To be fair, there's a limit to the amount of things that can be said about the card in favor or against. We've more or less exhausted them, so the question is what each person chooses to accept as valid.
The thing about evaluating a card in terms of how it performs when you're behind is that what it will lead to two turns from now is often irrelevant. It depends on how far behind of course, but when I'm in top deck mode Scheming is not what I want to see unless I have several turns to wait.
If I have several turns to wait, was I really in top deck mode?
You keep insisting that it's horrible in all phases, but you haven't given any convincing arguments.
I gave you a statistical analysis that debunks the notion that Scheming in your opening hand and smoothing out a bad draw happens with anything remotely close to regularly. So, yes, I've given a convincing argument that it's ability to 'smooth out your draws' isn't worth considering if you plan on winning matches of Magic. If you choose to not be convinced by statistics, that is your prerogative, but unless you can disprove my statistical argument against the claim, just acknowledge that you are basing off of one isolated incident rather than anything that could be expected to happen again unless you main board this card in your next 30 KTK drafts.
Dolphan also showed that games in which Scheming has been cast, the caster won a mere 42% of the time. There are only 11 cards in the entire set that have a lower win percentage when cast. That's out of 268 other cards. So, over the 50,000 games of Magic tested by MTGGoldfish, Scheming rates as the 237th best card in the format in terms of wins (when removing lands). If that is your line for 'playable,' then you might as well call everything playable. I also provided the win percentages for 8 comparable cards that could be cast instead, all of which were above 51% in win percentage. Again, if you are not convinced by that argument, it's not because you refuted mine. You're just choosing to ignore hard data and claim that no one is making convincing arguments.
No one is arguing that the drawbacks, particularly the card disadvantage, are negligible. The argument is that the benefits outweigh them, at least enough to justify running the card. That's not exactly a high bar.
I suppose we differ in our definition of unplayable. I consider a card unplayable when it is in every way inferior to three other cards that do essentially the same thing only better (Bitter Revelation, Scout the Borders, and Rakshasa's Secret). As stated before, I do not take the 'smoothing out of draws' into consideration because it is a statistically insignificant argument, so clearly the cards that enable Delve without being R&D-mandated card disadvantage are muc, much higher in my estimation. When you factor in their relative availability compared to Scheming (3 to 1), it becomes impossible to justify playing Scheming to enable Delve. I also look at what I could get for the same mana cost in terms of a creature or removal spell. Removal that cheap doesn't exist anymore, but the 5 creatures mentioned earlier in the thread are all much better in my estimation since they actually help you attack the opponent's life total or protect your own. That is the case every time you cast a creature, and the same cannot be said for Scheming, which depends so heavily on your deck and the top of your library.
I don't think unplayable means that anyone whoever plays this card should be boiled in oil, I think unplayable means that with so many other relevant cards with similar mana cost/effects, it is inconceivable that it would end up in the mainboard of a draft deck that isn't a train wreck.
Crystal Ball isn't card disadvantage. It's a permanent.
It's a permanent that doesn't affect the board, and will never trade for a card from your opponent. Not all permanents are worth a card. Lens of Clarity is a permanent, but it is inherently card disadvantage. A Fugitive Wizard in most formats is card disadvantage because a 1/1 isn't worth a whole card most of the time. Sultai Ascendancy is another example that is strictly card disadvantage despite being a permanent, but will give you virtual card advantage over time (in the form of card selection). Which brings up a good question, do you think Sultai Ascendancy is worth playing? I think it's matchup dependent myself.
Cards that add tokens to the board are also not card disadvantage.
There are no token generators listed. There are cards that place +1/+1 counters listed, I agree those are not strict card disadvantage as they do affect the board.
And cards with flashback replace themselves sitting in the graveyard. Cards with Rebound replace themselves with a free cast.
Casting a card that is strictly card disadvantage two times is still card disadvantage.
And instant bounce spells often lead to card advantage by blowing out the opponent in combat or some other way.
Semi-agree, in normal situations bounce spells are pure tempo plays, but you can often get a card out of the (cheap) instants. That said, not all the bounce spells listed are instants. Sorcery speed bounce is almost always card disadvantage.
Then you just posted a bunch of 'win on the spot' spells
Finishers are inherently card disadvantage but can generate virtual card advantage by not closing out the game before your opponent can cast everything. I see no reason not to draw the comparison just because they are on different ends of the tempo spectrum.
It is funny that the defense of Scheming has come to comparing its card disadvantage to Overrun.
I don't think unplayable means that anyone whoever plays this card should be boiled in oil, I think unplayable means that with so many other relevant cards with similar mana cost/effects, it is inconceivable that it would end up in the mainboard of a draft deck that isn't a train wreck.
This is what I was trying to get at earlier. Some people seem to take "unplayable" as a personal insult. This is why I often qualify my card evaluations with something like "You're free to play whatever cards you want, it's your deck, however if you really want to win..." Because that's all we're debating here. No card is literally unplayable. And it's never meant as an insult, but rather a description of the card's value. Sorting this out could help avoid a lot of these arguments. (My favorite are the arguments about the validity of the argument tactics...)
