Ponder VS Preordain in Tempo

[Lentini]

Hi All,

Typically, we've seen Preordain only after Ponder takes up 4 slots. The only exception I've seen so far is in the occasional Miracles deck. I'm here to suggest that Preordain is superior to Ponder in more existing decks, including RUG Delver. I would be grateful if you could validate or critique my thought process here to make sure I'm on track. First, let's examine the differences between the two blue cantrips.

The benefit Ponder has over Preordain is that you see 1 more card. This is a big deal actually and is the primary reason why Ponder is considered better than Preordain. This is especially relevant when you are looking for a specific card, like in traditional combo decks. Ponder is better at finding "That one card/class of cards" no matter the cost.

The benefit Preordain has over Ponder is that you can selectively NOT draw certain cards. In contrast, Ponder can move the good cards to the top, but you will draw the sub-par cards in the set of 3 eventually unless another effect intervenes. Preordain is better at getting your ratios right (whether we are talking land/spell ratio or threat/disruption ratio).

Fetchlands often render the benefit of Preordain obsolete, since you can just see more cards with Ponder and shuffle the bad ones away with a Fetchland. However, there are reasons why you would not want to use a Fetchland to clear the remaining cards from your Ponder-keep:
1. You don't want to play a land. For example, your fourth land in a Delver Tempo deck.
2. Your shuffle effects are more valuable. For example, in SDT + Brainstorm decks like Miracles.

To summarize, Preordain is better in decks that:
1. Use their cantrips for consistency rather than digging for specific cards AND
2. Do not have consistent access to or overload the use of shuffle effects (usually Fetchlands)

How does this apply to RUG Delver and Tempo decks in general?
They are the perfect example of a deck that cares about consistency over specific cards. All you want are 2 lands, 2 threats, and the rest disruption. Every additional threat/land (unless they are removed) is suboptimal to a Bolt or Force of Will. The ratio is what matters. Furthermore, playing your third/fourth land as a Fetch to clear up a Ponder is like losing a card (or a portion of one)! Since holding it could potentially be turned into a card by a Brainstorm - either being put back by or assisting a Brainstorm + shuffle. I submit that Ponder is slightly better at finding your second land when you only have one, since you get to see more cards and there might be a land 3-from-the-top (this is a situation where you have a specific card that you are looking for). However, Preordain is still better when there are 2-3 lands on top, since you likely only want one more land.

So what do you think? Should Delver/Tempo decks be running Preordain before Ponder?

Thanks,
Kendrick

[Holly]

Preordain would probably be better in Tempo/Delver decks over Ponder if it wasn't for actual Delver. Seeing one card more, thus flipping it more reliable makes a hell of a difference. Otherwise I can follow your thoughts and agree mostly.

[Lemnear]

Hi All,

Typically, we've seen Preordain only after Ponder takes up 4 slots. The only exception I've seen so far is in the occasional Miracles deck. I'm here to suggest that Preordain is superior to Ponder in more existing decks, including RUG Delver. I would be grateful if you could validate or critique my thought process here to make sure I'm on track. First, let's examine the differences between the two blue cantrips.


Ponder > Preodrain in Miracles due to setting up certain lines of play and to dig for Terminus in case of need.

The benefit Ponder has over Preordain is that you see 1 more card. This is a big deal actually and is the primary reason why Ponder is considered better than Preordain. This is especially relevant when you are looking for a specific card, like in traditional combo decks. Ponder is better at finding "That one card/class of cards" no matter the cost.


That is correct. What you miss in the following parts is that these specific card(s) can also be defense or a threat if your hand lacks a certain type of card. If you look at RUG Delver or the like (because you picked the example) you have a limited number of threats in the deck, you however want to drop asap. Ponder is much better to dig for AND setup a Delver of Secrets for an otherwise disruptive but threat-less hand than Preordain. The same is true if you need to dig for a turn 1 disruption like FoW or Daze while being on the play.

The benefit Preordain has over Ponder is that you can selectively NOT draw certain cards. In contrast, Ponder can move the good cards to the top, but you will draw the sub-par cards in the set of 3 eventually unless another effect intervenes. Preordain is better at getting your ratios right (whether we are talking land/spell ratio or threat/disruption ratio).


You mentioned Fetchlands which are THE cornerstone for cantrips in Legacy. I will not attach an "how to play cantrips in legacy" article here. If the Player casting the Ponder is stupid enough to lock him-/herself into drawing dead cards for turns, playing Preordain is not the answer.

