, because in competitive magic your first priority is to win, not to make the other deck designers feel good.

SuckerPunch

09-03-2007, 08:11 PM

The two cards (Serum Visions and Portent) are so close in power level each with minor advantages and disadavantages over the other...

Isn't it possible that the correct cantrip between those two is entirely dependent on what your build looks like (10 creatures vs. 14, Sensei's Top or no, red or white), what your meta looks like, and perhaps most importantly what your playstyle is (aggressive vs. controlling, good bluffer or not)?

Zilla

09-03-2007, 08:40 PM

I make no claims about which cantrip is better. It doesn't have anything to do with my posts. But there definitely is one, because in competitive magic your first priority is to win, not to make the other deck designers feel good.
I disagree with the assertion that one is definitively better. In theory it sounds like it should be right, but I believe that it's impossible to truly determine which is best. There are times when one is better, and times when the other is better, and those times can happen repeatedly in the course of a single game, let alone the course of an entire tournament, much less an ever-shifting metagame. Essentially, I think that even objective investigation by professionals could not definitively determine that one is the absolute "correct" choice; there are simply too many variables involved.

If the game of Magic could be "solved" in this way, it would cease to be playable. It is from this position that I argue that further discussion on the subject cannot be truly productive. I don't think the difference between Visions and Portent have anything to do with personal preference or playstyles; I think their differences are so situational it's impossible to determine that only one is definitively correct.

Citrus-God

09-03-2007, 09:49 PM

I don't really understand the argument. You're saying there's definitely one right answer, but it doesn't matter what it is?

Right, and as long as it presents the right answer (with enough support backed up). You can tell I'm not an idealist at heart just from what I said.

jodawe

09-04-2007, 12:49 AM

Think u
Instant Common
Look at the top three cards of your library. You may put them back in any order or shuffle your library.
Draw a card.

Makes me wish Solidarity was still a viable deck :frown:

Tacosnape

09-04-2007, 12:58 AM

Makes me wish Solidarity was still a viable deck :frown:

In the right metagame and with the right tweakings, it is definitely viable. Not Tier 1, obviously, but there are a lot worse decks than Solidarity that are being considered viable. This will definitely give it a boost, too, with 4 Brainstorm/Opt/Think.

I think it's somehow doubtful that it'll go Tier 1 again anytime soon, but you never know until you try.

Machinus

09-04-2007, 01:06 AM

I disagree with the assertion that one is definitively better. In theory it sounds like it should be right, but I believe that it's impossible to truly determine which is best. There are times when one is better, and times when the other is better, and those times can happen repeatedly in the course of a single game, let alone the course of an entire tournament, much less an ever-shifting metagame. Essentially, I think that even objective investigation by professionals could not definitively determine that one is the absolute "correct" choice; there are simply too many variables involved.

If the game of Magic could be "solved" in this way, it would cease to be playable. It is from this position that I argue that further discussion on the subject cannot be truly productive. I don't think the difference between Visions and Portent have anything to do with personal preference or playstyles; I think their differences are so situational it's impossible to determine that only one is definitively correct.

Basically, you are saying deckbuilding is impossible. I think your position on this is ludicrous - you have to decide what cards go in a deck in order to play the game. If you want to win, your reasons have to be something better than a vague touchy-feely notion of something being good or bad. We have better tools available, and they do return good information. You're acting like this is a difficult question - it's not, these are simple low-power cards whose effects are easy to measure and about which conclusions can be made that hold real meaning. That is, unless you are playing casual magic, and I am still making the assumption that you are not.

Even if deckbuilding was impossible, it's still absolutely necessary to treat it as if it were a reachable goal in order to construct something to use at a tournament. If your criteria for deckbuilding are bad when it's possible, they are still bad when it's impossible.

One card is better at real-life tournaments. It is not dependent on the metagame or on other independent variables. Playing the deck optimally leads you towards a choice where one card is stronger than the other. This can require experience and extensive testing, but it's inevitable. It is always possible to make a statistical choice about which card is better, and in the case of the cantrips they are going to be consistently better because it does not depend on the other deck. If you don't engage in this process you are basically conceding that you don't care how much you win and your priorities lie elsewhere.

frogboy

09-04-2007, 01:18 AM

It is not dependent on the metagame

I can definitely see metagames where your turn one and two are so important that Portent would be better than Serum Visions because the primary advantage of Visions is in the long game. Conversely, Visions is far and away better if the metagame is wall to wall Landstill.

Zilla

09-04-2007, 01:30 AM

Basically, you are saying deckbuilding is impossible.
That's a nice straw man you've set yourself up there, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that in this particular case, you're comparing two cards which are nearly functionally identical. The differences between them are such that neither is strictly better than the other.

You're acting like this is a difficult question - it's not, these are simple low-power cards whose effects are easy to measure and about which conclusions can be made that hold real meaning.This coming from a guy that says the only way to answer this question effectively is with a panel of objective professionals. Pick a position. It's either hard to answer or it's easy to answer. If it's easy, show us the incontrovertible proof already.

One card is better at real-life tournaments. It is not dependent on the metagame or on other independent variables.Stating this as fact doesn't make it so. There are times when one is better than the other and vice versa, pure and simple.

It is always possible to make a statistical choice about which card is better, and in the case of the cantrips they are going to be consistently better because it does not depend on the other deck. If you don't engage in this process you are basically conceding that you don't care how much you win and your priorities lie elsewhere.Fair enough. Engage in the process and show us the statistics that prove your assertion.

Machinus

09-04-2007, 02:00 AM

I'm saying that in this particular case, you're comparing two cards which are nearly functionally identical. The differences between them are such that neither is strictly better than the other.

They are different cards. They have a different effect on the deck's operation. Therefore, one is better than the other. This middle ground of functional congruence doesn't exist.

I'm not really interested in explaining to you why one of these cards is better. That's for you to figure out. My concern is with the relativistic garbage being propogated by appeals to personal preference and the hypothesis that cards can be different and still equally good. That's nonsense in the context of competitive deckbuilding - the differences add up to more winning or losing and it's imperative to find out how and why.

There is no reason why different cards should have the same effect. In fact, it would be extremely unlikely that such a thing would happen, and absolutely impossible to demonstrate. The obvious and realistic result is that different cards do have significantly different effects on a deck's performance, and one will cause it to win more than the others. Making this choice sixty times is what competitive deckbuilding is.

frogboy

09-04-2007, 02:14 AM

Machinus: The fact that we're having this debate implies that the difference in EV is so close as to be negligible.

That actually kind of upsets me considering the amount of tilt I go on when I play Portent.

*wanders off and ruminates*

Bovinious

09-04-2007, 02:18 AM

What is being argued here? Are you guys arguing whether Think is better than Portent/SV, or whether Portent or SV is best as the 3rd cantrip?

frogboy

09-04-2007, 02:29 AM

Think is pretty clearly better than Portent. First there was a debate over Portent/SV, but I got tired of it* and it sort of devolved into whether or not one card was strictly better than the other. Machinus is positive it's quantifiable, GodzillA isn't. My position is that it's close and the way in which one plays Magic matters as to how good they are. Portent is certainly better if you are worse than your opponent**, because SV is better in the long game and over a longer game a superior opponent will have more time to exploit his edge. Matchups are also obviously relevant.

*I still think SV is broadly superior, and I don't think it's close in Countersliver, but Ob made enough points that I'm going to watch for it when I'm playing Thresh now.

**I'm not saying people favoring Portent are bad at Magic.***

***This still might be true, I havn't decided. :P

Bovinious

09-04-2007, 02:52 AM

Okay I was just making sure no one was saying Think was worse than Portent or SV, which is just obviously not the case. I guess here is as good a place as any to have the age old Portent vs. SV debate...although I think its absurd to claim one is "strictly better" than another. Strictly better means there is no concieveable time you would want to take one over the other (think Lightning Bolt vs. Shock). While Portent or Serum Visons may be the better choice for deck X, I dont think you can claim that one is strictly better than the other in that deck just because its better overall. There will be situations where one card will help you and one will not (for each card), so it basically comes down to which is better more often and personal preference. I think part of the reason this arguement started was because people were throwing around "strictly better", Hell, Think isnt even strictly better than Portent because sometimes screwing over your opponent via Portent may be relevent, but Think is still superior to Portent in almost every concievable deck.

Zilla

09-04-2007, 03:04 AM

I'm not really interested in explaining to you why one of these cards is better.
I love this, because it's the exact same line you use whenever you're pressed to actually prove what you're saying. "I'm right, and I'm not going to waste my time explaining why." That's a fantastic debate tactic you've got going there - don't bother explaining your argument and it becomes impossible to refute. Brilliant!

Look, if this is true:

these are simple low-power cards whose effects are easy to measure and about which conclusions can be made that hold real meaning.

then it should be a simple task for you to measure their effects and present a meaningful conclusion to the rest of us. That you are not doing so can only mean one of two things, according to your own logic:

1. You can't be bothered to do so, in which case you're playing casual Magic.

2. You're incapable of doing so, in which case it's literally impossible for you to build a deck.

So which is it?

Volt

09-04-2007, 03:54 AM

*I still think SV is broadly superior, and I don't think it's close in Countersliver, but Ob made enough points that I'm going to watch for it when I'm playing Thresh now.

You keep bringing up Countersliver. I think you're trying to bait me. :)

Countersliver is an AGGRO-control deck, rather than an aggro-CONTROL deck (like Thresh). This means that the early turns are more important, which is where Portent particularly shines. The reason the deck plays 8 cantrips to begin with is because it needs to find multiple pieces in order to assemble a significant threat. In particular, you want to find Crystalline Sliver early, and Winged Sliver late. Portent is simply better at this than any other 1cc cantrip currently in the game, because it lets you see up to 5 cards by your next draw step.

Of course, once this new "Think" cantrip becomes legal, it's a shoo-in for MeatHooks. Bye bye Portent! We will happily divest ourselves of all sorceries. There have actually been times when playing MeatHooks that I've been reluctant to cast Portent simply because I knew it would grow my opponent's goyf(s).

Citrus-God

09-04-2007, 05:49 AM

Serum Visions is better for the long game, which is true, but it still stands that Sensei's Divining Top is better for that long game. So wouldnt you rather run a set of cantrips suited for early game, and a couple tops for midgame?

But not all builds have Tops. But the thing is that, if you dont run Tops, the deck generally cant handle the late game. The game is all about winning midgame, if it cant win then, it starts topdecking. The point of Threshold is to win when the opponent is under exhaust, the the better card to execute this plan is Portent, which finds the answers to push them into exhaust as well as the pressure from Goyf.

Maveric78f

09-04-2007, 06:22 AM

I completely agree that serum visions is better for the long game, but according to me the role of the 1CC cantrips is not to improve long game. That's why I will prefer to play predict over visions because it's good with top, with think and with brainstorm. You could also play impulse or even TfK for the very long game.

I would run :
4 think for the early game (typically turn 1 @ end of turn of your opponent)
4 brainstorm for the turn 2 and later
3 predict for the turn 3 and later (and sometimes turn 2 after a first turn predict)
2 tops for the very long term (playable @ turn 3 if 3 lands into play)

Usually in late game, think becomes more or less a shuffling cantrip, as you will probably have top into play or you would play it after a brainstorm.

The real gain from think that cannot be ignored is that it's the first good instant cantrip to find your second land or a good free counterspell @turn1 in response to your opponent's spell.

Machinus

09-04-2007, 09:39 AM

So which is it?

3. You have poor reading comprehension and haven't figured out that this discussion is not about which cantrip is better. It's a tangential topic, and it's not appropriate to start talking about it until the first one is settled.

If your position was right then there would be no point in debating it since everyone's deck would have the same strength. That you're trying to do it implies that you don't really believe that, and you're just using that as an excuse to escape the analysis that suggests a conclusion that you don't like.

The other option is that you don't really care about winning large Legacy tournaments.

TheCramp

09-04-2007, 10:44 AM

What I love about legacy is that since these cards will never rotate out, we get to have this conversation forever.

I'm not being (that) sardonic here either. You (Machinus & GodzillA) sound more like chess players than magic players. Wanting to sort out the semiotic approach to the conversation prior to delving into a razor thin distinction about , mind you, one decks utilization of a strategy.

One quandary that "think" revitalizes is what is the correct choice, SV or P. I suspect this is more relevant now, not less. The over all decks that use these got better, so where does that leave these newly auxiliary cards.