Throwing around pejorative terms like white knight, even if you qualify it like you did, demonstrates that you're incapable of supporting your position with reasoned arguments. If there are still any arguments about the card that haven't come out yet I'd like to see them, but let's not stray from talking about Scheming and its usefulness in Khans limited.
There it is! Arguments about the argument. My fave.
I'd say the big issue that hasn't been resolved yet is that some of us are presenting opinions based in fact, logical theory, and large sample size results while others are relying on small sample size and intuition and thinking their opinions are just as good. So ya know, once we sort that out we'll be golden.
I gave you a statistical analysis that debunks the notion that Scheming in your opening hand and smoothing out a bad draw happens with anything remotely close to regularly.
Just to flesh out the percentages.
(Assuming 18 land deck, 7 card hand, 1 Taigam's in the deck)
Chance of 2-land hand - 21.6%, chance of Taigam's given this hand - 22.7%, total chance - ~5%
Chance of 5-land hand - 10.6%, chance of Taigam's given this hand - 9%, total chance - ~1%
So the Taigam's Scheming could improve around 6% of opening hands, with some small percentage of hands that you draw into Taigam's that I won't take into account. It isn't an insignificant percentage, but if I were to put this in my deck, this wouldn't be the main reason.
This also assumes that if you start with a more balanced hand, it isn't worth it to just fire this card off on turn 2. I believe that is the case, most of the time.
(My favorite are the arguments about the validity of the argument tactics, which usually crop up around the end of Page 3...)
*Shrug* I personally do care more about the argument and the evaluation than the card itself. This format won't last forever, but card evaluation carries over.
There it is! Arguments about the argument. My fave.
Your White Knight analogy was an argument about the argument, saying it's too emotional vs logical. So I guess that was an argument about the argument about the argument? Meta.
Crystal Ball isn't card disadvantage. It's a permanent.
It's a permanent that doesn't affect the board, and will never trade for a card from your opponent. Not all permanents are worth a card. Lens of Clarity is a permanent, but it is inherently card disadvantage. A Fugitive Wizard in most formats is card disadvantage because a 1/1 isn't worth a whole card most of the time. Sultai Ascendancy is another example that is strictly card disadvantage despite being a permanent, but will give you virtual card advantage over time (in the form of card selection). Which brings up a good question, do you think Sultai Ascendancy is worth playing? I think it's matchup dependent myself.
I think Sultai Ascendancy is close to unplayable. We can debate whether or not repeatable Scry is worth a card (it was in the format in which it was printed). It probably wouldn't be in this format, though.
Cards that add tokens to the board are also not card disadvantage.
There are no token generators listed. There are cards that place +1/+1 counters listed, I agree those are not strict card disadvantage as they do affect the board.
That's what I meant. Incremental Growth adds 6 power and toughness to the board. Clearly, that isn't card disadvantage, because your opponent must deal with that or lose.
And instant bounce spells often lead to card advantage by blowing out the opponent in combat or some other way.
Semi-agree, in normal situations bounce spells are pure tempo plays, but you can often get a card out of the (cheap) instants. That said, not all the bounce spells listed are instants. Sorcery speed bounce is almost always card disadvantage.
Even sorcery speed bounce spells can reset counters, bin an aura (hello, Theros), kill a token, etc. Regardless, the tempo gain from using a 1-2 mana spell to put a 5+ mana creature back into an opponents hand is often enough to win the game.
Then you just posted a bunch of 'win on the spot' spells
Finishers are inherently card disadvantage but can generate virtual card advantage by not closing out the game before your opponent can cast everything. I see no reason not to draw the comparison just because they are on different ends of the tempo spectrum.
I think you didn't word this the way you meant it? Regardless, 'win on the spot' cards like the ones you listed are not card disadvantage if you use them to kill your opponent.
It is funny that the defense of Scheming has come to comparing its card disadvantage to Overrun.
Snarky remarks do not an argument make.
Sorry if it came across as snarky... but i found it a bit bemusing that you posted so many cards that either result in parity, instant victory, or even card advantage. Of course, if we take your list to be a relatively good sampling of Limited-playable card disadvantage, I'm happy to note that other than a few completely archetypal/format dependent cards, they are all far, FAR more powerful than Scheming.
Your White Knight analogy was an argument about the argument, saying it's too emotional vs logical. So I guess that was an argument about the argument about the argument? Meta.
Eh, I care less about the validity of the points and more about the feelings behind them. I feel like the evaluation angles have been exhausted here. I think we've presented all forms of argument, statistical and intuitive, experiential and theoretical, general and situational, forward and backward looking...there's nothing left to say. But I do find it fascinating that many people are willing to defend a card that based on a sample of 50,000 games has been judged to be the 12th worst card in the set. I mean even if you take issue with the methodology, it's not even in the ballpark. I'm honestly asking...what is the motivation for the person defending that card? What is there to be gained from taking that position? And I feel like it has to have a major emotional component, because the logical data is indisputable. (Well, you can dispute it, but then you're like a conspiracy theory whacko who is willing to question everything just because. "Goldfish is a lie!!")