Fetchlands often render the benefit of Preordain obsolete, since you can just see more cards with Ponder and shuffle the bad ones away with a Fetchland. However, there are reasons why you would not want to use a Fetchland to clear the remaining cards from your Ponder-keep:
1. You don't want to play a land. For example, your fourth land in a Delver Tempo deck.
2. Your shuffle effects are more valuable. For example, in SDT + Brainstorm decks like Miracles.


you are making a point with a TEMPO decks 4th(!!) non-wasteland landrop? Come on...

To summarize, Preordain is better in decks that:
1. Use their cantrips for consistency rather than digging for specific cards AND
2. Do not have consistent access to or overload the use of shuffle effects (usually Fetchlands)


you miss that consistency equals finding cards you need in time. This can be your second oe third landdrop as well as the Swords to Plowshares you need before dying as well as the counterspell to not die to your opponents turn 1/2/3 combo and more. Which decks play cantrips like Ponder and/or Brainstorm but no Fetchlands?

How does this apply to RUG Delver and Tempo decks in general?
They are the perfect example of a deck that cares about consistency over specific cards. All you want are 2 lands, 2 threats, and the rest disruption.


as mentioned before, Ponder is the better card to find threats and disruption if your hand is lacking one or the other.

Every additional threat/land (unless they are removed) is suboptimal to a Bolt or Force of Will. The ratio is what matters. Furthermore, playing your third/fourth land as a Fetch to clear up a Ponder is like losing a card (or a portion of one)!


if you control 4 lands as a tempo player, you should consider doing something wrong.

Since holding it could potentially be turned into a card by a Brainstorm - either being put back by or assisting a Brainstorm + shuffle. I submit that Ponder is slightly better at finding your second land when you only have one, since you get to see more cards and there might be a land 3-from-the-top (this is a situation where you have a specific card that you are looking for). However, Preordain is still better when there are 2-3 lands on top, since you likely only want one more land.


if you have 2-3 lands on top, there is most likely a fetchland among them so you don't have to draw the whole bunch even if you don't want to shuffle in the first place. brainstorm or a second Ponders helps too. There is no issue orher than being stupid as a player and locking yourself out of the Game with 3 bad cards on the top

So what do you think? Should Delver/Tempo decks be running Preordain before Ponder?


never

Thanks,
Kendrick

[JPoJohnson]

I think the fact is quite easy as to why ponder sees more play:

Preordain sees up to three cards, but the third card is a mystery. Ponder sees up to four cards and knows what the initial three cards are. Fetches are great with ponder, fetches are negligible with Preordain. Preordain puts cards that you may not need on the bottom whereas ponder potentially shuffles them into the deck (this one is hit and miss - sometimes it's a card you will need but not right then and other times it's a card you don't want a at all... this point is neutral I think).

Overall, more cards are seen with Ponder and the versatility of what you do with those cards is higher. Also, the shuffle effect with something like Top is better than scry 2 in most cases I personally think.

[KobeBryan]

In tempo decks you run more fetchlands than actual lands thus making ponder better than preordain.

If you do not have shuffle effects, then its a different story...

[Dice_Box]

Ponder is the card to go to when you have either the need to find one of a given card, or you have deck manipulation.

Preordain is the card to go to when every card you can find is good.

In short, most blue decks will go for Ponder first since they are rarely mono coloured and it lets them see more and plan more. Preordain is a card you find in decks like Merfolk (When they run it) as they can not shuffle and normally, whatever they see will be in one of two categories: dead (Vial, lands, sometimes counters) or gas (everything else).

[Lentini]

Thanks for your responses everyone!

Your points are well taken. I completely agree with you about the benefits of Ponder including:
1. Flipping delver more reliably
2. Finding a specific card when you REALLY need it (early threat, late bolt)
3. More information when you can afford to fetch or want all 3

However, I think you are underestimating the frequency at which Preordain pays off, as well as the value you gain when it does pay off.

On frequency: Preordain pays off when you like some, but not all, of the top few cards AND it is not ideal to use a fetch. You seem to think that we have infinite fetches here. The maximum number of post-Ponder/Brainstorm fetches that you can crack while remaining below 4 lands is only 2 + the number Dazes you have played. In an absolutely ideal situation, we would be running off of 2 lands; which means that if you see an average of 1 Daze per game, you can only Ponder/Brainstorm + shuffle twice. Remember, this is a maximum; in my experience gamestates often demand use of fetches prematurely.

On the payoff value: Since extra lands (and to a lesser extent threats) have such stark diminishing returns, drawing a random card over a dead draw is basically drawing an extra card. In these situations you can almost view Preordain as a draw 2! Being able to push the extra land/threat while still drawing the disruption against combo is extremely good.