Nihil Credo

09-04-2007, 11:16 AM

I just want to note that any discussion about cantrip choices, which are very close in power level, is completely pointless without specifying the exact list you're running.

Portent and SV respectively gain and lose an insane amount of power when you switch from a Threshold list with 13 creatures, maindeck Counterbalance, and SB Pyroclasms to a list with 8 creatures, Counterspells, Spell Snares, Stifles, and eight instant burn spells. Even a much closer difference in lists vastly overpowers any inherent difference between the cards themselves.

quicksilver

09-04-2007, 11:32 AM

Looks like the spoiler's updated and it's now called ponder and is a sorcery.

kabal

09-04-2007, 12:03 PM

Looks like the spoiler's updated and it's now called ponder and is a sorcery.

Good chance before it is all said and done it will be 2 CC.

Nihil Credo

09-04-2007, 12:11 PM

Looks like the spoiler's updated and it's now called ponder and is a sorcery.

http://imgred.com/http://www.anaitgames.com/wp-content/darth_vader_nooo1.jpeg

Edit: now that I think about it, I'm actually happy that Threshold won't get as much of a powerup. Still, we Magic fans are a strange breed. We are upset whenever they print a card we consider too powerful, then we are sad when it turns out to be actually balanced. Giant Solifuge, anyone?

DeathwingZERO

09-04-2007, 01:35 PM

Well that's just effin great. Now we get to hear about THREE different Sorceries all vying for the slot of #2 cantrip in Thresh builds.

I can't wait for another 4 pages of garbage, lol. I guess it's a good thing I posted that list of pros and cons, cause now I get to modify the "Ponder" section.

But for now I'm too damn lazy, and want sleep.

Zilla

09-04-2007, 01:58 PM

3. You have poor reading comprehension and haven't figured out that this discussion is not about which cantrip is better. It's a tangential topic, and it's not appropriate to start talking about it until the first one is settled.
I understand your point completely: there is always a "correct" choice when deciding what cards go into a decklist. I'm asking you to illustrate your point by showing the process you would use to prove that one card choice is definitively "more correct" than another in a given decklist. You claim it's simple, so I'd like to see it please.

Volt

09-04-2007, 02:13 PM

Well that's just effin great. Now we get to hear about THREE different Sorceries all vying for the slot of #2 cantrip in Thresh builds.

No, we don't. Ponder wins hands down, assuming nothing else changes in the spoiler. The fact (?) that Ponder is a sorcery is kind of a relief for Thresh players. It really simplifies the decision of what to cut.

Goaswerfraiejen

09-04-2007, 02:24 PM

@Goaswerfraiejen
Goyf size is not irrelvant versus combo, it gives you an insane clock against them. I will not argue that some decks do not run sorceries, I simply said that MOST do, which was proven in the above post.

1.) I respectfully disagree about 'Goyf size versus combo: if you can survive the first attempt at going off, what you have for a clock isn't a very big deal. A lowly Mongoose or un-pumped Mongrel is usually good enough once you survive the initial rush, the reason being that combo often exhausts itself in that rush. If you know you're going to face combo, playing a threat is secondary to preventing the combo from taking place.

2.) Nothing of the sort was proven, and for a number of reasons:

*When we speak of "most decks", we (I, at least) tend to mean decks that you're likely to run into, not decks without much of a following.

*We also have to exclude matchups where 'Goyf size is not relevant, since the argument was about sorceries in relation to 'Goyf. That means, for the reasons that I've detailed above, pretty much excluding storm combo (a huge portion of most metagames). It also means excluding Threshold, since we're considering sorcery-less Threshold as a widespread phenomenon rather than as an isolated incident.

*We also have to consider the likelihood of a deck's sorceries seeing the graveyard: if there are only four between two decks, the odds are slim (although they get better as the game goes on); the question becomes at what point you NEED your Tarmogoyf to be bigger, and how much you will be able to afford to let your opponent control that.

The bigger issue in this tangent is about how much one needs to commit to growing one's own Tarmogoyf: and I think that the answer is fairly obvious. One needs to commit to playing at least a few copies each of lands, sorceries, instants, and creatures if one is playing Tarmogoyf. Enchantments and artifacts are less important, since by playing the first four you're guaranteeing a strong Tarmogoyf. Their inclusion in a Gro-A-Goyf deck must be based on their overall utility, not their interaction with Tarmogoyf.

Other than that, I'm glad that it's being reported as a sorcery now. That makes it much stronger in the current Legacy environment, I think--plus, it puts an end to this interminable argument.

Nihil Credo

09-04-2007, 03:11 PM

@Goobafish: Oops, I thought you were Lam Pham. Fixed.

goobafish

09-04-2007, 03:13 PM

Nope. the name is David Caplan. Lam doesn't post online. :P

@Goaswerfraiejen

You can disagree all you like about size not mattering against combo. The sooner their Win or Die turn occurs, the better off you are. If they even have 1 more turn to wait, they can successfully combo off and prepare, shutting off their preparation turn (tutoring for a chant, or getting a swarm, or double tendrils preparation) can be key. Clearly goyf's size is less relevant than it is against aggro and control decks, but it definitely is relevant.

I would prefer that my opponent chooses not to play their sorceries and that they are holding them back. I would prefer that they play less spells and that my goyf is smaller. The decks that run those 4 sorceries need those 4 sorceries. If a deck chooses not to Duress my for fear of my goyf getting +1/1 then I will be ecstatic. You can also make the argument that you only have 4 goyfs, so the size is not all that important.

I would prefer to have a consistent deck that can keep mana open to counter threats (like an opposing goyf), or give me tempo then to compromise my deck just to give my creature +1/1.

Bardo

09-04-2007, 03:24 PM

No, we don't. Ponder wins hands down, assuming nothing else changes in the spoiler. The fact (?) that Ponder is a sorcery is kind of a relief for Thresh players. It really simplifies the decision of what to cut.

It makes it easier, yes, but does Ponder win "hands down?" You still have the Bomb / Brick / Brick problem, that doesn't go away.

For me, the only way to really settle the thing is consider my set of SVs as "Ponder"s* for the next month or so and see how it goes.

* Ponder is a pretty sweet name, I'm happy it's not so lame.

Re: Serum Visions, rave chick aside, whenever I'm feeling sorta romantic/poetic when I play SV, I sorta see the spell like some awesome ecstasy-like drug that lets you see into the future. Now, that's a rave.

Goaswerfraiejen

09-04-2007, 03:58 PM

You can disagree all you like about size not mattering against combo. The sooner their Win or Die turn occurs, the better off you are. If they even have 1 more turn to wait, they can successfully combo off and prepare, shutting off their preparation turn (tutoring for a chant, or getting a swarm, or double tendrils preparation) can be key. Clearly goyf's size is less relevant than it is against aggro and control decks, but it definitely is relevant.

You should also note that during those turns you too are rebuilding, and your rebuilding is far simpler than combos: you only need one or two cards that will stop them, whereas your opponent likely needs three specific cards at the very least. As an aggro-control player, you can dig for answers. The combo player is in a much tighter spot than you are if the first attempt at comboing off has been thwarted. Obviously it isn't impossible; it's just difficult.

In any case, when I say that Goyf size doesn't matter versus combo, I'm saying that whether your Tarmogoyf is a 3/4 or 4/5 is not so important; your primary objective is to thwart the combo, and the secondary objective is to push the damage through. After thwarting the combo, you can easily devote your resources to a second threat (if need be) while you rebuild your hand. Once the combo is thwarted once, you should be in a position to kick some ass regardless of the beatstick you use. In fact, you should be able to realiably beat with two sticks.

But perhaps I exaggerated; you're right, the size does matter to a certain (minor) extent: it's just not very important, and not of particular relevance to our discussion. Whether a deck plays the sorceries that will allow your Tarmogoyf to dominate just isn't something applicable to combo matchups.

I would prefer that my opponent chooses not to play their sorceries and that they are holding them back. I would prefer that they play less spells and that my goyf is smaller. The decks that run those 4 sorceries need those 4 sorceries. If a deck chooses not to Duress my for fear of my goyf getting +1/1 then I will be ecstatic.

There are times when it matters and times when it doesn't. If holding a sorcery back until your second main phase will allow you to dominate the combat phase, then it's worth waiting for. That's what I'm referring to.

In any case, it doesn't change the fact that you're waiting for your opponent to do something that will grant you superiority in combat. And that's not great.

As for needing those four sorceries, I beg to differ. Duress isn't a big deal. Neither is Serum Visions. Nor even Pyroclasm, against a Thresh-like aggro-control deck. If it's gonna make the difference between me owning my combat phase or you owning it, I'll gladly postpone casting a sorcery. The lines may be fine, but they're there.

You can also make the argument that you only have 4 goyfs, so the size is not all that important.[/b]

Except that you only have 12 or so creatures (well, depending on the deck, obviously), meaning that every one counts. When your opponents are playing large creatures as well, owning the combat phase becomes very important.

[quote]I would prefer to have a consistent deck that can keep mana open to counter threats (like an opposing goyf), or give me tempo then to compromise my deck just to give my creature +1/1.

1.) Even if Ponder were an instant, running Serum Visions instead could hardly be characterised as "compromising" the deck. Functionally, the two are very similar; it's just that Serum Visions does more in the context of a deck with no other sorceries.

2.) I'm not saying that, card-for-card, an instant Serum Visions would be worse than a sorcery-speed one; quite the opposite, obviously. I've said as much already. Like I've said, though, in the context of the deck, Serum Visions has a continuous (throughout the game), beneficial, pro-active effect; insta-Visions, on the other hand, has a very limited and entirely reactive window of opportunity/use-goodness. If the cards were functionally dissimilar, it might be another story; they aren't, though.

I suspect we're starting to annoy people. Feel free to respond: I'll just respond to that using the PM system. :smile:

Volt

09-04-2007, 04:03 PM

@Bardo:
Sure, in that one scenario where your top 3 cards are bomb, brick, brick, Serum Visions is the schnitzel fo shizzle. Yeah, that's right, I just said that. In almost any other scenario, though, Ponder is going to be better. I'll bet you $10 that in 3 months, every competent Thresh player on these boards (including you) is going to be playing 4 Ponder in lieu of any other sorcery-speed cantrips. One hedge: if the spoiler for Ponder turns out to be wrong, the bet's off.

Illissius

09-04-2007, 04:18 PM

I don't think we should have these drastic reactions at the drop of a hat. As far as I can tell, it's still being debated, and I'm not sure why the spoiler suddenly lists it as a sorcery. As posted in the UGr Thresh thread...

The discussion (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=88011&page=13) begins around #186.

Bardo

09-04-2007, 05:11 PM

Comparing Serum Visions with Ponder*:

[Top three cards of your library when you cast either of these cards]

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb: Roughly even; though Ponder slightly over SV, since you decide the order you draw each Bomb

Bomb, Bomb, Brick: Close, with slight a nod Serum Visions, since you can scry away the Brick

Bomb, Brink, Bomb: Close, with slight nod Serum Visions, since you can scry away the Brick

Bomb, Brick, Brick: Overwhelmingly SV.

Brick, Bomb, Bomb: Overwhelingly Ponder.

Brick, Bomb, Brick: Definitely Ponder.

Brick, Brick, Bomb: Definitely Ponder.

Brick, Brick, Brick: Definitely Ponder.

(Have I missed any?)

From what I can gather, the more Bombs you have in your top three cards suggest you want Serum Visions in those cases; while you'll probably want Ponder when you have more chaff in your top 3 cards. But obviously this is a pretty thin dichotomous analysis, since the range of "bombness" is pretty broad when you're actually in "Bomb" country.

Re: the wager. As someone who likes to gamble on random bullshit, I will decline your offer, unless you can put up some serious odds, (I'm thinking 3.5:1.) If the spoiler is correct, it's obviously extremely good in the Thresh shell and I'm sure a lot of people will try it out for awhile (including me), and maybe adopt it long-term.

* Assuming it is correct as spoiled.

DragoFireheart

09-04-2007, 05:17 PM

Sorry, I haven't heard of this terminology before.

Whats a "Brick"?

Whats a "Bomb"?

Zilla

09-04-2007, 05:20 PM

A brick is a bad or dead card. For example, a land when you already have more than you need.

