[mtgnexus] Random Card of the Day - North Star

[Mookie]

Hmmmm.... I think I'll actually agree with the assertion that Reality Shift is better than Swords to Plowshares. Not in an absolute sense - in a WU deck, I'm going to reach for Swords first - but in a relative sense.

White's removal pool is incredibly deep - in addition to Swords, you also have flexible options like Prismatic Ending and Generous Gift, enchantress options like Oblivion Ring, and flickerable creatures like Fiend Hunter... plus all the board wipes. However, it doesn't have many synergies for Swords in particular - white has no good ways to tutor or recur unless you're running Sunforger. As a result, think it's pretty easy for white decks to shop around for different, more synergistic removal options.

On the other hand, blue doesn't have many options for spot removal, so the few efficient options it has tend to stand out. Simultaneously, blue decks tend to have a lot of synergies for instants (particularly cheap instants), so the ability to grab Reality Shift back with Snapcaster Mage or Archaeomancer, or trigger Talrand, Sky Summoner is pretty relevant. Even if most blue interaction suites are going to be a collection of countermagic, I think a lot of them will still want one or two pieces of spot removal, which means that Reality Shift is better at filling a slot than Swords.

...anyway, Prismatic Strands is a fine card, but not one I would be excited by in most decks. Three mana is a little expensive for a conditional Fog, so the main draw is the flashback, which is... a decent rattlesnake, but in general, I'm not a big fan of fog effects in EDH, and I'm particularly dubious of needing more than one. As a result, I'd probably lean towards the more flexible Dawn Charm if I were looking for this effect. I guess you can get some surprise value if you have some way to mill it into your graveyard?

[DirkGently]

It's not really a contest, I think. Even if it's debatable whether shift or swords is better, I think Blue is clearly and obviously a stronger colour.

JFC I am not arguing with you on that point. But you can't use the fact that blue is an overall stronger color to rate all the white cards worse - white is worse DESPITE having better removal, not BECAUSE of it. Using blue's superiority to rate white cards worse to deem blue superior is circular reasoning.

I'm still waiting to hear what use case you're rating cards under to utilise this metric. Besides early-pick drafting I can't think of anything personally.

This is where I was going with this. I think shift is better than swords for the reasons I went through before.

Though, let's not kid ourselves, any w/u deck is going to have both.

Im sure UW decks exist that don't run both, especially given the existence of pongify and RH, and artifact/enchantment/pw removal, not to mention counters and wipes that also fill reactive slots. Honestly shift is among the weaker cards in Phelddagrif, and that deck is 90% reactive cards.

If you really feel that mucking with top deck tutors is more advantageous than an entire 1-mv discount, on a reactive card that you'll need to leave up mana for, then I can't say much except that I strongly disagree. Especially since you're probably forced to blow the removal on a subpar target (assuming one even exists) to use it in that way.

[Sinis]

JFC I am not arguing with you on that point. But you can't use the fact that blue is an overall stronger color to rate all the white cards worse - white is worse DESPITE having better removal, not BECAUSE of it. Using blue's superiority to rate white cards worse to deem blue superior is circular reasoning.

I'm not arguing with you on this point either. And I see what you're saying about it being circular. But, now that you've barked up this tree some more, I think that context matters at least a little bit.

Okay, so, let's hypothetically imagine that there's exactly one good card in colour N. In fact, let's make it steelclad: There is only one card in colour N, and that it's playable. It's name is McGuffin. Then let's say there's a card that's a little worse than McGuffin in Blue. Do you intentionally include colour N in your deck for the sole purpose of playing McGuffin? My guess is no, but I suppose there are exceptions.

Now, here's where rubber meets the road: There is an opportunity cost in running colour N (namely that it's pool is exactly one card deep), and that makes McGuffin worse. I would rate McGuffin worse than the blue card.

Moving outside McGuffin in colour N, if you scale up the number of playable cards in colour N, it decreases the opportunity cost for running colour N over other colours.

I believe the opportunity cost of playing White because of it's shallow pool of playables makes Swords worse than Reality Shift in the vast majority of contexts.

Bottom line, the more playable cards there are in a colour, the more I would rank those cards over another colours, on the basis that the opportunity cost of playing a colour saturated with good cards is lower than playing a colour with fewer playables.

Let's put it in an equation so I'm ultra clear:

Total Goodness of a Card = Power of the Card + Power of the Colour You're Committing To

If you really feel that mucking with top deck tutors is more advantageous than an entire 1-mv discount, on a reactive card that you'll need to leave up mana for, then I can't say much except that I strongly disagree. Especially since you're probably forced to blow the removal on a subpar target (assuming one even exists) to use it in that way.