To be fair, there is likely still room for some number of Ponder after 4 Brainstorm in an 8 fetch, 14 land manabase. I'm of the opinion that swapping some number of Ponders for Preordains is wise, so that you can efficiently keep your ratios stable all game without overloading your fetches.

[iamajellydonut]

Step One: Play a normal game.
Step Two: During that game, whenever you see a Ponder or Preordain, think really hard about which you would rather have seen.
Step Three: Realize you would rather see Ponder 100% of the time.

[Lemnear]

Thanks for your responses everyone!

Your points are well taken. I completely agree with you about the benefits of Ponder including:
1. Flipping delver more reliably
2. Finding a specific card when you REALLY need it (early threat, late bolt)
3. More information when you can afford to fetch or want all 3

However, I think you are underestimating the frequency at which Preordain pays off, as well as the value you gain when it does pay off.

On frequency: Preordain pays off when you like some, but not all, of the top few cards AND it is not ideal to use a fetch. You seem to think that we have infinite fetches here. The maximum number of post-Ponder/Brainstorm fetches that you can crack while remaining below 4 lands is only 2 + the number Dazes you have played. In an absolutely ideal situation, we would be running off of 2 lands; which means that if you see an average of 1 Daze per game, you can only Ponder/Brainstorm + shuffle twice. Remember, this is a maximum; in my experience gamestates often demand use of fetches prematurely.


...and you seem to think that you'll never want to shuffle your cards away by Ponder itself. Most Legacy decks running Brainstorm and Ponder have at least 6 fetches for their 8 cantrips and considering that you'll rarely have to cast all 8 cantrips in each game. In addition you have your Dazes to return lands and to shuffle them back in the deck with brainstorm and fetch them again. If you are picking Tempo decks as your example, please stop making points based on the lategame (4 lands, casted most of your available cantrips, etc)

On the payoff value: Since extra lands (and to a lesser extent threats) have such stark diminishing returns, drawing a random card over a dead draw is basically drawing an extra card. In these situations you can almost view Preordain as a draw 2! Being able to push the extra land/threat while still drawing the disruption against combo is extremely good.


this is a wierd logic. Using this type of argument, I can say Ponder reads "U - Sorcery - you win the Game" if you play against Belcher and dig up to 4 cards deep for your Force of Will. It's Brainstorm's (and Daze's) job to get rid of unneccessary non-wasteland lands, not Ponder's or Preordain's. If you don't like what you see with Ponder, shuffle. It's easy as that.

To be fair, there is likely still room for some number of Ponder after 4 Brainstorm in an 8 fetch, 14 land manabase. I'm of the opinion that swapping some number of Ponders for Preordains is wise, so that you can efficiently keep your ratios stable all game without overloading your fetches.

[Lentini]

Most Legacy decks running Brainstorm and Ponder have at least 6 fetches for their 8 cantrips and considering that you'll rarely have to cast all 8 cantrips in each game.


The point I'm trying to make isn't that you don't have consistent access to a fetch whenever you cast Ponder; it's that you only have around 2 fetches per game to devote to Ponder/Brainstorm + shuffle without playing 1 more land than you need to. Which makes the 1st Preordain you draw better than the 3rd Ponder/Brainstorm.

It's OK if you don't agree, I'm just trying to portray my thoughts accurately. In fact, I'm starting to sway towards the Ponder camp but I think this is a necessary conversation to have and I still think that a split is potentially right in some scenarios.

[Tormod]

Ponder, sees one more card which is 33% more than what Preordain sees.
Ponder doesn't depend on a fetch, because it can shuffle itself.

[FTW]

The point I'm trying to make isn't that you don't have consistent access to a fetch whenever you cast Ponder; it's that you only have around 2 fetches per game to devote to Ponder/Brainstorm + shuffle without playing 1 more land than you need to. Which makes the 1st Preordain you draw better than the 3rd Ponder/Brainstorm.

It's OK if you don't agree, I'm just trying to portray my thoughts accurately. In fact, I'm starting to sway towards the Ponder camp but I think this is a necessary conversation to have and I still think that a split is potentially right in some scenarios.

I think we can agree both:
a) the first two Brainstorm/Ponders are definitely better than Preordain
b) 3rd Ponder is better than Preordain if you need to dig for something specific (e.g. a threat because your threat was removed, land because you got Wasted, another FoW vs combo).