A bomb is a very strong card, one which will help you progress your strategy in an immediate sense. A Pyroclasm against a board full of Goblins, for example.

KillemallCFH

09-04-2007, 05:21 PM

Sorry, I haven't heard of this terminology before.

Whats a "Brick"? A card you don't want.

Whats a "Bomb"? A card you want.EDIT: Beaten to it.

kabal

09-04-2007, 05:22 PM

Sorry, I haven't heard of this terminology before.

Whats a "Brick"? = BAD

Whats a "Bomb"? = GOOD

T is for TOOL

09-04-2007, 05:40 PM

The issue that I have with that analysis is that it presents each scenario as equally weighted, when this will not be the case in real games. The cards that are considered bombs will vary depending on the opponent and the game situation, but the number of bombs will always be far less than the number of bricks. Additionally, I don't think that moving chafe is nearly as important as drawing bombs, particularly if the deck has ways to rerandomize the library through shuffling. I would group the categories into just two, at least one bomb in the top, chafe in the top. I would almost always prefer Ponder over Serum Visions.

Brick, Bomb, Brick: Definitely Ponder.

Brick, Brick, Bomb: Probably Ponder.
Can you explain why the first case is definite while the second is only probably? The cases are the exact same regarding both Ponder and Serum Visions. Ponder is clearly better in both cases is it not?

Pinder

09-04-2007, 06:00 PM

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb: Roughly even; though Ponder slightly over SV, since you decide the order you draw each Bomb

Bomb, Bomb, Brick: Close, with slight a nod Serum Visions, since you can scry away the Brick

Bomb, Brink, Bomb: Close, with slight nod Serum Visions, since you can scry away the Brick

Bomb, Brick, Brick: Overwhelmingly SV.

Brick, Bomb, Bomb: Overwhelingly Ponder.

Brick, Bomb, Brick: Definitely Ponder.

Brick, Brick, Bomb: Probably Ponder.

Brick, Brick, Brick: Definitely Ponder.

So, if I read this correctly, you're saying that SV is roughly equal to or worse than Ponder, except in one specific case?

In 8 different permutations, I see 1 that's solidly in SV's favor, 2 that are roughly equal that are slightly in SV's favor, 1 that's roughly equal and slightly in Ponder's favor, and 4 that are Solidly in Ponder's favor.

So, why are we discussing this again?

edit: Actually, 'Brick, Brick, Brick' should probably be in SV's favor, just because either way you are going to draw one of them, but with SV you can scry the other two away.

Still, though.

Bardo

09-04-2007, 06:04 PM

The issue that I have with that analysis is that it presents each scenario as equally weighted, when this will not be the case in real games.

Absolutely, the real "how this pans out" needs to be done in testing--I merely presented a shallow comparison of the two cards side by side. And like I mentioned above, the biggest hole in my analysis is how bomby each Bomb is. There's no way to really quantify that without a ridiculously detailed analysis, that will just show up in testing anyhow.

Re: Originally Posted by Bardo
Brick, Bomb, Brick: Definitely Ponder.

Brick, Brick, Bomb: Probably Ponder.

Can you explain why the first case is definite while the second is only probably? The cases are the exact same regarding both Ponder and Serum Visions. Ponder is clearly better in both cases is it not?

These are functionally the same (draw a Bomb + scry 2 vs. Ponder). I'll fix that. Something must have ran through my head that made me downgrade it. :)

So, why are we discussing this again?

For kicks. Duh. It's been about 3 days since we had a cantrip brawl--and I can't really resist the temptation. Who could? :tongue:

Machinus

09-04-2007, 06:05 PM

I understand your point completely: there is always a "correct" choice when deciding what cards go into a decklist. I'm asking you to illustrate your point by showing the process you would use to prove that one card choice is definitively "more correct" than another in a given decklist. You claim it's simple, so I'd like to see it please.

All I have claimed is that there is always one choice which is best. I never said it was simple to figure it out, just that it's always possible to find one.

As long as this discussion doesn't involve attempts to justify non-decision making and/or bad reasons for playing with cards, I am fine with the status of the decision. But I don't see that happening, yet. There is an optimal cantrip base, and the lack of consensus only indicates that some people are mistaken, and playing suboptimal decks.

The actual investigation into whether or not Portent is better than X non-brainstorm-cantrip requires a thorough examination of the cards' effects on the game and extensive testing and practice with both. It also requires rigorous treatment of the question without interference from nonsense arguments. I think this is an important question to answer, but it requires a lot of experience from testing and tournaments both to talk about and answer it. So far I have seen an effective demonstration of how unprepared and unwilling people are to pursue a real answer to the question, so I'm not very inclined to address it.

MattH

09-04-2007, 06:11 PM

I don't really understand the argument. You're saying there's definitely one right answer, but it doesn't matter what it is?

There's also the possibility that there EXISTS a right answer, but that it is not knowable.

Further, there is also the possibility that the correct build runs some number of EACH and not 4 of one or the other.

Furthermore, the cards in question may change their performance based on the skill level of the pilot. Portent offers the additional choice of knowing when to use it on the opponent, and that may make it better for a skilled player but worse for a non-skilled one.

Portent is simply better at this than any other 1cc cantrip currently in the game, because it lets you see up to 5 cards by your next draw step.
Is that really true? Portent lets you see 3 cards, one of which you get to draw next turn, and if you don't like them, shuffle and see a 4th (which has some minuscule probability of being one of the cards you shuffled back). Serum Visions lets you see one card now that you draw, 2 more that you can see but not touch, and if you don't like those, a 4th card that is guaranteed to not be one of the two you got rid of. It looks to me that they let you see the exact same number of cards, with a slight advantage towards Serum Visions since you are sure not to get the scryed cards back.

KillemallCFH

09-04-2007, 06:15 PM

edit: Actually, 'Brick, Brick, Brick' should probably be in SV's favor, just because either way you are going to draw one of them, but with SV you can scry the other two away.

Still, though.But with Ponder you can just shuffle them all away and hope the card you do draw is a bomb, and if it is a brick, then you are in the same position as with SV - you've just drawn a brick and the next cards are unknown. I'd definitely put this in Ponder's favor, because with it you at least have a chance of drawing a bomb.

Pinder

09-04-2007, 06:20 PM

But with Ponder you can just shuffle them all away and hope the card you do draw is a bomb, and if it is a brick, then you are in the same position as with SV - you've just drawn a brick and the next cards are unknown. I'd definitely put this in Ponder's favor, because with it you at least have a chance of drawing a bomb.

Right. I completely forgot about the shuffling. Ponder just keeps getting better and better.

For kicks. Duh. It's been about 3 days since we had a cantrip brawl--and I can't really resist the temptation. Who could? :tongue:

Apprently Machinus. :tongue:

Zilla

09-04-2007, 06:28 PM

There is an optimal cantrip base, and the lack of consensus only indicates that some people are mistaken, and playing suboptimal decks.
I agree with this in theory. It's in practice where I have a problem with it. There's a best choice for that slot. That choice can change from tournament to tournament, deck to deck, and game to game.

I contend that in this particular situation, it's virtually impossible to quantifiably determine that one is absolutely the correct choice. How would you go about it? Every single time you cast that cantrip, you would need to know how the game would play out if you had cast the other cantrip instead. The two cards, while being functionally very similar, are better or worse in purely subjective scenarios. You would have to measure each and every one of those scenarios for each card on a very large scale to definitively conclude that one is the "best" choice.

This brings us back to my original comment: that further discussion on the specific point of Visions vs. Portent is essentially useless. Yes, there is a correct answer. Will it be discovered by repeatedly going over the same points over and over again in these forums? Certainly not. Your time would be better spent testing actual games. That is why I didn't want to discuss it - not because I'm afraid of what the answer might be.

Illissius

09-04-2007, 06:36 PM

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb: Roughly even; though Ponder slightly over SV, since you decide the order you draw each Bomb

Bomb, Bomb, Brick: Close, with slight a nod Serum Visions, since you can scry away the Brick

Bomb, Brink, Bomb: Close, with slight nod Serum Visions, since you can scry away the Brick

Bomb, Brick, Brick: Overwhelmingly SV.

Brick, Bomb, Bomb: Overwhelingly Ponder.

Brick, Bomb, Brick: Definitely Ponder.

Brick, Brick, Bomb: Definitely Ponder.

Brick, Brick, Brick: Definitely Ponder.

Another problem with this analysis, besides Brick versus Bomb being shades of grey and not black and white (as mentioned), is that you assume each scenario is going to occur with equal frequency. This is a very easy mistake to make, but any relation to the truth it may have is purely accidental. Basically, when considering whether something is true or false, if they have no idea, people tend to assume it's 50-50 -- but for just one contrived counterexample, a box with unknown content, being asked what it may contain: "What about Dogs?" ("50%!"), "What about Cats?" ("50%!"), "What about Chiickeeennss?!" ("50%!"), and they obviously can't all have 50% probability at the same time. This is the same thing, only with more than two options (true/false). Dissecting the two cards by scenario and then tallying the results is only really a valid approach if you figure out how likely each of them is, and weight the results accordingly.

Tacosnape

09-04-2007, 07:01 PM

Wizards are a bunch of whores for giving more good cards to Threshold and giving Solidarity the shaft.:P

Zork

09-04-2007, 07:21 PM

Pinder

09-04-2007, 07:47 PM

Dissecting the two cards by scenario and then tallying the results is only really a valid approach if you figure out how likely each of them is, and weight the results accordingly.

And there you have it, folks, the only way to get a definitive answer requires way too much time and energy to warrant getting a definitive answer!

And plus, as has been mentioned which cards are bricks and which are bombs will always be changing based on the gamestate, and which decks you are playing with and against in any given game. Swords to Plowshares is a brick against Solidarity, whereas Stifle isn't. So a stack of

Swords to Plowshares
Stifle
Island

Could be 'Brick, Bomb, Brick' against Solidarity, or against something else (Like, say, Thresh with an active Goyf) it could just as easily be 'Bomb, Brick, Brick'. Hell, if you're light on land and you just need that one extra to win, the stack could even be 'Brick, Brick, Bomb'.

And it's not even enough to say that card X is a brick against deck Y, and a Bomb against deck Z, because whether or not a card is a bomb or a brick depends entirely on how useful it is in a given situtation. Sometimes, what may have been a Bomb at one point in the game (like a Stifle in the opening hand, used on a turn 1 fetch) could be a total brick at a different point (like a Stifle on turn 7 when there's nothing to Stifle and you're about to die).

To sum it up, in spite of Machinus' assertions, I think it's rather impossible to find a de facto answer to the question, honestly. Sure, with the right analysis you could probably demonstrate enough cases for one versus the other to justify saying one is better than the other, but even then it takes far too much time and effort than this argument is worth. And which one is better more frequently could even change if the metagame changes, giving us a whole new set of decks to gague Bricks and Bombs against.

So basically this whole argument is fruitless.

Sexy_Rector

09-04-2007, 07:48 PM

The only thing more sad about this post is the fact that I read through 6 pages of it ....

I want my 20 mins back ....

09-04-2007, 07:52 PM

Howabout you just run both? Wtf is the problem? Srsly? Just shut the fuck up, everyone, and stuff them both in the deck and be happy.

Bardo

09-04-2007, 07:56 PM

@ Pinder - Exactly. Not to undermine my "well spent time" doing the Brick/Bomb thing above, but you're absolutely right: brick-ness and bomb-ness is completely relative to the match-up in general (e.g. StP vs. High Tide) and more specifically to the game state/development in very specific instances within in match (Mystic Enforcer, for instance, is a Brick when you see him on turn 1, and an absolute Bomb on turn 7, etc.). I was just looking for generalities.

Howabout you just run both? Wtf is the problem?

Um, because decks should be 60 cards and not 62-64?

Nihil Credo

09-04-2007, 08:02 PM

Somehow I doubt the people at wizards give a shit about threshold or solidarity. I bet they are actually sitting around, looking at the soon to be T2 metagame and guessing at what each color needs. I wish it were different, but if wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak.*
They put Quirion Dryad in Tenth. As a sometimes-Standard player, I'd be frustrated if they didn't (re)print at least a few playable cantrips.

Is that really true? Portent lets you see 3 cards, one of which you get to draw next turn, and if you don't like them, shuffle and see a 4th (which has some minuscule probability of being one of the cards you shuffled back). Serum Visions lets you see one card now that you draw, 2 more that you can see but not touch, and if you don't like those, a 4th card that is guaranteed to not be one of the two you got rid of. It looks to me that they let you see the exact same number of cards, with a slight advantage towards Serum Visions since you are sure not to get the scryed cards back.