Agree to disagree, I guess.

[TheGildedGoose]

re: topdeck tutors: Winds of Rebuke sees more play in cEDH than Cyclonic Rift.

I think Swords is much better than Shift, but Sinis makes an interesting point. To me, mana efficiency is paramount, but I'd like to see you mill someone out with Swords.

Prismatic Strands reminds me of an ancient MiseTings article that would never be printed today.

[DirkGently]

Okay, so, let's hypothetically imagine that there's exactly one good card in colour N. In fact, let's make it steelclad: There is only one card in colour N, and that it's playable. It's name is McGuffin. Then let's say there's a card that's a little worse than McGuffin in Blue. Do you intentionally include colour N in your deck for the sole purpose of playing McGuffin? My guess is no, but I suppose there are exceptions.

Now, here's where rubber meets the road: There is an opportunity cost in running colour N (namely that it's pool is exactly one card deep), and that makes McGuffin worse. I would rate McGuffin worse than the blue card.

Well, seeing as this is commander, it's probably less about "do you include it" so much as "is your commander in that CI?"

But let's say we're talking about some other format with more flexibility on what colors you're running. Well, in that case, trying to evaluate McGuffin in the context of the rest of its color is pointless when you can instead use the context of your particular deck. Maybe you're deciding between splashing N or Blue in order to get one card with that particular effect. Well, in that case you'd want to play N, presumably (assuming equal fixing opportunities exist, etc). Of course, that's most likely not the case, that would be a fairly niche situation. So more likely you'd look at all the cards you'd run in blue, versus an alternative deck that splashes N for McGuffin and then has to run supbar alternatives to the blue cards in its other colors, and most likely running blue would be better in that context. But that point is that you'd be evaluating the card in the specific context of "what do I gain from color N vs color blue in this particular deck?" Maybe blue's deeper card pool matters a lot, maybe it matters very little - you don't know without knowing the full context of the deck and what it needs. Trying to apply an assumed average value to blue's card quality is going to give you the wrong answer because you're overgeneralizing for a very specific situation.

Of course in commander, as I've said, this whole question becomes moot because it just matters what colors your commander has. If it has color N, then you're running N, and you might as well play McGuffin over the blue card.

Okay, so then the other situation I can think of is "I'm in the early stages of developing a deck, and I want to evaluate the overall strengths of each color when selecting a commander (or colors for a 60-card deck, before you really know what your deck is doing specifically)" So basically, you're trying to evaluate whether blue is better than N (or white, or whatever). In that case, you can't "correct" your evaluation of McGuffin for N's weaker card pool, because it's the weakness itself that you're trying to calculate. If N is weaker - and one assumes that it is - you'll figure that out when you weigh the entirety of blue's card pool vs McGuffin. If you try to correct for it while summing up the strength of all the cards, you're going to skew the results such that, even if N actually had an exactly equal overall strength to blue, your analysis would show that blue was stronger because you used that assumption going in. You have to be able to determine the baseline power level of each card in order to accurately determine which color is stronger, otherwise you're just reinforcing your own biases.

I keep coming back to the question of "what is the use case for grading cards in this way?" and you still haven't answered it. The only time I can think of when you'd want to use a generalized, average value for the card quality of a color in your evaluation of a specific card is when you're drafting, because that's the only time where choosing a card of a particular color puts you into that color without knowing what the rest of the deck is going to be. In any constructed context, you don't need to use an average card quality "correction factor" because you can just create the deck twice, with both colors, and compare the strength of those decks, since that's the thing you actually care about.

I believe the opportunity cost of playing White because of it's shallow pool of playables makes Swords worse than Reality Shift in the vast majority of contexts.

Which context?

If you're playing UW, you run swords over shift because there's no cost to running either color, and swords is better than shift (in my, and the vast majority's, opinion).

If you're choosing between commanders, you can compare the strength of all the cards you'd actually run, rather than a general "blue is better" value. What good to you are the vast majority of blue cards that you don't run in your deck? None. So why should their quality matter one whit towards your evaluation?

Total Goodness of a Card = Power of the Card + Power of the Colour You're Committing To

And when do you apply this rating? In what context is this useful? And how much are you supposed to "weigh" each value by? For example, how much better does a white card need to be than a blue card to be "better" by this metric? If there was a card "2W sorcery: draw 3 cards", is that better than divination?

Agree to disagree, I guess.

I suppose so, but honestly this specific point is way less interesting than the broader discussion.