I think the point you're missing is that if you've already used 2 Brainstorm/Ponders and your board is stable (i.e. tempo deck is in late stages of game plan) and you're at the point where you just want 100% disruption to hold the fort while you win and don't need to dig for anything in particular, if you hypothetically Ponder and see 2/3 "bad" cards and drawing random cards would be strictly better (i.e. the situation where Preordain #1 shines), the correct play is usually to bail on the 1 good card and reshuffle with Ponder. This is how you hedge for consistency. That way you don't actually get stuck drawing those bad cards and losing critical draw steps. Preordain would let you keep the 1 good card plus have random cards on top while Ponder draws you a random card with random cards on top. In this one narrow situation, Ponder is slightly worse than Preordain, though not as bad as you are making it out to sound as long as you don't forget Ponder can reshuffle.

HOWEVER, Ponder more than makes up for it in all the other stages of the tempo gameplan where it outshines Preordain. The other part you're not accounting for is that you can't go -2 Ponder +2 Preordain and then count on drawing a Preordain as exactly your 3rd or 4th cantrip only. Sometimes you will draw 2 Preordains. Sometimes it will be your first cantrip. Sometimes you will never see it. It's not like you have an Avatar with the ability to morph a cantrip into a Preordain whenever you want it as long as you include some in your decklists. You may include it but then not draw it when it is optimal and draw it when it is suboptimal. Overall, tempo decks run smoother off the 4 Ponders. Especially when you need to flip Delver.

[Michael Keller]

Ponder, sees one more card which is 33% more than what Preordain sees.
Ponder doesn't depend on a fetch, because it can shuffle itself.

Ponder also can leave a desperate player banking on the strength of one of the three cards, and puts said player in a precarious situation where they have to weigh the strength of that card in a given set of circumstances. Now you're looking at a possible two-turn setback.

Preordain allows said player to filter without randomization. That randomization factor can doom the Ponder player into drawing one of the three useless cards they had previously seen. Preordain gives the player casting it more control over their draws, and frankly quality over quantity is better under certain circumstances. Both have their merits.

I prefer Preordain.

[FTW]

Ponder also can leave a desperate player banking on the strength of one of the three cards, and puts said player in a precarious situation where they have to weigh the strength of that card in a given set of circumstances. Now you're looking at a possible two-turn setback.

Preordain allows said player to filter without randomization. That randomization factor can doom the Ponder player into drawing one of the three useless cards they had previously seen. Preordain gives the player casting it more control over their draws, and frankly quality over quantity is better under certain circumstances. Both have their merits.

I prefer Preordain.

Although the randomization can backfire, tempo decks are built such that a random card is only marginally worse than a chosen "good card" on average, so the randomization factor is unlikely to doom the Ponder player often in the long run.

If you're in a position where you desperately need that 1-of-3 cards AND to draw business next turn (i.e. pondering into answer+2 duds is not good enough) AND have no fetches left, keep in mind this is already a losing position, you need a lucky sequence of draws to not lose, the two duds is statistically unlikely and sometimes even tempo decks still lose to variance sometimes. Sure Ponder can force you to keep an unappealing 2 draw steps but Preordain may have only hidden one of those cards (your next draw step could be a dud no matter what) and Preordain has a lower chance of not finding you the card you needed immediately. So you get to dig 1 card deeper to find the answer card at the expense of your draw step 2 turns later being worse than the random card you'd get from Preordain.

Conditional on the top 3 cards of your library...

Scenario 1:
dud
dud
answer

Both find you the answer this turn. Ponder loses your next 2 draw steps. Preordain loses none.

Scenario 2:
dud
answer
dud

Both find you the answer this turn. Ponder loses your next 2 draw steps. Preordain still loses one (to the unseen dud card).

Scenario 3:
answer
dud
dud

Same as scenario 2.

Scenario 4:
dud
dud
dud

Ponder might save the day showing you a random card. Preordain bricks and draws you dead before seeing more random cards.

Keep in mind where Ponder "loses 2 drawsteps", if one of the duds is a fetchland then you can reshuffle before drawing dud #2.

If your deck somehow has a high chance of seeing 2 duds with 0 fetchlands, I have to question the composition of your deck build. Especially postboard when dead cards should be minimized.

[Lentini]

I think we can agree both:
a) the first two Brainstorm/Ponders are definitely better than Preordain
b) 3rd Ponder is better than Preordain if you need to dig for something specific (e.g. a threat because your threat was removed, land because you got Wasted, another FoW vs combo).