X is the number of cards left in your library.

Playing Portent means that you get to look at 3 + (X-3)/X + (X-4)/(X-1) cards if you're looking for a specific one. 3 for the ones you look at, (X-3)/X for the chances that the one you cantrip into (after shuffling) is a card you haven't already seen, (X-4)/(X-1) for the chance that the one you draw next turn is a card you haven't seen before.

Serum Visions means that you get to look at four cards: three from Visions plus one (guaranteed to be a new one) from your draw step next turn.

Hence, Portent is better as long as the following inequality holds:

3 + (X-3)/X + (X-4)/(X-1) > 4

(X-3)/X + (X-4)/(X-1) > 1

(X-3)*(X-1) + (X-4)*X > X(X-1) [We can assume X>0]

X^2 -4X + 3 + X^2 -4X > X^2 - X

X^2 -7X +3 > 0

The left term is zero when X = 3.5 +/- sqrt(49/4 - 3) = 3.5 +/- sqrt(37/4) = 3.5 +/- ~3 = 0.5 or 6.5

Since we assumed X>0, that means that the left term is positive only when X> 6.5

Hence, as long as there are at least 7 cards left in your library, Portent gives you more chances of finding the card you want within one turn.

(I could have just replied "You forgot about Portent's extra slowtrip draw", but I felt like doing some grade school math)

09-04-2007, 08:18 PM

Um, because decks should be 60 cards and not 62-64?

Lol, I'm not saying they should be. However, given that a typical Threshold list runs anywhere from 10-14 cantrips, it certainly isn't difficult to find room for them both. I also never said they had to be 4-ofs. I would think there'd easily be room for both in those slots between Brainstorm, Ponder, Serum Visions, and Predict.

Bardo

09-04-2007, 09:14 PM

Lol, I'm not saying they should be. However, given that a typical Threshold list runs anywhere from 10-14 cantrips, it certainly isn't difficult to find room for them both. I also never said they had to be 4-ofs. I would think there'd easily be room for both in those slots between Brainstorm, Ponder, Serum Visions, and Predict.

I mean, sure, you can just go 4 Brainstorm, 2-4 Predict/Note, 2-3 Ponder, 2-3 Predict/Visions and split the difference, but as we are enganged in Very Serious Business here, that doesn't seem entirely satisfactory. If there is a One Correct Configuration (tm), and I'm not entirely sure there is (given the slight power variance and the relative pros/cons of each cantrip on the game state/match), we ought to due our best to find it; if, for no other reason, to Make the Internet Proud!

09-04-2007, 10:23 PM

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/5/56/Bizness.jpg

But on a less serious matter...

I actually believe a split between the two would be better than running one or the other. Assuming your split is >4, that gives you more sorceries, assuming that is that Ponder will be a sorcery, and thus will give greater chances at making Tarmogoyf bigger.

Bardo

09-04-2007, 10:56 PM

I actually believe a split between the two would be better than running one or the other. Assuming your split is >4, that gives you more sorceries, assuming that is that Ponder will be a sorcery, and thus will give greater chances at making Tarmogoyf bigger.

Yeah, going below 3 sorcs seems unsanitary. 4 seems a safe bet, but it seems that one has to be relatively better than the other (Ponder vs. SV/Portent), overall, and I'm leaning toward Ponder.

Ciao, ecstasy rave chick? :frown:

Citrus-God

09-04-2007, 11:15 PM

Ciao, ecstasy rave chick? :frown:

Not really. I kinda love the ecstasy rave chick too (I run two copies). Ponder is still pretty damn good for a sorcery. I might run 8 fetchlands now, just to maximize it's potential. Now my only hope for Ponder is a badass art work.

Machinus

09-04-2007, 11:37 PM

I agree with this in theory. It's in practice where I have a problem with it. There's a best choice for that slot. That choice can change from tournament to tournament, deck to deck, and game to game.

I contend that in this particular situation, it's virtually impossible to quantifiably determine that one is absolutely the correct choice. How would you go about it? Every single time you cast that cantrip, you would need to know how the game would play out if you had cast the other cantrip instead. The two cards, while being functionally very similar, are better or worse in purely subjective scenarios. You would have to measure each and every one of those scenarios for each card on a very large scale to definitively conclude that one is the "best" choice.

This brings us back to my original comment: that further discussion on the specific point of Visions vs. Portent is essentially useless. Yes, there is a correct answer. Will it be discovered by repeatedly going over the same points over and over again in these forums? Certainly not. Your time would be better spent testing actual games. That is why I didn't want to discuss it - not because I'm afraid of what the answer might be.

It's solvable by playing with both of the cards, and testing how well they allow you to control your draws when you want to. This is what you do when you are attempting to build the best deck. It's included in competitive magic.

This is not a problem if people are concerned only with making their deck better, and if people are honest about their findings and experience. What should occur on these forums is that people take the time to play with the cards and discover for themselves what they can do. Then, in that context, it's useful to try to compare them rationally. That's definitely not the context for this debate, and that's why it's not a constructive process. It has nothing to do with this situation being any different or more complicated. It's because people are invested in the wrong answer for stupid reasons and it's not worth the time to argue with them about it.

DeathwingZERO

09-05-2007, 12:41 AM

There's also the possibility that there EXISTS a right answer, but that it is not knowable.

Further, there is also the possibility that the correct build runs some number of EACH and not 4 of one or the other.

Furthermore, the cards in question may change their performance based on the skill level of the pilot. Portent offers the additional choice of knowing when to use it on the opponent, and that may make it better for a skilled player but worse for a non-skilled one.

Is that really true? Portent lets you see 3 cards, one of which you get to draw next turn, and if you don't like them, shuffle and see a 4th (which has some minuscule probability of being one of the cards you shuffled back). Serum Visions lets you see one card now that you draw, 2 more that you can see but not touch, and if you don't like those, a 4th card that is guaranteed to not be one of the two you got rid of. It looks to me that they let you see the exact same number of cards, with a slight advantage towards Serum Visions since you are sure not to get the scryed cards back.

What Volt is referring to is the fact that by YOUR next turn, you WILL see the 5th card, because you see 3 (shuffle), then draw on their turn (4th), then your turn draw (5th). In this case, it is better than SV, because you've effectively randomized your deck, plus drawn a card, rather than just tossing a brick or two to the bottom.

As far as the best choice in concerned, in my opinion it's a moot point. The only real difference is that you have a card in hand immediately, or one on your opponents turn VS being able to see topdecks of the opponent. In all honesty, I'd advocate playing 2-3 of each rather than a 4-of of either. Seems a much better balance.

MattH

09-05-2007, 01:08 AM

(I could have just replied "You forgot about Portent's extra slowtrip draw", but I felt like doing some grade school math)
Actually I was leaving off the draw of the next turn, but w/e. I concede the point.

xsockmonkeyx

09-05-2007, 01:21 AM

The great thing about Ponder is that its a Portent that lets you dig 4 deep on the same turn. This makes it much more effective than Portent when trying to chain cantrips together in an effort to dig really deep on the same turn. Serum Visions was better than Portent in that regard in that it could also dig you through 4 cards in 1 turn if you needed to. However I always disliked Serum Visions because its a really lackluster opening play compared to Portent. Opening up with Portent has won me many games that I feel would have been much harder if I not had the set up with a turn1 Portent. The fact that you get the 4 deep dig of Visions and the 1st turn set up of Porent is, IMO, a marriage of a couple of the best aspects of both cards.

Instant, Sorcery, whatever. Just gimme Ponder. Gimme it now.

Citrus-God

09-05-2007, 06:33 AM

The great thing about Ponder is that its a Portent that lets you dig 4 deep on the same turn.

Not if it's first turn. That is one of the reasons why Portent was so great first turn; it found you land or the crucial answer turn 1 before things got hectic.

DeathwingZERO

09-05-2007, 09:58 AM

Not if it's first turn. That is one of the reasons why Portent was so great first turn; it found you land or the crucial answer turn 1 before things got hectic.

It still digs 4 if you shuffle then draw. People seem to forget this aspect, after a shuffle a new cards seen on the topdeck is STILL another card, regardless of if the shuffle put one of the original 3 cards on top. Portent only saw 3 deep on the first turn, you saw your 4th after you shuffle and draw on your opponents turn.

T is for TOOL

09-05-2007, 10:07 AM

To sum it up, in spite of Machinus' assertions, I think it's rather impossible to find a de facto answer to the question, honestly. Sure, with the right analysis you could probably demonstrate enough cases for one versus the other to justify saying one is better than the other, but even then it takes far too much time and effort than this argument is worth. And which one is better more frequently could even change if the metagame changes, giving us a whole new set of decks to gague Bricks and Bombs against.

So basically this whole argument is fruitless.
I would argue that in any given situation, regardless of what is considered a bomb at that current instant, that the number of bombs in your deck will be much less than the number of bricks (i.e you are not likely to have more than one bomb in the top 3 cards, if there is a bomb at all). Furthermore, running additional waysy to shuffle your library (Fetches, Portents, Ponders, whatever) increase synergy with Brainstorm and negate the downsides of Portent and Ponder. At the same time this also weakens the ability of Serum Visions to ship garbage to the bottom of your library. Are there any other arguments in favor of Serum Visions other than its ability to ship bricks?

Nightmare

09-05-2007, 10:10 AM

Portent advocates piss me off. Well, maybe not the advocates themselves, as much as the idea that Portent looks "4 or 5 cards deep."

It's not 4 cards deep. You do see 4 cards, yes, but it isn't 4 cards deep. You see 3 cards deep. Then you shuffle away the garbage, because you're playing shit like Portent in your deck. Then you get a random card off the top of your Library, which is exactly 1 card deep.

Impulse digs 4 cards deep. Brainstorm+Fetch digs three cards deep. Portent looks 3 cards deep.

If you're using the fact that Portent can shuffle your library as a justification for running it over Serum Visions, how is it actually better? You look at the top three in a randomized deck. Then you shuffle it, randomizing it again. Then you draw a single random card off the top.

Net: 1 random card, and a shuffle which apparently mattered.

In the same situation with Visions, you get 1 random card off the top of a randomized deck, and then set up anywhere from 0 to 2 draws.

Net: 1 random card, and stacking 0 to 2 cards.

Seems pretty much the same to me. You could (and probably will) argue that the ability to look at the top three before deciding to shuffle makes a difference. I would counter that by shuffling, you retain the exact same number of shitty cards in the way of the good cards as you had before, and your liklihood of drawing them with Portent is exactly the same as it is with Visions. Additionally, you get them sometime down the road, as opposed to now.

This is not an argument that overall, one is better than the other. This IS an argument that when you utilize the shuffling aspect of Portent, it sucks compared to almost every other cantrip available, and that it is not the same as looking 4 cards deep.

DeathwingZERO

09-05-2007, 10:14 AM

@T: I would say not, especially when you factor in that Serum Visions doesn't necessarily draw the best of the 3 cards. A blind draw with potential to lower-deck 2 bricks or up a bomb draw by a turn is not better than seeing said bomb in hand immediately, then getting rid of potential bricks via shuffle, or a second bomb on the top in addition to one in hand.

In my opinion, it really comes down to whether or not you want the bomb now (Portent) or later (Serum Visions). That's what everyone has agreed on thus far, that one is a quicker bomb seeker, the other is better for long game. That's really the best we can conclude at any given time.

@Nightmare: It doesn't matter if the card off the new topdeck isn't in the same sequence, what matters is it's a potentially new draw. Even if it is a duplicate of something you saw before, it's still an additional card you otherwise wouldn't have seen from Serum Visions until next turn. The probability of it being a new card rather than a duplicate of the first 3 seen is high enough that it can claim to dig. 3 + 1 is still 4 total, and even if it's not, that still makes Portent able to see more cards than Serum, regardless of if it's technically coined dig or not.