[Sinis]

Trying to apply an assumed average value to blue's card quality is going to give you the wrong answer because you're overgeneralizing for a very specific situation.

My dude, I initially said I like Reality Shift more than Swords to Plowshares, and listed some reasons why. I know 1 mana is really important to you, but don't you think you're asking for an unreasonable burden of proof for an opinion?

I've explained that I think White is weak, and that White having a couple of good cards like Swords doesn't make me believe that Swords is more playable than Reality Shift because it forces you to commit to White. It is about the depth of the card pool, and the opportunity cost of picking White over another colour.

Here's an example of white's pool being not good enough: I don't play mono-White much, because the pool of White's good cards isn't deep enough. But, I will play mono-Blue and mono-Black.

You have to be able to determine the baseline power level of each card in order to accurately determine which color is stronger, otherwise you're just reinforcing your own biases.

You're hoping for objectivity when this whole conversation about what is more powerful is almost entirely determined by context and situation. In an environment where no one plays Mirage-style tutors, Swords is probably (that just happens to not be the environment I play in).

I tried to explain why I like Reality Shift more, and I know you want some mathematical rating formula with hard numbers that will show my opinion to be correct:tm: but it's not forthcoming because such a thing doesn't exist.

In that case, you can't "correct" your evaluation of McGuffin for N's weaker card pool, because it's the weakness itself that you're trying to calculate. If N is weaker - and one assumes that it is - you'll figure that out when you weigh the entirety of blue's card pool vs McGuffin.

Look, I said I factored in the opportunity cost of playing White (and specifically White's depth of good cards) into Swords' "goodness". I think Swords is a good card. I think that it is held back because it's in a weak colour, while a very similar card with a very similar cost provides a very similar effect, plus some tutor muckery.

If you don't understand that, I don't think I can help you.

If you're choosing between commanders, you can compare the strength of all the cards you'd actually run, rather than a general "blue is better" value. What good to you are the vast majority of blue cards that you don't run in your deck? None. So why should their quality matter one whit towards your evaluation?

Because they are options in tuning, well after initial deck construction.

And when do you apply this rating? In what context is this useful? And how much are you supposed to "weigh" each value by? For example, how much better does a white card need to be than a blue card to be "better" by this metric? If there was a card "2W sorcery: draw 3 cards", is that better than divination?

During miserable forum 'debates' where someone wants an objective measure on the goodness of a card and then wants to compare it to the objective measure on the goodness on another card because they want their opinion to be Correct.

---

Alright, we've made it this far, but I need to tell you something: I really don't care if you think I'm wrong in some objective sense, or that your opinion collides with mine. In a w/u deck, if I had to cut one of Swords to Plowshares or Reality Shift, with my usual group and their usual play habits and their usual deck inclusions, I would cut Swords because they do play Mirage-style tutors, and our games are not so fast paced that I can't hold up two mana instead of one. I am also far more likely to play Blue over White, and cards like Reality Shift have only made that decision easier to make.

I have tried to explain my point of view on colours having opportunity costs and how that affects how I rank cards as a courtesy, but I do not actually care to try and prove anything to, or to convince you.

fin

[DirkGently]

My dude, I initially said I like Reality Shift more than Swords to Plowshares, and listed some reasons why. I know 1 mana is really important to you, but don't you think you're asking for an unreasonable burden of proof for an opinion?

I already said I don't really have anything to say to the argument that messing with topdeck tutors > costing 1 less, besides that I disagree. But in (what I would consider) an aberrant meta where mana values are relatively unimportant and topdeck tutoring is very important, I'll happily concede that shift could have more utility.

What I think is more interesting is the methodology we use to go about evaluating cards. Screw reality shift vs stp, this discussion is way deeper than that.

I've explained that I think White is weak, and that White having a couple of good cards like Swords doesn't make me believe that Swords is more playable than Reality Shift because it forces you to commit to White. It is about the depth of the card pool, and the opportunity cost of picking White over another colour.

Here's an example of white's pool being not good enough: I don't play mono-White much, because the pool of White's good cards isn't deep enough. But, I will play mono-Blue and mono-Black.

If white's pool is weaker than black/blue (which it is), shouldn't that be true without trying to "correct" the ratings of the cards? And it IS true. That's WHY it's true.

Since you need to have an "objective" evaluation of the cards in order to determine which color is better in the first place, then you kinda need to justify the utility of this alternative version of card evaluation, because at best it's an additional way to evaluate cards, not the primary way.