So yea it's way meta, but when I see a pattern of failed debate over and over again, my first question is why is this happening at all? Not to settle this argument but maybe to improve a future version.
I think Sultai Ascendancy is close to unplayable. We can debate whether or not repeatable Scry is worth a card (it was in the format in which it was printed). It probably wouldn't be in this format, though.
Yeah, I haven't really had a chance to use it, but have played against it. I definitely feel pressure to close out the game when it's on the field, but it sets them back enough in tempo that it's usually not too hard to do so. I feel like it's sideboard material, which is a tough spot to be in for a 3 color rare.
A card with Flashback that is sitting in your graveyard might as well be sitting in your hand. You aren't even down a card when you cast it.
I suppose you could say that, but when you cast it the second time, then you are down a card. Two times zero is still zero.
Even sorcery speed bounce spells can reset counters, bin an aura (hello, Theros), kill a token, etc. Regardless, the tempo gain from using a 1-2 mana spell to put a 5+ mana creature back into an opponents hand is often enough to win the game.
True, but neither of the sorcery speed cards listed were in Theros (I think? I missed Theros, they could have been reprints there). Format and matchup dependent sure, but I think a majority of the time, sorcery speed bounce is sacrificing a card for tempo.
I think you didn't word this the way you meant it? Regardless, 'win on the spot' cards like the ones you listed are not card disadvantage if you use them to kill your opponent.
Hm, what I meant is that there is true card advantage and then there is virtual card advantage. A finisher generates virtual card advantage by closing out the game. A looter generates virtual card advantage through card selection. Take Merfolk Looter for instance. A 1/1 isn't really worth a card, and technically when you loot you are never gaining true card advantage to make up for it, so it's technically card disadvantage. But you definitely make up for it in card selection. I think it's fine to compare the two things, even if one wants the game to end quickly to get its advantage, and one wants the game to go long. (Taigam's Scheming is nowhere near Merfolk Looter, of course).
Sorry if it came across as snarky... but i found it a bit bemusing that you posted so many cards that either result in parity, instant victory, or even card advantage. Of course, if we take your list to be a relatively good sampling of Limited-playable card disadvantage, I'm happy to note that other than a few completely archetypal/format dependent cards, they are all far, FAR more powerful than Scheming.
Well, it's not my list, but I do think that there are cards that are technically card disadvantage that are playable for various reasons. Definitely have to hold them to a higher standard though.
To be fair, there's a limit to the amount of things that can be said about the card in favor or against. We've more or less exhausted them, so the question is what each person chooses to accept as valid.
I can think of two major questions that have gone completely unaddressed because we've been too focused on the threshold question of do you play ever: (1) Where does it fit on a draft table and (2) Should multiples ever be considered?
@Ken_Carson
The Goldfish data has some serious methodological flaws, which are discussed here and on an external thread that it links to. Glancing at the rankings you're relying on I see Trumpet Blast is sitting at #14, ahead of Pearl Lake Ancient, Thousand Winds, and Sorin. I did specify "convincing arguments" and I don't think anyone in their right mind believes Trumpet Blast is the actual 14th best card in the format or should be picked ahead of any of those cards, like its lofty Goldfish rank would imply.
I'm glad you brought up those specific cards again, because I still want to know why you think Rakshasa's Secret serves the same purpose and why Scout the Borders is better. Mind Rot is generally considered playable in sets where it's legal, so I don't see how the self mill could be interpreted as the primary purpose of Secret, or for that matter Scheming. Scout is in the very crowded (mostly on account of morph) 3 mana slot and can only dig for one creatures (taking a land probably means GG) and bins all but one card, while Scheming can topdeck removal/wipe spells and never forces you to bin good stuff. I feel like a broken record, but no one is arguing against Revelation; talking about that card is beating a dead horse. I would also agree that a bear wins, both during the draft and construction, but that just means I'm cutting some other spell that's either clunky or breaks my curve.
@Phyrre56
My objection to your use of that term was the first time I went outside of Magic to respond in this thread and it was calling out the exact type of argument you're claiming to condemn. In the OP of the thread I linked in this post you said the Goldfish data "has massive flaws, almost too many to interpret," what exactly changed your mind about that?
One of the big flaws in MTGOgoldfish data is that it inflates the value of cards that are only cast when they would win the game, like Trumpet Blast.
It doesn't make 42% an unreliable number. The data show that if you cast Taigam's Scheming you will lose more games than you win. We can debate the reasons for that, or what decks it might fit into, but in this case there's nothing being skewed about the goldfish data.