Nightmare

09-05-2007, 10:25 AM

@Nightmare: It doesn't matter if the card off the new topdeck isn't in the same sequence, what matters is it's a potentially new draw. Even if it is a duplicate of something you saw before, it's still an additional card you otherwise wouldn't have seen from Serum Visions until next turn. The probability of it being a new card rather than a duplicate of the first 3 seen is high enough that it can claim to dig. 3 + 1 is still 4 total, and even if it's not, that still makes Portent able to see more cards than Serum, regardless of if it's technically coined dig or not.It does matter that the card is not in the same sequence, whether you want to believe it or not. After you shuffle the library, any previous knowledge you had of the deck is lost. At that point, Portent reads:

:u:
Sorcery
Draw a card at the beginning of next turn's upkeep.

Would you play that card?

Happy Gilmore

09-05-2007, 10:27 AM

Comparing Serum Visions with Ponder*:

[Top three cards of your library when you cast either of these cards]

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb: Roughly even; though Ponder slightly over SV, since you decide the order you draw each Bomb

Bomb, Bomb, Brick: Close, with slight a nod Serum Visions, since you can scry away the Brick

Bomb, Brink, Bomb: Close, with slight nod Serum Visions, since you can scry away the Brick

Bomb, Brick, Brick: Overwhelmingly SV.

Brick, Bomb, Bomb: Overwhelingly Ponder.

Brick, Bomb, Brick: Definitely Ponder.

Brick, Brick, Bomb: Definitely Ponder.

Brick, Brick, Brick: Definitely Ponder.

This comparison is useless. The two cards cannot be effectively compared in this manner. Portent that looks at the top three where Serum Visions draws one and looks at two.

Bomb, Brick, Brick: Overwhelmingly SV.
Bomb, Bomb, Brick: Close, with slight a nod Serum Visions, since you can scry away the Brick

These two situations present a possibility of their arrangement not a guarantee. You will have no idea until after you draw your card. In every situation where the bomb is not on top Portent or Ponder is strictly better. You have to hope the arangment is correct or you have greatly weakened your position. In other words, there is no situation where SV is better as long as the top three cards are unknown. As far as I can tell, only Spring Tide (aka. The Permanent Wave) can justify running SV over Portent due to drawing a card imediately.

T is for TOOL

09-05-2007, 10:28 AM

AnwarA101

09-05-2007, 10:47 AM

If you're using the fact that Portent can shuffle your library as a justification for running it over Serum Visions, how is it actually better? You look at the top three in a randomized deck. Then you shuffle it, randomizing it again. Then you draw a single random card off the top.

Net: 1 random card, and a shuffle which apparently mattered.

In the same situation with Visions, you get 1 random card off the top of a randomized deck, and then set up anywhere from 0 to 2 draws.

Net: 1 random card, and stacking 0 to 2 cards.

Seems pretty much the same to me. You could (and probably will) argue that the ability to look at the top three before deciding to shuffle makes a difference. I would counter that by shuffling, you retain the exact same number of shitty cards in the way of the good cards as you had before, and your liklihood of drawing them with Portent is exactly the same as it is with Visions. Additionally, you get them sometime down the road, as opposed to now.

This is not an argument that overall, one is better than the other. This IS an argument that when you utilize the shuffling aspect of Portent, it sucks compared to almost every other cantrip available, and that it is not the same as looking 4 cards deep.

When you shuffle with Portent you avoid the certainty of bad draws for a chance at a better draw. Its unlikely that when you shuffle that you will draw the same 3 cards that you shuffled because that is only 3 out of 53 cards (at least on the first turn). Its likely that you will see a different card (a 4th card if you will). Portent actually avoids the undesirable card on the top of your library as Serum Visions draws you right into it.

If Serum Visions and Portent are so close together isn't it better to play the one that avoids drawing the undesirable cards?

Nightmare

09-05-2007, 10:58 AM

:u:
Sorcery
Look at the top card of your library. You may choose to shuffle your library. Repeat this process as many times as you want.

Draw a card at the beginning of next turn's upkeep.

Would you play that card?

EDIT: The point here is that looking at crap and being allowed to shuffle before you draw is relevant.I'm not sure whether you think you and I agree or not, but from my perspective, we do. I'm not saying Portent is bad. I'm not saying that looking at the top 3 before drawing is irrelevant. The strength or weakness of whatever you saw IS irrelevant, however, once you shuffle, and you can't reasonably say that it contributes to the potential strangth of whatever card you draw randomly. The card you suggested is only better than Sleight of Hand the one time you find what you want, and choose not to shuffle. A more apt comparison to my point in the discussion would be:

:u:
Sorcery
Look at the top 60 cards of your library. Put them back in any order. Shuffle your library.

Draw a card at the beginning of next turn's upkeep.

Once you choose to Shuffle with Portent, the next card is completely random. You CANNOT base it's potential strength on the cards you've shuffled away.

When you shuffle with Portent you avoid the certainty of bad draws for a chance at a better draw. Its unlikely that when you shuffle that you will draw the same 3 cards that you shuffled because that is only 3 out of 53 cards (at least on the first turn). Its likely that you will see a different card (a 4th card if you will). Portent actually avoids the undesirable card on the top of your library as Serum Visions draws you right into it.

If Serum Visions and Portent are so close together isn't it better to play the one that avoids drawing the undesirable cards?
My gripe is not with the card itself. I've tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to establish that. My point is this:

Portent Looks three cards deep. Or it looks 1 card deep. These two cannot be added together to make a card which looks 4 cards deep.

The fact that you randomize the deck (which means you have exactly the same chance of drawing the card that was on top before as you did before you shuffled) means that you cannot assume that shuffling is somehow the same thing as putting the three bad cards on the bottom of your library, and drawing a new card. It seems nearly the same. It is not.

Happy Gilmore

09-05-2007, 11:08 AM

The same argument can be applied to Serum Visions. You cannot base its potential strength on the chance that the top card will be (the) one you want.

Nightmare

09-05-2007, 11:11 AM

The same argument can be applied to Serum Visions. You cannot base its potential strength on the chance that the top card will be (the) one you want.I agree. That's kind of my point.

Serum Visions is better than Portent if you choose to shuffle with Portent, because it has additional utility past drawing a random card.

Portent is better than Serum Visions if you choose not to shuffle ONLY if the card you choose to draw was not the top card, and the other two cards would not be scryed to the bottom if you had the opportunity to do so.

Really, the whole issue would be solved if they just printed this card:

:u:
Sorcery
Scry 2 (or 3!)
Draw a card.

AnwarA101

09-05-2007, 11:17 AM

My gripe is not with the card itself. I've tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to establish that. My point is this:

Portent Looks three cards deep. Or it looks 1 card deep. These two cannot be added together to make a card which looks 4 cards deep.

The fact that you randomize the deck (which means you have exactly the same chance of drawing the card that was on top before as you did before you shuffled) means that you cannot assume that shuffling is somehow the same thing as putting the three bad cards on the bottom of your library, and drawing a new card. It seems nearly the same. It is not.

I'm not saying that its the same as putting them at the bottom. That's why I used the terms such "likely" and "unlikely". Shuffling gives you a random chance to draw something, but you have already avoided drawing something undesirable that would have been a certainty with Serum Visions or your natural draw for the turn. Its the avoidance of such a draw to get a chance at a better draw that gives you a chance at a 4th card. You can sometimes get a new card, but you could also draw one of the ones you looked at. But drawing an undesirable card isn't a certainty which is important.

BTW, I want to play Ponder in Permanent Waves!

Nightmare

09-05-2007, 11:31 AM

I'm not saying that its the same as putting them at the bottom. That's why I used the terms such "likely" and "unlikely". Shuffling gives you a random chance to draw something, but you have already avoided drawing something undesirable that would have been a certainty with Serum Visions or your natural draw for the turn. Its the avoidance of such a draw to get a chance at a better draw that gives you a chance at a 4th card. You can sometimes get a new card, but you could also draw one of the ones you looked at. But drawing an undesirable card isn't a certainty which is important.
You're working under the assumption that the card you draw with Serum Visions is the same card as the top card you see with Portent. While this is a fine assumption, it is also (as described in the post above) the best-case scenario for Portent. If the top card is bad, as I stated, Portent is better. The thing is, the top card can still be bad after you shuffle. Let's establish some parameters.

The deck looks like this:

Random card
Random card
Random card

The top three are the only ones that matter. If you Portent, and they turn out to be:

Bad card
Bad card
Bad card

Then you're in a fine position to shuffle them away at the hope of drawing a better card. You shuffle, and the deck looks like:

Random card
Random card
Random card

You draw a random card at the beginning of the next upkeep. Break to Serum Visions. The deck is randomized to start.

Random card
Random card
Random card

You draw a card, it's bad. Your deck scrys to:

50 Random Cards
Bad card
Bad card

Let's move to the next turn's upkeep. You draw a card for Portent, and are now at the same position the Visions player is at. For the sake of argument, let's say it's not the card you're looking for (because statistically, it is less likely to be the right card than it is the wrong). Both players have drawn one bad card from the deck. However, as the Serum Visions player, your next draw, and every single draw after it, until you shuffle, is statistically more likely to be a good card because of the scrying.

Once again, because it's continually being overlooked, I am saying only this:
Serum Visions is a better card, should you choose to shuffle with Portent. Which one is situationally better can only exist as a function of the average "goodness (or whatever)" of every other card in your deck.

Machinus

09-05-2007, 11:31 AM

Portent is very similar to Impulse in typical Threshold decks.

These two cannot be added together to make a card which looks 4 cards deep.

They must be added together. You are increasing the chance that you will see a card that you want by utilizing all of the card's options.

If you know the top three cards of your deck, it is no longer randomized. If you don't want to draw any of those cards, shuffling will improve your draw significantly.

On the first turn, there is a 94% chance you will see a new card. Effectively, Portent digs 3.94 cards deep.

Nightmare

09-05-2007, 11:52 AM

If you know the top three cards of your deck, it is no longer randomized. If you don't want to draw any of those cards, shuffling will improve your draw significantly.No. If you shuffle the deck properly, your draw will not be affected by the knowledge of the top three cards previous to the shuffle in any way. The only possible way they could affect it would be if you fail to completely randomize your deck.

On the first turn, there is a 94% chance you will see a new card. Effectively, Portent digs 3.94 cards deep.This is a bullshit statistic. There is a 100 percent chance you will see a new card, because the card you see is completely isolated from the previous three you have seen. In reality, Portent digs three cards, then one card deep.

T is for TOOL

09-05-2007, 11:58 AM

Serum Visions is better than Portent if you choose to shuffle with Portent, because it has additional utility past drawing a random card. I disagree with this statement. If you choose to shuffle, it's because you didn't see like the cards that you saw. Portent and Ponder each give you a chance to draw into something that isn't awful, while Serum Visions forces you to draw crap. What about when you are looking for a particular card? At the end of both scenarios, you have unknowns on the top of your deck, but Ponder and Portent both put an unknown into your hand, while Serum Visions automatically gives you crap. Visions puts what you didn't want to see on the bottom, but assuming you cast no more spells, the odds are in your favor after Portent or Ponder for the next 16 turns AND Serum Visions also requires you to refrain from shuffling or you lose any advantage.

EDIT: To show it mathematically. Let's say you have 53 cards left in the deck, and you just played Ponder/Portent or Serum Visions. The three cards on top were terrible, and you are looking for a particular card.

% Probability of finding a single card by that turn
(Note: I rounded the Serum Visions values)

Turn | Portent/Ponder | Serum Visions
---------------------------------------------------------
0 | 1.886792453 | 0
1 | 3.773584906 | 2
2 | 5.660377358 | 4
3 | 7.547169811 | 6
4 | 9.433962264 | 8
5 | 11.32075472 | 10
6 | 13.20754717 | 12
7 | 15.09433962 | 14
8 | 16.98113208 | 16
9 | 18.86792453 | 18
10 | 20.75471698 | 20
11 | 22.64150943 | 22
12 | 24.52830189 | 24
13 | 26.41509434 | 26
14 | 28.30188679 | 28
15 | 30.18867925 | 30
16 | 32.0754717 | 32
17 | 33.91126976 | 34

Now take this and apply it to a search for a particular 4of

% Probability of finding a 4of card by that turn

Turn | Portent/Ponder | Serum Visions
---------------------------------------------------------
0 | 7.547169811 | 0
1 | 14.65892598 | 9
2 | 21.35234355 | 15.5102041
3 | 27.64415607 | 22.55102041
4 | 33.55075557 | 29.14242293
5 | 39.08819261 | 35.30395137
6 | 44.27217621 | 41.05471125
7 | 49.11807393 | 46.41337386
8 | 53.64091181 | 51.39817629
9 | 57.85537437 | 56.02692141
10 | 61.77580466 | 60.31697785
11 | 65.41620422 | 64.28528007
12 | 68.79023307 | 67.94832827
13 | 71.91120977 | 71.32218845
14 | 74.79211133 | 74.4224924
15 | 77.44557329 | 77.26443769
16 | 79.8838897 | 79.86278767
17 | 82.11901306 | 82.23187147

My conclusion is that shuffling and drawing a random card off of the top with Portent or Ponder is better than drawing crap with Visions and putting 2 bricks on the bottom.