I think the point you're missing is that if you've already used 2 Brainstorm/Ponders and your board is stable (i.e. tempo deck is in late stages of game plan) and you're at the point where you just want 100% disruption to hold the fort while you win and don't need to dig for anything in particular, if you hypothetically Ponder and see 2/3 "bad" cards and drawing random cards would be strictly better (i.e. the situation where Preordain #1 shines), the correct play is usually to bail on the 1 good card and reshuffle with Ponder. This is how you hedge for consistency. That way you don't actually get stuck drawing those bad cards and losing critical draw steps. Preordain would let you keep the 1 good card plus have random cards on top while Ponder draws you a random card with random cards on top. In this one narrow situation, Ponder is slightly worse than Preordain, though not as bad as you are making it out to sound as long as you don't forget Ponder can reshuffle.

HOWEVER, Ponder more than makes up for it in all the other stages of the tempo gameplan where it outshines Preordain. The other part you're not accounting for is that you can't go -2 Ponder +2 Preordain and then count on drawing a Preordain as exactly your 3rd or 4th cantrip only. Sometimes you will draw 2 Preordains. Sometimes it will be your first cantrip. Sometimes you will never see it. It's not like you have an Avatar with the ability to morph a cantrip into a Preordain whenever you want it as long as you include some in your decklists. You may include it but then not draw it when it is optimal and draw it when it is suboptimal. Overall, tempo decks run smoother off the 4 Ponders. Especially when you need to flip Delver.

Mr. FTW, thanks for you well-balanced post. I have come to a similar conclusion over the past week as well.

[frafen]

I watched/played some games with RUG delver and I was wondering if ponder is really the best choice in tempo decks.

The problem with ponder is that you can't expect to have every time a shuffle effect expecially in a deck that plays also 4 brainstorms. Also, sometimes, playing a fetch to shuffle is a suboptimal play. I'm still talking about RUG delver, a deck where most of the times every land after the second is in excess (I'm not counting wasteland as land).

We could say that in every game you cast at least 2 cantrips between bs and ponder. If you want to play those cantrips optimally (and if you want them to be better than preordain) you have to play also 2 fetchs. This means that every game you are forced to play 3 lands minimum (1 land to cast the first cantrip, shuffle effect, shuffle effect). This game plan is theoretically suboptimal for a deck like RUG delver.

This is the main reason that lead me to think that playing preordain instead of ponder could be better in a deck that it has its strenght in a gameplan that needs only 2 lands and that doesn't need to dig desperatly for something specific because of the redundancy of the effects of the cards in the deck. I mean, in a deck like miracles (that wants to play lots of lands) or storm (that wants to dig deep and fast to find the missing piece) ponder is the better choice.

So, the positive effects of preordain in a delver deck are:

-RUG "2 lands" gameplan can be executed more optimally. Keep all you shuffle effects for brainstorms and cast preordain without being forced into flooding (aka 3 lands).

-Brainstorm is better. This card desperatly needs shuffle effects to be good, otherwise is just one of the worst cantrips ever printed. Without ponder's competition there will be far fewer times where you cast a brainstorm without a shuffle effect. Also, you will have more dead cards to
throw away with bs (because you are no longer forced to do useless land drops just to shuffle your deck after a ponder).

-Delver is better. This is just a little bonus. With more shuffle effects avliable the delver trigger will be more often scry 1. People overrate the utility of playing a cantrip to be sure that delver is going to filp. In a deck where half of the spells are instants and sorceries, delver will filp, you don't need a cantrip to set up the top card. Most of the time you are just wasting a cantrip.


a) the first two Brainstorm/Ponders are definitely better than Preordain
b) 3rd Ponder is better than Preordain if you need to dig for something specific (e.g. a threat because your threat was removed, land because you got Wasted, another FoW vs combo).

The first 4 brainstorm are definitely better than every card you could cast in every deck in legacy. But, that could be not true if you haven't enough shuffle effects. I agree that the first ponder is slightly better than preordain. Preordain is better in other situations, but the biggest upside is that preordain theoretically makes the whole deck work better, expecially because RUG delver don't want to find specific cards thanks to its redundancy. It's much more important that the gameplan is executed well (without suboptimal cantrips, flooding..) because in comparison with other decks RUG's card quality is shit. RUG can't topdeck a one mana wrath of god or a 4 mana draw 10 (past in flames). RUG wins because it is a highly efficent machine where the sum is greater than its parts.

[Dice_Box]

The only place of late I have seen a 4 Brainstorm, 4 Preordain build is Infect. I also feel it might be the only place that's right to do so.

[frafen]

Actually I think that some kind of split between ponder and preordain might be fine (like 2/2).

[jrsthethird]

1 Ponder
1 Preordain
1 Serum Visions
1 Portent

Diversify or go home.