@Ken_Carson
The Goldfish data has some serious methodological flaws, which are discussed here and on an external thread that it links to. Glancing at the rankings you're relying on I see Trumpet Blast is sitting at #14, ahead of Pearl Lake Ancient, Thousand Winds, and Sorin. I did specify "convincing arguments" and I don't think anyone in their right mind believes Trumpet Blast is the actual 14th best card in the format or should be picked ahead of any of those cards, like its lofty Goldfish rank would imply.
I'm sure you know why Trumpet Blast sits at number 14. It's not a methodological flaw. It's because that card is almost always cast when doing so results in an immediate victory for the caster. I've read the thread linked, and it calls into question the ratings of expensive morphs, gold cards, and the like. MTGGoldfish isn't a pick order. It's a collection of data on which to base arguments for the format.
I'm glad you brought up those specific cards again, because I still want to know why you think Rakshasa's Secret serves the same purpose and why Scout the Borders is better. Mind Rot is generally considered playable in sets where it's legal, so I don't see how the self mill could be interpreted as the primary purpose of Secret, or for that matter Scheming. Scout is in the very crowded (mostly on account of morph) 3 mana slot and can only dig for one creatures (taking a land probably means GG) and bins all but one card, while Scheming can topdeck removal/wipe spells and never forces you to bin good stuff. I feel like a broken record, but no one is arguing against Revelation; talking about that card is beating a dead horse. I would also agree that a bear wins, both during the draft and construction, but that just means I'm cutting some other spell that's either clunky or breaks my curve.
The main reason to play Rakshasa's Secret is that it is a card advantage spell. The fact that it enables Delve is a bonus. I'll also base my analysis on the fact that Rakshasa's Secret has been cast in over 3,000 games, and it has won 55% of those games.
Scout the Borders is better because you get a card in you hand immediately while providing the exact same amount of Delve fuel as Scheming could if you just binned everything. Getting that card immediately is so important for tempo, especially if you can cast it that turn, using those freshly milled cards perhaps. Again, it has been cast in over 3,000 games and it has a winning percentage of 53%.
I like how you phrased that Scheming can 'topdeck removal/wipes.' It can place those cards on top of your library, but you have to wait to draw them, which could very well be too late. Additionally, you only get to draw them one at a time. Again, I will point to the more than 1,500 games in which Scheming was cast and show you that 58% of the time, the person who cast it lost the match.
If thousands of actual match results don't convince you, then I don't know what will, other than perhaps a time-traveled version of yourself coming back from the future to warn you. Or maybe you like LSV?
All that scheming and you just end up with a Dark Ritual for delve cards? I suppose you increase your card quality as well, though I don’t think the combination of those two things is really worth an entire card. Maybe the turbo delve deck might need this, but the delve cards aren’t so busted that you want to spend a card to cast them earlier.
One of the big flaws in MTGOgoldfish data is that it inflates the value of cards that are only cast when they would win the game, like Trumpet Blast.
It doesn't make 42% an unreliable number. The data show that if you cast Taigam's Scheming you will lose more games than you win. We can debate the reasons for that, or what decks it might fit into, but in this case there's nothing being skewed about the goldfish data.
That's partly correct. However, there are other confounding variables at work that make the data unreliable as a whole and with respect to Scheming. The one that immediately jumps to mind is bad players reaching for it early (I've seen 3(!) in the same deck), and another is color. Blue has Cruise and some bombs, but it kind of sucks in this set. Throwing all the data in a big pile and accepting it uncritically is a great way to get misled (pirates prevent global warming; ice cream causes violent crime). The more you learn about statistics the less you tend to trust them; the Goldfish data is too simplistic and has too many confounding variables to draw reasonable conclusions about power level.
Well, the reasons why I argued for the cards were:
1. Personal anecdotal evidence.
2. The tone and absoluteness of the nay-sayers. (Which went against my experience of the card.)
3. I didn't initially knew about the gold-fish data, and am generally suspicious of that data anyway. It's also, like scry, more skill-testing than the average card.
4. I do think that the card is a low pick, 22nd/23rd card.
I think the last point is very important. There is a difference between cards that you would never play (say, pure life gain) and cards that are last include / last cut.
Before the discussion bogs down again, I have two questions for the people who agree that it's at least sometimes playable:
(1) Should running more than one ever be considered?
(2) Around which pick does it become reasonable to take one?