AnwarA101

09-05-2007, 12:00 PM

This is a bullshit statistic. There is a 100 percent chance you will see a new card, because the card you see is completely isolated from the previous three you have seen. In reality, Portent digs three cards, then one card deep.

So is there no benefit from shuffling away 3 bad cards? I'm fairly confused. I thought by avoiding those 3 cards you kind of give yourself a chance at a better draw after you shuffle.

Jander78

09-05-2007, 12:03 PM

On the first turn, there is a 94% chance you will see a new card. Effectively, Portent digs 3.94 cards deep.
Not to nitpick too badly, but that percentage is very far from the truth. Portent see's 3 cards. Since there is probably 3-4 of each of those cards (not even factoring in Lands in general) there is a much higher chance than 6% that you will see the same card. The percentage comes out to more like 20% you will see one of the 3 cards and that's with 60 cards in the deck.

Nihil Credo

09-05-2007, 12:13 PM

No. If you shuffle the deck properly, your draw will not be affected by the knowledge of the top three cards previous to the shuffle in any way. The only possible way they could affect it would be if you fail to completely randomize your deck.
No. Since Portent lets you know that there are 3 bricks on top of your library, replacing the certainty of drawing a brick with the possibility of drawing a bomb or a brick is quite definitely an improvement in the quality of your next draw step.

@Jander78: Through all of this discussion, we're discussing as if cards were distinct (i.e. 60 possible cards). Hence, a "new card" means a card you haven't seen before, even if you saw another with the same name. To take into consideration that we run multiples of the same card is to introduce unnecessary complications, since none of the cantrips we're talking about has a restriction on card names.

Nightmare

09-05-2007, 12:14 PM

I'm beginning to get frustrated. It's not that I'm incorrect, so much as you guys are only willing to address statements tangental to my point.

In any event....

I disagree with this statement. If you choose to shuffle, it's because you didn't see like the cards that you saw.Fair enough.

Portent and Ponder each give you a chance to draw into something that isn't awful, while Serum Visions forces you to draw crap.It's a matter of one forcing you to draw crap and then making you draw better, while the other gives you a shot at not crap and then gives you another shot at not drawing crap.

Wait a minute. How did I even get sucked into a debate on Portent vs. Serum Visions? Fuck it, I'm dropping that point. It's irrelevant to my point, which is the only thing I will continue to debate on.

So is there no benefit from shuffling away 3 bad cards? I'm fairly confused. I thought by avoiding those 3 cards you kind of give yourself a chance at a better draw after you shuffle.There would be a benefit to shuffling the bad cards away if you could guarantee you don't draw them again. There is no way to guarantee you won't draw the same three cards, however unlikely it may be. The top card of your library is exactly as likely to be shitty, as it was before you played the Portent. It's the exact same number of cards, in a random order. The situation is identical. How could you have gained an advantage?

Ewokslayer

09-05-2007, 12:16 PM

Not to nitpick too badly, but that percentage is very far from the truth. Portent see's 3 cards. Since there is probably 3-4 of each of those cards (not even factoring in Lands in general) there is a much higher chance than 6% that you will see the same card. The percentage comes out to more like 20% you will see one of the 3 cards and that's with 60 cards in the deck.

That's like comparing Apples to Mustangs.

The percentage he used was specifically the chances of having one of those 3 cards being the top card of your library.

With Serum Visions that percentage is zero (you drew one and but two on bottom)
With Portent that percentage is apparently 6% (you shuffle all three away)

The random card on top could still be another copy of one of those cards you have already seen but that is outside the arguement.

There would be a benefit to shuffling the bad cards away if you could guarantee you don't draw them again. There is no way to guarantee you won't draw the same three cards, however unlikely it may be. The top card of your library is exactly as likely to be shitty, as it was before you played the Portent. It's the exact same number of cards, in a random order. The situation is identical. How could you have gained an advantage?
You have gained an advantage because the chances of the new random order being the same as the old random order (which you found to be undesirable) is so small (I'll assume that the 6% is right).

Lets say you are playing Russian Rotelitte and you could look to see if there was a bullet in the chamber before you pulled the trigger. If there was, you could spin the barrel and then pull the trigger. How is looking not an advantage?

Nihil Credo

09-05-2007, 12:19 PM

The top card of your library is exactly as likely to be shitty, as it was before you played the Portent. It's the exact same number of cards, in a random order. The situation is identical. How could you have gained an advantage?

Gosh, it's like explaining the 2 goats/1 car/3 doors trick again.

The situation is not identical: you have more information, which is very relevant.

Once you've cast Portent, you now know with certainty that the top card of your library is shitty. Therefore, at that point, choosing to switch to a random card is an improvement.

Nightmare

09-05-2007, 12:22 PM

The random card on top could still be another copy of one of those cards you have already seen but that is outside the arguement.Actually, it's overcomplicating things. You could break the deck down into 2 cards:

Good
Bad

If you have 50 cards in the deck, with (given the nature of the decks using Portent, we'll try to do this situationally) 20 good and 30 bad, the chance of the top card (the one you draw if you don't Portent) being good is 2/5 (40%). If you look at the top three, shuffle the deck, and draw a card, it's still 40%.

Nightmare

09-05-2007, 12:27 PM

Gosh, it's like explaining the 2 goats/1 car/3 doors trick again.

The situation is not identical: you have more information, which is very relevant.

Once you've cast Portent, you now know with certainty that the top card of your library is shitty. Therefore, at that point, choosing to switch to a random card is an improvement.

You have not gained any relevant information. Let me ask you this:

After you decide to mulligain, do you look at the top card of your library? If you are a good player, the answer should be no. What could you hope to gain from it? There is information there, but it isn't relevant, since you've already decided that the card won't be drawn. The same principle applies to Portent. While you know that the card you would have drawn sucks, it doesn't matter once you decide to shuffle. At that point, the card you will draw is the card that matters, and it is exactly as likely to suck as the first card was, before you saw it.

Nihil Credo

09-05-2007, 12:31 PM

Happy Gilmore

09-05-2007, 12:39 PM

Actually, it's overcomplicating things. You could break the deck down into 2 cards:

Good
Bad

Name one card in Thresh that is particularly bad? Drawing the right card is more important than drawing any good card in particular. Serum Visions draws cards immediately, but you cannot guarantee that the card is the one needed. This is also true for Portent/Brainstorm/Ponder. However, you have more chances to find the neccessary card. Ponder and Portent give you four chances, Brainstorm gives you three.

Nightmare

09-05-2007, 12:41 PM

Here's what you're tragically missing: by looking at the card you would draw and then choosing whether to keep that one or to try again with another indeed equally random card, you get two shots at a good card.

Two shots, each at 40% chance, gives you an overall chance of 100% - 60%*60% = 64%.

(The above would be if Portent only let you look at the top card. In reality, it is even better). I can safely say that I agree with you on the above points.

Now tell me how that contradicts my position, which is that Portent does not dig 4 cards deep, but rather, digs three cards deep then 1 card deep, and that this is not the same thing.

Edit: Your mulligan comparison is completely different because you choose whether to draw a new, random hand before looking at the top card. With Portent, the order is reversed.You're confused on the goal of that comparison. It's a question of how the card benefits the hand you saw, as compared to another, random card. Once you decide to ship the hand, it doesn't matter how good the peeked card is. You won't be drawing that card anyway.

Nightmare

09-05-2007, 12:43 PM

Name one card in Thresh that is particularly bad? Drawing the right card is more important than drawing any good card in particular. Serum Visions draws cards immediately, but you cannot guarantee that the card is the one needed. This is also true for Portent, Brainstorm and Ponder, however you have more chances to find the neccessary card. Ponder and Portent give you four chances, brainstorm gives you three. Situationally bad, not bad overall. Once again, not debating the relative merits of one cantrip as opposed to another.

Edit - I'm hungry. Find something else to talk about for a few minutes.

troopatroop

09-05-2007, 12:50 PM

Nihil Credo

09-05-2007, 12:53 PM

I can safely say that I agree with you on the above points.

Now tell me how that contradicts my position, which is that Portent does not dig 4 cards deep, but rather, digs three cards deep then 1 card deep, and that this is not the same thing.
I never disagreed with that, mostly because we are lacking a common definition of "dig". Does seeing, on average, 3.94 new cards count as "dig 3" or "dig 4"? We won't know until we choose, and frankly I prefer to spend my time debating facts instead of definitions.

I entered the thread to correct all the wrong statements you have made, such as the ones I quoted. Or the one I'm quoting now...

You're confused on the goal of that comparison. It's a question of how the card benefits the hand you saw, as compared to another, random card. Once you decide to ship the hand, it doesn't matter how good the peeked card is. You won't be drawing that card anyway.You can't begin your argument with "once you decide to ship the hand". All of the influence on the outcome exists precisely because there is stuff that happens before you choose to ship your hand. Portent is like looking at the top card of your library before choosing whether to mulligan.

Don't you agree that the effect "Draw a card, then if you don't like it put it back, shuffle your library and draw another card" has statistically more chances of getting you a good card than "Draw a card"? (If you don't, please give me the name of your grade school math teacher; my hitman will find the address on his own).

DragoFireheart

09-05-2007, 12:53 PM

Illissius

09-05-2007, 12:54 PM

You're confused on the goal of that comparison. It's a question of how the card benefits the hand you saw, as compared to another, random card. Once you decide to ship the hand, it doesn't matter how good the peeked card is. You won't be drawing that card anyway.

I'm still not entirely sure what point you're trying to make, but the difference is that with Portent/Ponder, you get to see the card before you shuffle -- and if it's the one you want, you don't. In the mulligan case, if the first thing you do is shuffle (and then look), it's completely irrelevant what the top card would have been, because in this scenario, you're shuffling it away 100% of the time anyways.

And you're entirely correct that if you do choose to shuffle with Portent/Ponder, the card will be exactly as random as the one you draw with Serum Visions -- but the probability of drawing a good card here has to be added to the probability of having seen it in the top three cards previously, and having chosen not to shuffle.

probability(good card from Ponder) = probability(good card in top three cards) + (1-probability(good card in top three cards))*probability(top card is good)

I may or may not be agreeing with you completely here. I'm not sure what your point of contention is.

Ewokslayer

09-05-2007, 12:54 PM

which is that Portent does not dig 4 cards deep, but rather, digs three cards deep then 1 card deep, and that this is not the same thing.
That is correct, but it is not as irrelevant as you say since the chances that the new 1 card being the exact same copy as the three you shuffled is so small. Granted you have no control over that cards crappiness but you wouldn't have had that control if you just looked at the top 4.

Nightmare

09-05-2007, 01:08 PM

Wonderful. Now I have a slew of points to address while people continue to post, which makes my posts look disjointed and fragmented. Part of the problem.

troopatroop

09-05-2007, 01:09 PM

No: looking at those is information. The second you shuffle though you are now manipulating, not getting more information. By shuffling you have no idea what the next card you draw is.

Sometimes all it takes is one brick to sink a boat.

No, you're completely wrong and missing the point. You have a chance of drawing Bombs instead of Bricks after you shuffle, whereas before you didn't.

Again, it's not perfect information, but it is information. You did manipulate the situation into a better one.

DragoFireheart

09-05-2007, 01:15 PM

No, you're completely wrong and missing the point. You have a chance of drawing Bombs instead of Bricks after you shuffle, whereas before you didn't.

Again, it's not perfect information, but it is information. You did manipulate the situation into a better one.

Well of course you have a chance to draw bombs as opposed to the bricks you would draw before a shuffle. That wasn't the point I was arguing.

What I was saying is that the moment you shuffle you no-longer have any new information. You have no idea what that top card [or the ones following it] are going to be. You use previous information based on your peek at the top 3 cards and decide from there whether you want to shuffle or not.