[frafen]

1 Ponder
1 Preordain
1 Serum Visions
1 Portent

Diversify or go home. Gotta play around surgical extactions.

[Dark Ritual]

Gotta play around surgical extactions.

If your aim is to do that you are required to play taiga lest all your trops are surgicaled out of existence and you are left with all these green cards/creatures in hand.

Ponder is by far the best because it see's the most cards. The choice to shuffle is huge when combined with brainstorm or you just see trash whereas if the top 3 are trash with preordain you're keeping 1 no matter what and that isn't the case with ponder. Ponder, by general concensus, is more powerful than preordain just hear about some ANT players bitch about preordain and you'll see why.

[frafen]

If your aim is to do that you are required to play taiga lest all your trops are surgicaled out of existence and you are left with all these green cards/creatures in hand.

Ponder is by far the best because it see's the most cards. The choice to shuffle is huge when combined with brainstorm or you just see trash whereas if the top 3 are trash with preordain you're keeping 1 no matter what and that isn't the case with ponder. Ponder, by general concensus, is more powerful than preordain just hear about some ANT players bitch about preordain and you'll see why. I was joking about playing around surgical extraction :smile: I think that people overrate surgical extraction. I would be happy if my opponent sides in surgicals while I'm playing delver. Most of the times it's just free card advantage.

I agree that ponder (+fetch) is more powerful than preordain in a vacuum. That's expecially true if your deck isn't damaged by making lots of land drops (=shuffle effects) and has powerful cards to search for (so the ponder's extra digging has more value). That's the case of the majority of legacy decks. Ponder is better than preordain in miracle, storm, show and tell... but I'm not sure that that's the case also in tempo decks, expecially in RUG delver. RUG in general doesn't want more than 2-3 lands, and also has not individual cards that can create an absurd advantage (no Jace, Terminus, Show and Tell, Past in Flames...).

In conlusion, I think that also in tempo decks the best ponder will be always better than the best preordain, but the value of the average preordain is probably higher than the average ponder. Cutting 2/3/4 ponders for preordains could be a little decrease of deck's peak power to increase the tempo's gameplan stability.

[jrsthethird]

I was joking about playing around surgical extraction :smile: I think that people overrate surgical extraction. I would be happy if my opponent sides in surgicals while I'm playing delver. Most of the times it's just free card advantage.

Not if it's in conjunction with Wasteland and they take all your Seas or Volcs. But the extra 2 life loss is nice though.

[Tammit67]

Not if it's in conjunction with Wasteland and they take all your Seas or Volcs. But the extra 2 life loss is nice though.

Waste + Surgical extraction: When you can't win a heads up game anyway

[Asthereal]

You guys have missed one argument for liking Preordain over Ponder:

Preordain is always good. You ditch the crap and take what's useful.
There's no way to misplay Preordain, or be disappointed with it.
Preordain makes you happy because it improves your position no matter what cards you found with it.

Ponder often finds you one card you want and two you do not want.
Ponder often finds you two cards that may be of some use and a third you really do not want.
Here you need to make decisions about how to proceed. Do you shuffle?
Ponder + fetch is almost always good, but Ponder alone often presents you with a dilemma.

So I'd usually say this:
Basic rule: Ponder is better than Preordain, because you see a card more. So ask yourself:

1. Do you usually need to find one specific card? Take Ponder.
2. Do you have fetch lands aplenty? Take Ponder.
3. Are you a good player, one who makes good decisions and wins games because of it? Take Ponder. (You will handle the dilemmas better that Ponder presents you with.)

3.1. Do you look for a range of good cards and just want to ditch crap? Preordain might be an option.
3.2. Do you have no -or a limited amount of- shuffle effects? Preordain might actually be better than Ponder.
3.3. Are you a bad/highly inexperienced player? Preordain might actually be better than Ponder. (You will be prone to misplaying Ponder and lose games because of it.)

These are the questions I would ask myself when choosing Ponder or Preordain.
I am not the best player out there, but for me Ponder usually still wins.

[frafen]

The only place of late I have seen a 4 Brainstorm, 4 Preordain build is Infect. I also feel it might be the only place that's right to do so. Why do you feel that it could be right only in infect?