My gut says no to the first one, because it likely renders the deck too durdly and prone to sputtering out. I'm also thinking that multiple Schemings in the same game become incrementally worse, but both of those are based on speculation. On the second question I'm thinking last 5 picks, provided nothing better has fallen through the cracks. The copy I got last week was pack 2's happy birthday, even if you affirmatively want one for some reason I don't think there's any reason to pull the trigger any sooner.
not saying one way or the other -- i'm actually genuinely curious --, but do cards that score low in Goldfish data sometimes do so because 90% of people playing it aren't playing it properly (eg not in the correct deck; making bad play decisions with it, etc)? and that if that low-ranking card was played properly, that it would actually have a much higher ranking?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
----------------------------
Goblins have poor impulse control. Don't click this link!!
some of my favourite flavour text:
Wayward Soul "no home no heart no hope"
—Stronghold graffito
Raging Goblin He raged at the world, at his family, at his life. But mostly he just raged.
not saying one way or the other -- i'm actually genuinely curious --, but do cards that score low in Goldfish data sometimes do so because 90% of people playing it aren't playing it properly (eg not in the correct deck; making bad play decisions with it, etc)? and that if that low-ranking card was played properly, that it would actually have a much higher ranking?
Probably, but there's no way to really know, which is one of my beefs with it.
not saying one way or the other -- i'm actually genuinely curious --, but do cards that score low in Goldfish data sometimes do so because 90% of people playing it aren't playing it properly (eg not in the correct deck; making bad play decisions with it, etc)? and that if that low-ranking card was played properly, that it would actually have a much higher ranking?
1,500+ people played the card in that particular subset of Khans data. Basically, your question becomes did 1,375 people play a good card incorrectly or is the card bad. The only consistent variable is the card itself across that many different games/players.
Quite simply, it's a very solid draw in the very late game (if the game goes that long). Scheming showing Wetland Sambar, Island, UW lifeland, Efreet Weaponmaster, Treasure Cruise is a huge, huge blowout - your next turn is going to be amazing. Even if instead of Cruise you just had another lategame-oriented creature, your Scheming has significantly improved your next two turns by removing a series of dead draws.
Imagine if you drew a Bitter Revelation instead. Insert <mindblown> here.
Similarly, if you are play Scheming in a Jeskai deck with your only potential Delve cards being Treasure Cruise and the much rarer Dig Through Time, you are losing that long game since you'll never get to it.
All of these are scenarios that come up a fair bit, but the standard for this format is a midrange war where mana represented is critical. Additionally, mode 2 and mode 3 aren't generally wanted in the same deck.
Can we dispense with the myth that Scheming fixing your mana is even a remotely common occurrence? Statistics put the probability of such a scenario as happening in less than 5% of games. Assuming that you even win 60% of those games, you are talking about having to play 100 games to find 3 in which a turn 2 Scheming 'saved you' from a rough draw. So, if you played Scheming in 33 matches, it might fix your so well that one time it is the reason you won a game. Statistics also say that you will probably lose the large majority of your matches in which you cast Scheming, so it's definitely not worth it.
It's interesting that I had the same initial evaluation of the card as you. "Index + small upside, never playable, always 15th pick, take the land over it in the hope that the next person plays this trash". Etc etc etc. I have been proven wrong since.
Of decks that can cast Scheming (Sultai, UGbrw morph, Jeskai, RUG, and some fringe archetypes), only a minority (Sultai and UGbrw morph) have access to black mana, so the fact that Bitter Revelation is better doesn't matter often.
If it is in your opening hand, the card reduces how often you need to mulligan. 4 lands plus Scheming is a hand that won't run out of gas the way that 4 lands without Scheming easily can. 2 lands plus Scheming is a hand that will hit its 4th land on time. 3 lands plus Scheming is going to hit its 5th land on time and not have a 6th land early.
Scheming is simply far better than it reads, and it is far better than it would be in different formats. It's a late pick and a card you will usually leave in the board, but there are definitely reasons to play it. It goes up in value if you have ridiculous bombs to dig toward, and down down down if you are playing an aggressive deck.
It's fine to question Goldfish data. It has flaws. None of them apply to Scheming though. It's a card that you always have the mana to play, it's not a card you only play when you're ahead, it's not a card that is only sideboarded in for favorable matchups. The sample sizes are too large to argue that people are just playing it wrong. In fact, it's hard to play it wrong. Even a novice player could look at their next 5 cards and order or discard them reasonably. It's obvious that it works with Delve. If it added value, it would have a higher win %. It was cast 1,500 times! What's the more believable solution...a sudden rash of misplays all associated with one particular card, or the card hurts your win %?
To ignore the data on Scheming is to say that all the individual card data on Goldfish is literally useless, because it doesn't suffer from any of the known biases. This goes back to my earlier comment that you can ignore the data but it kind of makes you a conspiracy theorist, choosing to ignore objective evidence because it doesn't support your belief.
Goldfish data isn't a strict treatise on pick order or power level for sure, but the reason Trumpet Blast is so high doesn't apply to the cards that are ranked lowly: TB is high because you generally cast it when you're ahead and you generally cast it to win (though sometimes it is cast to allow your tokens or weenies to trade up, resulting in a tempo/CA swing.) For a card to be artificially (or unreliably) ranked low, it would have to have the following characteristics: 1.) It would have to largely be cast when you're already losing, and 2.) it would have to not change the fact that you are losing. A pure lifegain card is a decent example of such a card, but those are generally ranked on the bottom, too.