You manipulate the deck in hopes of getting something better. However shuffling is not information. Shuffling is manipulation.

Jander78

09-05-2007, 01:21 PM

@Jander78: Through all of this discussion, we're discussing as if cards were distinct (i.e. 60 possible cards). Hence, a "new card" means a card you haven't seen before, even if you saw another with the same name. To take into consideration that we run multiples of the same card is to introduce unnecessary complications, since none of the cantrips we're talking about has a restriction on card names.
I don't think that is unnecessary at all since it's the basis that a redundant deck is built around. Running multiples is essential in making a deck consistent, while it's fine to theorize with scenarios, it doesn't bear relevence to reality and is therefore not worthwhile when creating a statistic.

Nightmare

09-05-2007, 01:23 PM

So you're saying, that if I draw

Brick
Brick
Brick

And chose to shuffle it away, I would not have gained any information? That's inherantly wrong. You haven't gained any perfect information, but you know now that you have the CHANCE of not drawing a Brick. Furthermore, you have the chance of drawing a bomb, where you couldn't have before. That is information.
Here's the situation. You don't know what the top card of your library is, but you know that it's probably worth :u: to put it into your hand. Right now, the top card of your library is random. You cast Portent, then decide that all of them suck, and shuffle. Now your deck is in the exact same position (meaning, completely randomized), and you have the exact same likelihood of having a shitty card on top as you did before you played the Portent.

Now, I fully understand that Portent is better than say, Obsessive Search in general, because Obsessive Search cannot take the best of the top three cards. HOWEVER, once you have made the decision to shuffle away the bad cards, the effect of the two cards is the same; that being, draw one card from a completely randomized deck.

That's it. That's literally all I'm trying to say. It's gotten pretty convoluted and warped by being tied into the Portent/SV debate, and by trying to fit it into the context you guys are forcing it into, but that couple of paragraphs is it. This part is more for my own sense of mental well-being:

For this reason (the information stated above), you cannot group the first modal ability of the Portent (look at the top three, then draw a card) with the second (shuffle, then draw a card), because they are not utilizing the "same" deck. In the first, you have known information concerning what you "would have" drawn. In the second, you have no information concerning the card you will draw. The information from the first does not carry over to the second - it's the entire point of shuffling.

Nightmare

09-05-2007, 01:36 PM

I never disagreed with that, mostly because we are lacking a common definition of "dig". Does seeing, on average, 3.94 new cards count as "dig 3" or "dig 4"? We won't know until we choose, and frankly I prefer to spend my time debating facts instead of definitions.Why would you need to debate facts? If it's factual, it's incontrovertable. Where's the debate?

I entered the thread to correct all the wrong statements you have made, such as the ones I quoted. Or the one I'm quoting now...

(If you don't, please give me the name of your grade school math teacher; my hitman will find the address on his own)Ad Hominem - It's the new "being correct."

You can't begin your argument with "once you decide to ship the hand". All of the influence on the outcome exists precisely because there is stuff that happens before you choose to ship your hand. Portent is like looking at the top card of your library before choosing whether to mulligan.Once again, missed the point. Forget the mulligan example, it's obvious that it isn't working.

Don't you agree that the effect "Draw a card, then if you don't like it put it back, shuffle your library and draw another card" has statistically more chances of getting you a good card than "Draw a card"?.I absolutely agree. What I do not agree with is the idea that "Draw a card, then if you don't like it put it back, shuffle your library and draw another card" is the same thing as "Look at the top two cards of your library, and put one in your hand."

Nightmare

09-05-2007, 01:39 PM

DragoFireheart

09-05-2007, 01:46 PM

I think we can all agree that we need a sorcery speed spell to feed the Goyf right?

Perhaps we can use a different sorcery speed spell instead of a sorcery speed cantrip. Is there such a spell that blue has? I am not familiar with all of the spells that you blue mages use [I'm a red mage personally].

frogboy

09-05-2007, 01:46 PM

DragoFireheart

09-05-2007, 01:49 PM

It's pretty obviously better to shuffle when you have three bricks on top, because now instead of the certainty of drawing bricks for three turns you have randomized your deck. Three random cards are better than three bad cards.

Oh and I do agree 100%. It's silly to think that by shuffling you know for a fact that those next three cards exactly what you want. Even with all of the blue cantrips there is still a large element of luck invovled. The cantrips help reduce this luck factor [which was pretty obvious]. I suppose what most people are trying to argue is which cantrips will give you the most control and the least amount of luck.

Machinus

09-05-2007, 02:03 PM

This is a bullshit statistic. There is a 100 percent chance you will see a new card, because the card you see is completely isolated from the previous three you have seen. In reality, Portent digs three cards, then one card deep.

No, it's exactly how likely you are to draw something besides the cards you don't want. When you decide to shuffle away three cards you don't want to draw, you are hoping that you will draw one of the remaining cards. 94 times out of 100, you will.

A random card is strictly better than one you don't want, and at that stage Portent will improve your draw 94% of the time. The other 6%, it will be unchanged.

The effect of Portent is cumulative, since you can try twice to find a card that is useful to you. If you quantify it, it's 3.94 new cards.

Not to nitpick too badly, but that percentage is very far from the truth. Portent see's 3 cards. Since there is probably 3-4 of each of those cards (not even factoring in Lands in general) there is a much higher chance than 6% that you will see the same card. The percentage comes out to more like 20% you will see one of the 3 cards and that's with 60 cards in the deck.

You're correct that I have treated them as 1-ofs, because it's very hard to compare the cantrips otherwise, and that information is just as important in this analysis. You have a very good chance of not drawing the specific copies of the cards you don't want (that you shuffled away). This is very valuable, and it doesn't have anything to do with the cantrip you are using whether or not your random draw is a different, non-useful card. What matters is how well the card you play is able to filter your draws, and this is a direct measure of that.

Nightmare

09-05-2007, 02:05 PM

No, it's exactly how likely you are to draw something besides the cards you don't want. When you decide to shuffle away three cards you don't want to draw, you are hoping that you will draw one of the remaining cards. 94 times out of 100, you will.

A random card is strictly better than one you don't want, and at that stage Portent will improve your draw 94% of the time. The other 6%, it will be unchanged.

The effect of Portent is cumulative, since you can try twice to find a card that is useful to you. If you quantify it, it's 3.94 new cards.I suppose in the world where every card except the top three cards you've already seen is a good card, then yes, you have a 94% chance of improving your draw. Unfortunately, we don't live in blind theoryland.

Ewokslayer

09-05-2007, 02:13 PM

I suppose in the world where every card except the top three cards you've already seen is a good card, then yes, you have a 94% chance of improving your draw. Unfortunately, we don't live in blind theoryland.

The 94% has to be applied to the base chance of a random card being what you want.

Example. You want to draw a 4 of and just that card.
If you could look at the top 4 and choose one the math would look like this
(assuming a 50 card deck at this point)
4/50 + 4/49 + 4/48 + 4/47 = .33
If you can only look at the top 3 and then shuffle and look at the top card it would be
4/50 + 4/49 + 4/48 + 4/50 =.325

4/50 being exactly .94* 4/47
The aggregate total is a bit better: the results being the same 98.5% of the time between looking at 4 or looking at 3 and shuffling then looking at 1.

Nightmare

09-05-2007, 02:15 PM

The 94% has to be applied to the base chance of a random card being what you want.

Example. You want to draw a 4 of and just that card.
If you could look at the top 4 and choose one the math would look like this
(assuming a 50 card deck at this point)
4/50 + 4/49 + 4/48 + 4/47 = .33
If you can only look at the top 3 and then shuffle and look at the top card it would be
4/50 + 4/49 + 4/48 + 4/50 =.325

(4/50 being exactly .94* 4/47)So what you're saying is, looking at three, then looking at 1 is not the same as looking at 4?

Sounds familiar.

Ewokslayer

09-05-2007, 02:17 PM

So what you're saying is, looking at three, then looking at 1 is not the same as looking at 4?

Sounds familiar.

Of course it isn't

It is just 98.5% the same.
Though that number drops as the size of the deck decreases (@ 20 cards they are only 96% the same.)

DeathwingZERO

09-05-2007, 02:17 PM

Number crunching is hurting my brain. I'm going to just bow out at this point, giving both my two cents on SV vs Portent and some pros and cons of the 3 sorcery's.

It's pretty obvious that Ponder is going to be the new 4 of, so I don't think I'd be adding much to the arguments going on now anyways.

Ponder FTW.

Machinus

09-05-2007, 02:17 PM

I suppose in the world where every card except the top three cards you've already seen is a good card, then yes, you have a 94% chance of improving your draw. Unfortunately, we don't live in blind theoryland.

My analysis is realistic. I'm even using logic and mathematics. I'll break it down for you:

1) Every card in your deck is equal or better than the three you decided to shuffle away.

2) There is a nonzero (in fact, large) chance that you will draw a card that is not one of the three you shuffled away.

Therefore, 3) depending on how "good" you want to call the other cards compared to the ones you got rid of, on average the card you draw will be "better" than the one you would have drawn had you not shuffled away.

Once you look at the top three cards, you get to make the decision to shuffle. You always get the option of going for the 94% random card, over the 100% crappy one, which is strictly better.

Nihil Credo

09-05-2007, 02:19 PM

I don't think that is unnecessary at all since it's the basis that a redundant deck is built around. Running multiples is essential in making a deck consistent, while it's fine to theorize with scenarios, it doesn't bear relevence to reality and is therefore not worthwile when creating a statistic.

I disagree: whether your deck is made of singletons or of 4-ofs, you can still split your library at any time in "Cards I'd be happy to draw" and "cards I'd be sad to draw". Whether each set is made of lots of 1-ofs or lots of 4-ofs doesn't change the power of a digging spell, except for determining the minimum size of each set.

But even if I am wrong in the paragraph above, observations on the redundancy of a deck are still irrelevant to the scenario that was being discussed - i.e. how many "new" cards Portent lets you see (and, more importantly, the meaning of "new" in that sentence).

Why would you need to debate facts? If it's factual, it's incontrovertable. Where's the debate?

Because not everyone in this world agrees on every fact, so we have to debate. Fortunately, because they are facts, you can always come to an agreement - assuming both people are fully honest, rational and devote as much time as needed to the debate.

Ad Hominem - It's the new "being correct."Nah, it would have been ad hominem if I had used insults without any points. It was actually a colourful way to say that if you disagreed with that point too, there would have been bigger issues to discuss than the quality of an Ice Age cantrip.

I absolutely agree. What I do not agree with is the idea that "Draw a card, then if you don't like it put it back, shuffle your library and draw another card" is the same thing as "Look at the top two cards of your library, and put one in your hand."I obviously agree with that, and I never claimed otherwise.

Wow, we're done!

Jander78

09-05-2007, 02:27 PM

You're correct that I have treated them as 1-ofs, because it's very hard to compare the cantrips otherwise, and that information is just as important in this analysis. You have a very good chance of not drawing the specific copies of the cards you don't want (that you shuffled away). This is very valuable, and it doesn't have anything to do with the cantrip you are using whether or not your random draw is a different, non-useful card. What matters is how well the card you play is able to filter your draws, and this is a direct measure of that.
I see your point. I do agree this is a good measurement in a vaccum, but when picking the best cantrip for a specific deck, that measurement is flawed without using the proper forumla as the percentage will vary quite a lot. Since we're not arguing on a decklist and the proper choice for that specific list, I concede the point.

But even if I am wrong in the paragraph above, observations on the redundancy of a deck are still irrelevant to the scenario that was being discussed - i.e. how many "new" cards Portent lets you see (and, more importantly, the meaning of "new" in that sentence).

I think the big discrepancy is the definition of the way the word "new" cards is used. Saying you'll see "new" cards in theory is fine, but in reality if the deck is running 4 Volcanic Island, you're not going to care if it's the same exact one that you saw before or if it's a different one. Which is where I was going with my argument. But, it's not worth discussing as we aren't talking about a specific list.

kabal

09-05-2007, 04:43 PM

But, it's not worth discussing as we aren't talking about a specific list.

I believe Jander78 has made a good point. On paper one of the cantrips looks like the winner by a small margin, but maybe talking about specific builds will shed some light on why someone prefers one over the other.

Bardo

09-05-2007, 04:59 PM

I believe Jander78 has made a good point. On paper one of the cantrips looks like the winner by a small margin, but maybe talking about specific builds will shed some light on why someone prefers one over the other.