If we were looking at stp and shift and saying "okay, we're going to build a deck that includes on of these two cards, which one should we start with to build the strongest deck?" then I can see how you'd end up at shift, but (1) that same logic would make Land Tax worse than Deep Water and (2) who actually builds decks like that?

You're hoping for objectivity when this whole conversation about what is more powerful is almost entirely determined by context and situation. In an environment where no one plays Mirage-style tutors, Swords is probably (that just happens to not be the environment I play in).

I tried to explain why I like Reality Shift more, and I know you want some mathematical rating formula with hard numbers that will show my opinion to be correct:tm: but it's not forthcoming because such a thing doesn't exist.

Sure. As I've said, that particular disagreement isn't that interesting. Because, while I disagree, there's nothing objective about which upside is more important. But I think the methodologies we're using to evaluate cards has plenty of room for discussion.

Look, I said I factored in the opportunity cost of playing White (and specifically White's depth of good cards) into Swords' "goodness". I think Swords is a good card. I think that it is held back because it's in a weak colour, while a very similar card with a very similar cost provides a very similar effect, plus some tutor muckery.

If you don't understand that, I don't think I can help you.

I understand what you're saying, it just doesn't seem like a logical methodology for evaluating cards to me.

Because they are options in tuning, well after initial deck construction.

I always forget other people don't build perfect decks on the first try. (joke) (kinda) (optimizing is boring)

You're obfuscating. If you change the decklist to optimize it, then the cards you just removed don't matter anymore, the cards you put in do, the cards you never used never mattered, and it's the same basic principle.

During miserable forum 'debates' where someone wants an objective measure on the goodness of a card and then wants to compare it to the objective measure on the goodness on another card because they want their opinion to be Correct.

Miserable? I'm having a great time.

If the only point of this methodology is completely detached from actual deck construction, then it's basically arbitrary, right?

Alright, we've made it this far, but I need to tell you something: I really don't care if you think I'm wrong in some objective sense, or that your opinion collides with mine. In a w/u deck, if I had to cut one of Swords to Plowshares or Reality Shift, with my usual group and their usual play habits and their usual deck inclusions, I would cut Swords because they do play Mirage-style tutors, and our games are not so fast paced that I can't hold up two mana instead of one.

Yeah that's fine, I'm not arguing that point.

I am also far more likely to play Blue over White, and cards like Reality Shift have only made that decision easier to make.

Also fine.

I have tried to explain my point of view on colours having opportunity costs and how that affects how I rank cards as a courtesy, but I do not actually care to try and prove anything to, or to convince you.

It's an internet discussion forum. Forgive me for discussing.

fin

You won't scare me, I know it's not really a shark.

[TheGildedGoose]

When do one of you start hurling slurs? C'mon, get to the good part.

[DirkGently]

When do one of you start hurling slurs? C'mon, get to the good part.

Lol, I'm pretty sure I'm not saying anything remotely offensive. Unless you find the Socratic method offensive.

[TheGildedGoose]

Unless you find the Socratic method offensive.

Is that a synonym for pedantry?

[DirkGently]

Is that a synonym for pedantry?

I won't deny some good old-fashioned pedantry from time to time, but the methodology we use to grade cards feels like a pretty big-picture question to me.

I mean, within the scope of a silly card game, but this whole forum is within that context so it's kind of a given.

[TheGildedGoose]

... the methodology we use to grade cards feels like a pretty big-picture question to me.

Fair enough.

I actually think this could be its own thread, one that didn't start because of a hot take and a neutral faith rebuke. I would gladly join in on that discussion, but until then, picture me trollin'.

Anyway, I know I'm late to the party, but Fracturing Gust keeps me up at night.

[3drinks]

Tuesday, May 31st, 2022; Edric, Spymaster of Trest

It was bound to happen at some point. grabs popcorn

[3drinks]

......so does Reality Shift possibly unseat Chromatic Lantern for hottest take RCotD, or naaahhhh? 👀

[Mookie]

Edric, Spymaster of Trest is an interesting option in the 99 of a go-wide deck - three mana is cheaper than most Coastal Piracy effects, and card draw is a strong enough incentive that opponents are highly encouraged to attack one another, which can have some weird political implications. Compared to the relatively minor incentive of something like monarch drawing a single card per turn, I would argue that Edric's political prowess is a bit overtuned, but at least he makes for interesting games.

....in the command zone, I don't think I've ever seen a build other than Flying Men.dec, which is... not something your should be piloting in a casual playgroup.

[Lifeless]

Me trying to process these Reality Shift takes😱

I'll never forget the first time someone played Edric at our table because the first few games he generated absolute chaos immediately followed by utter apathy.