IOW, it is a lot more beneficial to be suspect of the cards in the top half of the data than it is to encourage cards on the bottom half.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My helpy helpdesk of helpfulness.
My Decks: EDH: Sygg, River Cutthroat , Road to Scion
Grimgrin, Corpseborn Modern: Polytokes IRL: Progenitus Polymorph , Goblins
I can't believe a borderline playable 22nd card is the most discussed KTK topic in the entire limited forum....:rolleyes:
It's a last cut card that might go in instead of an off-color morph or if you somehow managed to draft a crazy delve combo deck in which case you might want to run more....
Gold fish flaws have been explained repeatedly. For scheming:
1. Scheming cost 2 of a single color of mana and doesn't require any specific board state. As such, it's a card that is going to be played as soon as the mana necessary to play it wouldn't otherwise be used. IOW, if someone has it in his hand, it's going to get played.
2. Cards with higher mana cost are always strictly be seen as proportionally better than they really are to their cost. A 9 mana card will only be shown in a game where the holder doesn't die before getting to 9 mana.
3. Scheming is more skill-testing. Compared to winmate roc (pretty hard to play incorrectly), pump spell (only played incorrectly in desperate condition or by someone *really* new to the game), removal (misplayed by people wasting their removal too early). It's also a more unusual effect (although we've had some training recently thanks to scry), compared to more common things like say, creature, combat tricks and removal.
These factors alone ensure that scheming isn't really the 12th worst card of the set.
PS: actually, nightwyrm, borderline cards are naturally more discussed since obviously powerful ones are not controversial.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The thing about evaluating a card in terms of how it performs when you're behind is that what it will lead to two turns from now is often irrelevant. It depends on how far behind of course, but when I'm in top deck mode Scheming is not what I want to see unless I have several turns to wait.
If I have several turns to wait, was I really in top deck mode?
I gave you a statistical analysis that debunks the notion that Scheming in your opening hand and smoothing out a bad draw happens with anything remotely close to regularly. So, yes, I've given a convincing argument that it's ability to 'smooth out your draws' isn't worth considering if you plan on winning matches of Magic. If you choose to not be convinced by statistics, that is your prerogative, but unless you can disprove my statistical argument against the claim, just acknowledge that you are basing off of one isolated incident rather than anything that could be expected to happen again unless you main board this card in your next 30 KTK drafts.
Dolphan also showed that games in which Scheming has been cast, the caster won a mere 42% of the time. There are only 11 cards in the entire set that have a lower win percentage when cast. That's out of 268 other cards. So, over the 50,000 games of Magic tested by MTGGoldfish, Scheming rates as the 237th best card in the format in terms of wins (when removing lands). If that is your line for 'playable,' then you might as well call everything playable. I also provided the win percentages for 8 comparable cards that could be cast instead, all of which were above 51% in win percentage. Again, if you are not convinced by that argument, it's not because you refuted mine. You're just choosing to ignore hard data and claim that no one is making convincing arguments.
I suppose we differ in our definition of unplayable. I consider a card unplayable when it is in every way inferior to three other cards that do essentially the same thing only better (Bitter Revelation, Scout the Borders, and Rakshasa's Secret). As stated before, I do not take the 'smoothing out of draws' into consideration because it is a statistically insignificant argument, so clearly the cards that enable Delve without being R&D-mandated card disadvantage are muc, much higher in my estimation. When you factor in their relative availability compared to Scheming (3 to 1), it becomes impossible to justify playing Scheming to enable Delve. I also look at what I could get for the same mana cost in terms of a creature or removal spell. Removal that cheap doesn't exist anymore, but the 5 creatures mentioned earlier in the thread are all much better in my estimation since they actually help you attack the opponent's life total or protect your own. That is the case every time you cast a creature, and the same cannot be said for Scheming, which depends so heavily on your deck and the top of your library.
I don't think unplayable means that anyone whoever plays this card should be boiled in oil, I think unplayable means that with so many other relevant cards with similar mana cost/effects, it is inconceivable that it would end up in the mainboard of a draft deck that isn't a train wreck.
RBGLiving EndRBG
EDH
UFblthpU
BRXantchaRB
BGVarolzGB
URWZedruuWRU
It's a permanent that doesn't affect the board, and will never trade for a card from your opponent. Not all permanents are worth a card. Lens of Clarity is a permanent, but it is inherently card disadvantage. A Fugitive Wizard in most formats is card disadvantage because a 1/1 isn't worth a whole card most of the time. Sultai Ascendancy is another example that is strictly card disadvantage despite being a permanent, but will give you virtual card advantage over time (in the form of card selection). Which brings up a good question, do you think Sultai Ascendancy is worth playing? I think it's matchup dependent myself.
There are no token generators listed. There are cards that place +1/+1 counters listed, I agree those are not strict card disadvantage as they do affect the board.
Casting a card that is strictly card disadvantage two times is still card disadvantage.