For me, it just comes down to wanting a card now, not later: I don't want to draw EE, Tarmogoyf or Nimble Mongoose in your upkeep, for instance, nor do I want to draw StP or Hydroblast next turn, when I want to remove a blocker and attack for lethal this turn..

I certainly concede that Portent > SV in certain circumstances; but the whole slow-trip thing overshadows the up-sides.

T is for TOOL

09-05-2007, 05:08 PM

I would also disagree with the assertion that the decklist determines whether Serum Visions or Ponder is better if the top three cards are awful. In any given game situation, you can divide the cards in your deck into cards that you want to see, and cards that you don't want to see. Determination of which cards are which is irrelevant as long as it is understood that there are some cards you definitely want to draw. Since it seems the edit of my earlier post may have been lost in the storm of responses, I'll just go ahead and quote myself.

% Probability of finding a single card by that turn
(Note: I rounded the Serum Visions values)

Turn | Portent/Ponder | Serum Visions
---------------------------------------------------------
0 | 1.886792453 | 0
1 | 3.773584906 | 2
2 | 5.660377358 | 4
3 | 7.547169811 | 6
4 | 9.433962264 | 8
5 | 11.32075472 | 10
6 | 13.20754717 | 12
7 | 15.09433962 | 14
8 | 16.98113208 | 16
9 | 18.86792453 | 18
10 | 20.75471698 | 20
11 | 22.64150943 | 22
12 | 24.52830189 | 24
13 | 26.41509434 | 26
14 | 28.30188679 | 28
15 | 30.18867925 | 30
16 | 32.0754717 | 32
17 | 33.91126976 | 34

Now take this and apply it to a search for a particular 4of

% Probability of finding a 4of card by that turn

Turn | Portent/Ponder | Serum Visions
---------------------------------------------------------
0 | 7.547169811 | 0
1 | 14.65892598 | 9
2 | 21.35234355 | 15.5102041
3 | 27.64415607 | 22.55102041
4 | 33.55075557 | 29.14242293
5 | 39.08819261 | 35.30395137
6 | 44.27217621 | 41.05471125
7 | 49.11807393 | 46.41337386
8 | 53.64091181 | 51.39817629
9 | 57.85537437 | 56.02692141
10 | 61.77580466 | 60.31697785
11 | 65.41620422 | 64.28528007
12 | 68.79023307 | 67.94832827
13 | 71.91120977 | 71.32218845
14 | 74.79211133 | 74.4224924
15 | 77.44557329 | 77.26443769
16 | 79.8838897 | 79.86278767
17 | 82.11901306 | 82.23187147

Extend this to a scenario where you kept a one land hand and led with Serum Visons or Ponder, revealing 3 non-land cards. Assuming a 17 land ***** list, you have 16 cards that you want to find. Checking the odds reveals:

% Probability of finding another land 16of card by that turn
Turn | Portent/Ponder | Serum Visions
---------------------------------------------------------
0 | 30.18867925 | 0
1 | 51.66908563 | 32
2 | 66.83172543 | 54.20408163
3 | 77.44557329 | 69.46938776
4 | 84.81028406 | 79.86278767
5 | 89.8735227 | 86.86703544
6 | 93.32083412 | 91.53653395
7 | 95.64402225 | 94.61415797
8 | 97.19281434 | 96.61819221
9 | 98.21360913 | 97.90649994
10 | 98.87831271 | 98.72347557
11 | 99.30562215 | 99.23408534
12 | 99.57659887 | 99.54830674
13 | 99.74595932 | 99.73849338
14 | 99.85018114 | 99.85157732
15 | 99.91326277 | 99.91754296
16 | 99.95077076 | 99.95523761
17 | 99.97265042 | 99.97630226

So mathematically, the brick shipping benefits of Serum Visons become relevant more quickly the more cards you are looking for, however the probability of getting one of them before this advantage becomes relevant increase by a lot more.

kabal

09-05-2007, 05:15 PM

For me, it just comes down to wanting a card now, not later: I don't want to draw EE, Tarmogoyf or Nimble Mongoose in your upkeep, for instance, nor do I want to draw StP or Hydroblast next turn, when I want to remove a blocker and attack for lethal this turn..

I certainly concede that Portent > SV in certain circumstances; but the whole slow-trip thing overshadows the up-sides.

QFT ... exactly how I feel.

Below is the UGR NQG build that I play. Board is geared toward my meta. As you can see, I have more "give me now" cantrips.

// Lands
1 Island
4 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta
4 Tropical Island
4 Volcanic Island

// Creatures
2 Burning-Tree Shaman
4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Tarmogoyf

// Spells
4 Brainstorm
4 Daze
4 Fire/Ice
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Stifle
4 Force of Will
4 Serum Visions
4 Sleight of Hand

// Artifacts
3 Pithing Needle

// Sideboard
SB: 2 Ancient Grudge
SB: 2 Krosan Grip
SB: 4 Pyroclasm
SB: 2 Loaming Shaman
SB: 2 Vedalken Shackles
SB: 3 Winter Orb

Wallace

09-05-2007, 06:29 PM

Kronicler

09-05-2007, 06:39 PM

yeah, we found that out a few pages back.

Kronicler

Sanguine Voyeur

09-05-2007, 06:53 PM

Just a small update the card has changed from its orignal spoiler, it now reads:

U Ponder Sorcery
Look at the top three cards of your library. You may put them back in any order or shuffle your library.
Draw a card.Third times a charm!

I don't believe that "Ponder" is an sorcery.

If you look at the source (http://mtgjapan.x.cmssquare.com/modules/wordpress/index.php?p=144) of the card and find the card with Portent and Æthermage's Touch under it, its type is listed as "インスタント," witch phonetically translates out as insutanto. It's obvious that "insutanto" is borrowed from English's "instant."

MattH

09-05-2007, 07:09 PM

I believe Jander78 has made a good point. On paper one of the cantrips looks like the winner by a small margin, but maybe talking about specific builds will shed some light on why someone prefers one over the other.

Totally. On top of the "I want it now" factor that Bardo mentioned, SV and Sleight of Hand work much better together than either SV+Portent or SH+Portent combination. When you play cards which send unwanted cards to the bottom that chain into each other, it creates a powerful digging engine. That I happen to play with Magma Jets too, giving me a critical mass of "to the bottom" digging spells, makes the choice a no-brainer for me.

At least until Ponder. Now I have to rethink the whole affair. But pre-Ponder, the above holds.

While I'm thinking about it, Portent is probably a lot better for decks which have cards they MUST NOT draw, such as Cephalid Breakfast. When I'm playing UGR Gro, there's very few cards that I know I won't be needing, making it very difficult to tell what is a brick or not. Sure, some things are better than others, but if you can't tell what it is exactly you're looking for until after the fact..."maybe I need this third land because he's about to play Sinkhole+Waste, or maybe I need the Bolt because he's about to play Negator. Might as well keep them both available to me over the next few turns." Often, even if a card is not the best card for a job, it's good enough.

I'm having a lot of trouble trying to articulate what exactly I'm driving at with this, so I'll stop now and maybe come back if I think of a better way to say it.

Pinder

09-05-2007, 07:12 PM

Third times a charm!

I don't believe that "Ponder" is an sorcery.

If you look at the source (http://mtgjapan.x.cmssquare.com/modules/wordpress/index.php?p=144) of the card and find the card with Portent and Æthermage's Touch under it, its type is listed as "インスタント," witch phonetically translates out as insutanto. It's obvious that "insutanto" is borrowed from English's "instant."

Well, you would be right, except that card text now has the word "ソーサリ" (sousari) next to it. So it seems that even the source has changed it's mind about things.

Sanguine Voyeur

09-05-2007, 07:19 PM

Well, you would be right, except that card text now has the word "ソーサリ" (sousari) next to it. So it seems that even the source has changed it's mind about things.You're right, now I don't trust that source at all.

It was an instant yesterday at four, when I originally posted it (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=158523&postcount=1786).

Illissius

09-05-2007, 07:42 PM

Damnit. Now I'm pretty sure it's a sorcery, if even the original source has changed it. Seems like a much more believable card for R&D to print, too. Yet an instant would've been so awesome...

*laments*

Mad Zur

09-05-2007, 07:55 PM

Here's the situation. You don't know what the top card of your library is, but you know that it's probably worth :u: to put it into your hand. Right now, the top card of your library is random. You cast Portent, then decide that all of them suck, and shuffle. Now your deck is in the exact same position (meaning, completely randomized), and you have the exact same likelihood of having a shitty card on top as you did before you played the Portent.

Now, I fully understand that Portent is better than say, Obsessive Search in general, because Obsessive Search cannot take the best of the top three cards. HOWEVER, once you have made the decision to shuffle away the bad cards, the effect of the two cards is the same; that being, draw one card from a completely randomized deck.
You're treating the top cards of your library as unknown even after they are known. Suppose the average card in your deck is exactly X% likely to be the card you're looking for. Before you play Portent, the top card is unknown, so we say it has an X% chance of being that card. Assume that none of the top three are the desired card. You will choose to shuffle, then draw a random card, which has an X% chance of being that card.

What you are saying, if I'm understanding you correctly, is that you are now just as likely to draw the card as you were before playing the Portent on the next draw. This is incorrect, because it ignores the information you now have: There is a 0% chance that the card you want was on top of your deck before playing the Portent. Now, there is an X% chance. Your chances have, therefore, increased by X%, meaning that if X is greater than 0 (i.e. the card you are looking for exists in your deck at all), you have gained an advantage by shuffling.

MattH

09-05-2007, 08:36 PM

What you are saying, if I'm understanding you correctly, is that you are now just as likely to draw the card as you were before playing the Portent on the next draw. This is incorrect, because it ignores the information you now have: There is a 0% chance that the card you want was on top of your deck before playing the Portent. Now, there is an X% chance. Your chances have, therefore, increased by X%, meaning that if X is greater than 0 (i.e. the card you are looking for exists in your deck at all), you have gained an advantage by shuffling.
No, this is wrong. You can't use the information gained by Portent to decide whether playing Portent was the correct play or not, because there was no way to know that information at the time you made the decision.

What you say is exactly like Nightmare's earlier scenario: you can't look at the top card of your deck after deciding to mulligan a 1-land hand, see it was a land, and conclude that you had a 100% chance of drawing a second land by turn 2.

It seems like you guys are arguing two different things: what you (Zur certainly, possibly others) are talking about is comparing "playing portent and shuffling" to "playing portent and not shuffling," whereas Nightmare is considering "playing portent and shuffling" vs. "not playing portent".

Mad Zur

09-05-2007, 09:00 PM

No, this is wrong. You can't use the information gained by Portent to decide whether playing Portent was the correct play or not, because there was no way to know that information at the time you made the decision.
Of course you can't. What you can do is use that information to decide whether playing Portent actually helped you. We aren't talking about good vs. bad plays, we're talking about good vs. bad results. If there are bad cards on top of your library, playing Portent and shuffling yields better results than not playing Portent. If there are good cards on top of your library, you will not choose to shuffle.

What you say is exactly like Nightmare's earlier scenario: you can't look at the top card of your deck after deciding to mulligan a 1-land hand, see it was a land, and conclude that you had a 100% chance of drawing a second land by turn 2.
Sure you can, it's just useless. You could, in the right situation, verify that taking the mulligan either helped or hurt you. That has nothing to do with whether or not it was a good idea. It would have been terrible to act as if you had a 100% chance of seeing the land before you knew what the card was, because based on the information you had, you didn't. In this case, however, it's correct to say that mulliganing hurt you. This is not sufficient to say that mulliganing was incorrect, because in the more likely case, it would be correct to say that mulliganing helped you. The Portent situation is different because there is only one relevant case: there are bad cards on top of the deck. In any other case, what would happen after shuffling is irrelevant because it is incorrect to shuffle.

It seems like you guys are arguing two different things: what you (Zur certainly, possibly others) are talking about is comparing "playing portent and shuffling" to "playing portent and not shuffling,"
Incorrect. What I am talking about is the following:

Consider two situations in which the top cards of your deck are not the desired card. In situation A, you play a card that says only "Draw a card at the beginning of the next turn's upkeep." In situation B, you play Portent and choose to shuffle. Your chance of drawing the desired card is clearly greater in situation B.

This is a comparison of

"playing portent and shuffling" vs. "not playing portent".