I did a quick research on mtgtop8 and I found that this year a guy (http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=10602&d=260626&f=LE) top8 with RUG playing a 2/2 split between ponder and preordain. :tongue:

[Finn]

Ponder often finds you one card you want and two you do not want.
Ponder often finds you two cards that may be of some use and a third you really do not want.
Here you need to make decisions about how to proceed. Do you shuffle?
Ponder + fetch is almost always good, but Ponder alone often presents you with a dilemma.This is a strength of Ponder, not a weakness. The card has limitations which are baked into its design. This weakness is off-set by the ubiquity of fetchlands so that you can effectively keep between 0 and 3 of the top three cards. Preordain can't touch that power.

[tescrin]

Preordain is always good. You ditch the crap and take what's useful.
There's no way to misplay Preordain, or be disappointed with it.
Preordain makes you happy because it improves your position no matter what cards you found with it.


You're disappointed in situations where Ponder would've been at least marginally better:
Dud
Dud
Dud <- preordain draws this, ponder sees it and gets a 4th chance

Dud
Ok Answer
Better Answer <- preordain misses this for a less good card (Example: Daze for combo protection instead of Force/SPierce/REB.)

Good Card
Good Card
Garbage <- preordain doesn't tell you that you'll want to fetch in 2 turns.


Whether it feels good in those situations doesn't matter; because it's an "ignorance is bliss" situation; where you accept a worse outcome because it's the best it could do. Ponder, however would've let you get a better outcome regardless; even if it ends up bricking as well.

No one is saying Preordain is garbage; so a Top 8 with a 2/2 split doesn't seem unreasonable; but even in Infect I don't get why you'd want Preordain. Don't they lack enough fetches?

[Dark Ritual]

Probably the biggest advantage of ponder over preordain is the fact that it shows you 3 cards. Preordain only shows you 2 cards. Information is king when it comes to a high powered format like legacy you want as much information as possible to make the most informed/best decision. That's why ponder is so much better in all decks but especially tempo where all your decisions are quite critical to winning a game.

[Teknique]

Probably the biggest advantage of ponder over preordain is the fact that it shows you 3 cards. Preordain only shows you 2 cards. Information is king when it comes to a high powered format like legacy you want as much information as possible to make the most informed/best decision. That's why ponder is so much better in all decks but especially tempo where all your decisions are quite critical to winning a game.

This is not true.

Most people hail ponder over preordain because they think about these cantrips with the mindset that they are only used to find answers.
Preordain can be a better card when you are actively trying to not draw certain things, or when you are looking for very specific cards and have knowledge of cards elsewhere in your deck (ie: bottom cards). This is one reason preordain was superior in Gold Digger while Dig Through Time was legal, but still a potentially relevant interaction with cards like Collected Company. Preordaining after a brainstorm in silver-bullet style lists is almost always better than ponder because you're guaranteed to not redraw the useless cards.

Given that Dig is banned now, there are few places I could see preordain being better than ponder, but it's not something you should always assume.

In tempo decks where raw velocity and searching for continued pressure is the primary game plan ponder is assuredly better and the 2/2 split is incorrect but may just have been a card availability issue.

[Asthereal]

You're disappointed in situations where Ponder would've been at least marginally better:
Dud
Dud
Dud <- preordain draws this, ponder sees it and gets a 4th chance

Dud
Ok Answer
Better Answer <- preordain misses this for a less good card (Example: Daze for combo protection instead of Force/SPierce/REB.)

Good Card
Good Card
Garbage <- preordain doesn't tell you that you'll want to fetch in 2 turns.


Whether it feels good in those situations doesn't matter; because it's an "ignorance is bliss" situation; where you accept a worse outcome because it's the best it could do. Ponder, however would've let you get a better outcome regardless; even if it ends up bricking as well.

No one is saying Preordain is garbage; so a Top 8 with a 2/2 split doesn't seem unreasonable; but even in Infect I don't get why you'd want Preordain. Don't they lack enough fetches?
Missing the point entirely. As was Finn.

My point is this:
Some players are bad.
Some players will make bad decisions because Ponder is hard to use optimally.
Playing cards that are hard to use will cause them to lose sometimes.
So those players could be advised to practice a lot with Ponder, but play Preordain competitively.

If you read my post entirely, you will see the questions I posed.
You will know I usually favour Ponder.
You will see I said Ponder is almost always the better card.
But perhaps not for people who lack the play skill to use it well.

But I fear not very many people read beyond the first few lines of text, so I'm not sure why I am typing this here anyway.

[iamajellydonut]

My point is this:
Some players are bad.
Some players will make bad decisions because Ponder is hard to use optimally.
Playing cards that are hard to use will cause them to lose sometimes.
So those players could be advised to practice a lot with Ponder, but play Preordain competitively.

So, use the chubby crayon on legal documents because they can't be trusted with a pen?