Semi-agree, in normal situations bounce spells are pure tempo plays, but you can often get a card out of the (cheap) instants. That said, not all the bounce spells listed are instants. Sorcery speed bounce is almost always card disadvantage.
Finishers are inherently card disadvantage but can generate virtual card advantage by not closing out the game before your opponent can cast everything. I see no reason not to draw the comparison just because they are on different ends of the tempo spectrum.
Snarky remarks do not an argument make.
This is what I was trying to get at earlier. Some people seem to take "unplayable" as a personal insult. This is why I often qualify my card evaluations with something like "You're free to play whatever cards you want, it's your deck, however if you really want to win..." Because that's all we're debating here. No card is literally unplayable. And it's never meant as an insult, but rather a description of the card's value. Sorting this out could help avoid a lot of these arguments. (My favorite are the arguments about the validity of the argument tactics...)
There it is! Arguments about the argument. My fave.
I'd say the big issue that hasn't been resolved yet is that some of us are presenting opinions based in fact, logical theory, and large sample size results while others are relying on small sample size and intuition and thinking their opinions are just as good. So ya know, once we sort that out we'll be golden.
Just to flesh out the percentages.
(Assuming 18 land deck, 7 card hand, 1 Taigam's in the deck)
Chance of 2-land hand - 21.6%, chance of Taigam's given this hand - 22.7%, total chance - ~5%
Chance of 5-land hand - 10.6%, chance of Taigam's given this hand - 9%, total chance - ~1%
So the Taigam's Scheming could improve around 6% of opening hands, with some small percentage of hands that you draw into Taigam's that I won't take into account. It isn't an insignificant percentage, but if I were to put this in my deck, this wouldn't be the main reason.
This also assumes that if you start with a more balanced hand, it isn't worth it to just fire this card off on turn 2. I believe that is the case, most of the time.
*Shrug* I personally do care more about the argument and the evaluation than the card itself. This format won't last forever, but card evaluation carries over.
Your White Knight analogy was an argument about the argument, saying it's too emotional vs logical. So I guess that was an argument about the argument about the argument? Meta.
I think Sultai Ascendancy is close to unplayable. We can debate whether or not repeatable Scry is worth a card (it was in the format in which it was printed). It probably wouldn't be in this format, though.
That's what I meant. Incremental Growth adds 6 power and toughness to the board. Clearly, that isn't card disadvantage, because your opponent must deal with that or lose.
A card with Flashback that is sitting in your graveyard might as well be sitting in your hand. You aren't even down a card when you cast it.
Even sorcery speed bounce spells can reset counters, bin an aura (hello, Theros), kill a token, etc. Regardless, the tempo gain from using a 1-2 mana spell to put a 5+ mana creature back into an opponents hand is often enough to win the game.
I think you didn't word this the way you meant it? Regardless, 'win on the spot' cards like the ones you listed are not card disadvantage if you use them to kill your opponent.
Sorry if it came across as snarky... but i found it a bit bemusing that you posted so many cards that either result in parity, instant victory, or even card advantage. Of course, if we take your list to be a relatively good sampling of Limited-playable card disadvantage, I'm happy to note that other than a few completely archetypal/format dependent cards, they are all far, FAR more powerful than Scheming.
RBGLiving EndRBG
EDH
UFblthpU
BRXantchaRB
BGVarolzGB
URWZedruuWRU
Eh, I care less about the validity of the points and more about the feelings behind them. I feel like the evaluation angles have been exhausted here. I think we've presented all forms of argument, statistical and intuitive, experiential and theoretical, general and situational, forward and backward looking...there's nothing left to say. But I do find it fascinating that many people are willing to defend a card that based on a sample of 50,000 games has been judged to be the 12th worst card in the set. I mean even if you take issue with the methodology, it's not even in the ballpark. I'm honestly asking...what is the motivation for the person defending that card? What is there to be gained from taking that position? And I feel like it has to have a major emotional component, because the logical data is indisputable. (Well, you can dispute it, but then you're like a conspiracy theory whacko who is willing to question everything just because. "Goldfish is a lie!!")
So yea it's way meta, but when I see a pattern of failed debate over and over again, my first question is why is this happening at all? Not to settle this argument but maybe to improve a future version.
Yeah, I haven't really had a chance to use it, but have played against it. I definitely feel pressure to close out the game when it's on the field, but it sets them back enough in tempo that it's usually not too hard to do so. I feel like it's sideboard material, which is a tough spot to be in for a 3 color rare.
I suppose you could say that, but when you cast it the second time, then you are down a card. Two times zero is still zero.
True, but neither of the sorcery speed cards listed were in Theros (I think? I missed Theros, they could have been reprints there). Format and matchup dependent sure, but I think a majority of the time, sorcery speed bounce is sacrificing a card for tempo.