[Igzex]

Oh man Edric. Ever wanted to make that horribly obnoxious value deck you see on all the commander youtube videos but only have precon bulk to spare? Boy howdy do I have the commander for you! You don't even need Sylvan Library or Rhystic Study. Those Slither Blades and Treetop Scouts in your shoeboxes are your Sylvan Libraries and Rhystic Studies!

[Ulka]

Keep it civil guys. We were approaching dangerous territory yesterday. Please remember to keep it on the cards not each other. If the topic veers onto something else or if you feel a certain card needs more discussion please create a sperate thread.

Additionally, do not promote violations of site rules. You will be infracted as if you were the one violating the rules.

Ulka

[NZB2323]

Edric is so good and most of the cards are commons anyway, so I created an Edric deck with only commons in the 99. It only cost me $30 to make, is fun, political, and not too powerful but also can be rolling. I can have 30 creatures on the battlefield, but they're all 1/1s, outside of maybe Jace's Phantasm and Elvish Vanguard.

[hyalopterouslemur]

The cool thing about Edric is most of the cards are commons. The bad thing about Edric is, he's definitely not casual, and he can backfire if your opponent draws combo pieces (or even something like Lightmine Field or Silent Arbiter).

[NZB2323]

The cool thing about Edric is most of the cards are commons. The bad thing about Edric is, he's definitely not casual, and he can backfire if your opponent draws combo pieces (or even something like Lightmine Field or Silent Arbiter).

Edric has counterspells and enchantment/artifact removal. The deck can definitely be set back by board wipes, and it doesn't even have to be a Wrath of God. Golgari Charm can remove most of the creatures in Edric. I know my deck has been destroyed by Archfiend of Depravity and Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite, which is why I added Witness Protection to my deck, in addition to Resculpt and Lignify.

But ideally with ramp the deck can be rolling and have mana left up for a counterspell.

[3drinks]

Wednesday, June 1st, 2022; Chandra, Awakened Inferno

I've been told this thing is super problematic because you hard ramp into it and clock them with no recourse. I don't buy that as some be all end all but maybe I just don't understand. What's the concensus? Maybe spare us the diatribe about emblems being uninteractable and how that's quite unhealthy - we know.

[hyalopterouslemur]

I mean, it's no different than any other race. Or you could just have something like Baneslayer Angel or Sphinx of the Steel Wind or Drogskol Reaver or any other lifelink creature ready.

I mean, as long as you have at least one additional opponent, Exquisite Blood blanks this.

You can also use Benevolent Unicorn, Urza's Armor, or Gisela, Blade of Goldnight to blank it.

An aside: You'd be surprised how many people won't remove a wall, artifact, enchantment, or land that damages players, even if it's doing more damage than a creature is doing by combat (a situation that happens quite frequently when playing Stax). To say nothing of sacrificing lands hit by Obsidian Fireheart, where the case at least can be made that losing mana sucks more than taking damage. (The inverse of painlands and Phyrexian Arena where the damage generally doesn't matter compared to the benefit of the card.)

[Hawk]

It takes a full two turns for this to be as much damage and inevitability as a Sulfuric Vortex for twice the mana. Sure, it's hard to answer - in fact, it's close to impossible to stop a player using this from getting at least one emblem on you (can't be countered means you need something like a Time Stop or Summary Dismissal, or you need a Stifle effect for the +2 since they hold priority once she enters), and emblems can't be removed. But the clock is so slow. If this was costed any more aggressively, it could be problematic - this sort of design is playing with fire, pun intended. But Chandra seems super mediocre. For instance, I don't run her in Daretti superfriends and compared to the long list of 6 MV commanders I am running or want to run (Ugin, the Ineffable, Chandra, Flamecaller, Chandra Ablaze) she doesn't seem to do enough. I think she's "better" than Chandra Nalaar which I currently run to show off the duel deck art, but she seems eminently cuttable. I'd only play her in the Chandra tribal, and she'd only be the like the sixth best Chandra in the deck.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

I once played a Phelddagrif game against a Saheeli deck, Athreos 2, and Dromar where this thing basically warped the game. Saheeli put two emblems on everyone then died to retaliation. Athreos soon succumbed too, but not before I used Grif to keep him alive for 4 turns to make use of his Portcullis. Eventually it came down to me and dromar, with Dromar slightly ahead on life after stealing my Pulse of the Fields with Gonti. I cash in my Heliod's invention for 10 life to equalize, which gives me just enough advantage to pass the turns back while Dromar got torched slightly faster than me. I won at exactly 2 life.