Edit:

10 Forest
6 Island
5 Plains

4 Eager Cadet
4 Horned Turtle
4 Merfolk of the Pearl Trident
4 Balduvian Bears
4 Bear Cub
3 Craw Wurm
4 Forest Bear
4 Grizzly Bears

4 Healing Salve
4 Preordain

[jrsthethird]

10 Forest
6 Island
5 Plains

4 Eager Cadet
4 Horned Turtle
4 Merfolk of the Pearl Trident
4 Balduvian Bears
4 Bear Cub
3 Craw Wurm
4 Forest Bear
4 Grizzly Bears

4 Healing Salve
4 Preordain

SeaTac here I come!

[Asthereal]

So, use the chubby crayon on legal documents because they can't be trusted with a pen?
I know you're exaggerating, but your point is just bad. Let me give a valid example to explain why.

Say you want to play Storm in legacy, but you are not very experienced with the mechanic. Should you pick up Doomsday? NOPE. You should try ANT first, see how that goes. Work your way up to TES and only then start to fiddle with Doomsday lists.

All I'm saying is that Preordain is easier to use well. It's an argument. It should be here, if you are to analyse Ponder vs. Preordain to its fullest. It wasn't mentioned, so I put it out there. You can say it's an argument that's not applicable to you. Sure. But if you say the argument is invalid, you are simply wrong.

[Quasim0ff]

Say you want to play Storm in legacy, but you are not very experienced with the mechanic. Should you pick up Doomsday? NOPE. You should try ANT first, see how that goes. Work your way up to TES and only then start to fiddle with Doomsday lists.

All I'm saying is that Preordain is easier to use well. It's an argument. It should be here, if you are to analyse Ponder vs. Preordain to its fullest. It wasn't mentioned, so I put it out there. You can say it's an argument that's not applicable to you. Sure. But if you say the argument is invalid, you are simply wrong.
What?

You are not familiar with storm. You want to play doomsday. You play doomsday. You get better. You might even start winning with doomsday.

You play the deck you want to play, not some other deck that might relate to it. Just like you play RUG Delver instead of burn (> UR Delver > RUG) if that's what you're into.

[Asthereal]

You are not familiar with storm. You want to play doomsday. You play doomsday. You get better. You might even start winning with doomsday.
In practice, sure. In competitive play, not such a good idea. You will lose, and because of that you will like the deck less, maybe even lose interest in the format or the game. Besides, if you don't understand the format or the game itself well enough, you will not know what you want. Getting started in Legacy is tough. Acquiring the necessary cards and knowledge is a long process. Start a newbee on Doomsday and he's gone within the month.

But all examples beside, do you oppose the idea that Preordain is easier to use optimally than Ponder? Because that's the point I was making. Everyone seems hellbent on evading that simple point. Maybe you don't want to think about it because your play skill should be good enough to use Ponder well enough so it's better than Preordain, but not everyone is the same, and I know a couple of players to whom I would recommend Preordain over Ponder simply because they will make better use of it.

[iamajellydonut]

Because that's the point I was making.

Nobody disagrees that Preordain isn't technically easier to use, but your point is still shit.

If you bring a deck you can't play to a competitive tournament, you will lose. This is true. But if you bring a subpar deck that basically amounts to little more than a precon on the reasoning that you know its mechanics inside and out, you'll also probably lose.

This may come as something of a shock, but being successful in a competitive environment takes knowledge, time, and effort. Using Preordain instead of Ponder because you don't understand "top three/shuffle/draw" won't make you any more successful in your competitive career.

[Dark Ritual]

If someone is a bad player it doesn't matter what cantrip they're using as it's unlikely to gain them any % points in a matchup or real game of legacy. As for preordain in gold digger, fine there's that one deck that is now obsolete due to a banning that preordain was better in. You got me. As for ponder shuffle meaning you can draw the 2 cards you shuffled away post brainstorm sure out of 40 something cards there are at least 2 you don't want. The opposite is also true where you preordain, double bottom, then crack a fetch or something shuffles your deck afterwards meaning you can draw those 2 specific cards again. There's a reason you have some consistently good top finishers in legacy tournaments and it's because the bad players end up in the 2-4 bracket or some such place. Sure they can occasionally win off of luck and place well at a tournament but that's true of any format.

If someone decides to play doomsday they have to devote themselves to the deck completely to learn all the millions of ins and outs it has because of its namesake card. The skills you learn in ANT and TES somewhat carry over because they share some similar cards but the overall gameplans of both decks are so different it's like saying you should learn spanish inquisition so as to be able to pilot solidarity or vice versa.