Hm, what I meant is that there is true card advantage and then there is virtual card advantage. A finisher generates virtual card advantage by closing out the game. A looter generates virtual card advantage through card selection. Take Merfolk Looter for instance. A 1/1 isn't really worth a card, and technically when you loot you are never gaining true card advantage to make up for it, so it's technically card disadvantage. But you definitely make up for it in card selection. I think it's fine to compare the two things, even if one wants the game to end quickly to get its advantage, and one wants the game to go long. (Taigam's Scheming is nowhere near Merfolk Looter, of course).
Well, it's not my list, but I do think that there are cards that are technically card disadvantage that are playable for various reasons. Definitely have to hold them to a higher standard though.
I can think of two major questions that have gone completely unaddressed because we've been too focused on the threshold question of do you play ever: (1) Where does it fit on a draft table and (2) Should multiples ever be considered?
@Ken_Carson
The Goldfish data has some serious methodological flaws, which are discussed here and on an external thread that it links to. Glancing at the rankings you're relying on I see Trumpet Blast is sitting at #14, ahead of Pearl Lake Ancient, Thousand Winds, and Sorin. I did specify "convincing arguments" and I don't think anyone in their right mind believes Trumpet Blast is the actual 14th best card in the format or should be picked ahead of any of those cards, like its lofty Goldfish rank would imply.
I'm glad you brought up those specific cards again, because I still want to know why you think Rakshasa's Secret serves the same purpose and why Scout the Borders is better. Mind Rot is generally considered playable in sets where it's legal, so I don't see how the self mill could be interpreted as the primary purpose of Secret, or for that matter Scheming. Scout is in the very crowded (mostly on account of morph) 3 mana slot and can only dig for one creatures (taking a land probably means GG) and bins all but one card, while Scheming can topdeck removal/wipe spells and never forces you to bin good stuff. I feel like a broken record, but no one is arguing against Revelation; talking about that card is beating a dead horse. I would also agree that a bear wins, both during the draft and construction, but that just means I'm cutting some other spell that's either clunky or breaks my curve.
@Phyrre56
My objection to your use of that term was the first time I went outside of Magic to respond in this thread and it was calling out the exact type of argument you're claiming to condemn. In the OP of the thread I linked in this post you said the Goldfish data "has massive flaws, almost too many to interpret," what exactly changed your mind about that?
Pauper: Burn
Modern: Burn
Legacy: Burn
EDH: Marath, Will of the Wild - Ramp/Combo | Anafenza the Foremost - French | Uril, the Miststalker - Voltron | Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury - Goodstuff
Ghost Council of Orzhov - Tokens | Lazav, Dimir Mastermind - Control | Isamaru, Hound of Konda - Tiny Leaders
It doesn't make 42% an unreliable number. The data show that if you cast Taigam's Scheming you will lose more games than you win. We can debate the reasons for that, or what decks it might fit into, but in this case there's nothing being skewed about the goldfish data.
I'm sure you know why Trumpet Blast sits at number 14. It's not a methodological flaw. It's because that card is almost always cast when doing so results in an immediate victory for the caster. I've read the thread linked, and it calls into question the ratings of expensive morphs, gold cards, and the like. MTGGoldfish isn't a pick order. It's a collection of data on which to base arguments for the format.
The main reason to play Rakshasa's Secret is that it is a card advantage spell. The fact that it enables Delve is a bonus. I'll also base my analysis on the fact that Rakshasa's Secret has been cast in over 3,000 games, and it has won 55% of those games.
Scout the Borders is better because you get a card in you hand immediately while providing the exact same amount of Delve fuel as Scheming could if you just binned everything. Getting that card immediately is so important for tempo, especially if you can cast it that turn, using those freshly milled cards perhaps. Again, it has been cast in over 3,000 games and it has a winning percentage of 53%.
I like how you phrased that Scheming can 'topdeck removal/wipes.' It can place those cards on top of your library, but you have to wait to draw them, which could very well be too late. Additionally, you only get to draw them one at a time. Again, I will point to the more than 1,500 games in which Scheming was cast and show you that 58% of the time, the person who cast it lost the match.
If thousands of actual match results don't convince you, then I don't know what will, other than perhaps a time-traveled version of yourself coming back from the future to warn you. Or maybe you like LSV?
RBGLiving EndRBG
EDH
UFblthpU
BRXantchaRB
BGVarolzGB
URWZedruuWRU
That's partly correct. However, there are other confounding variables at work that make the data unreliable as a whole and with respect to Scheming. The one that immediately jumps to mind is bad players reaching for it early (I've seen 3(!) in the same deck), and another is color. Blue has Cruise and some bombs, but it kind of sucks in this set. Throwing all the data in a big pile and accepting it uncritically is a great way to get misled (pirates prevent global warming; ice cream causes violent crime). The more you learn about statistics the less you tend to trust them; the Goldfish data is too simplistic and has too many confounding variables to draw reasonable conclusions about power level.
Pauper: Burn
Modern: Burn
Legacy: Burn
EDH: Marath, Will of the Wild - Ramp/Combo | Anafenza the Foremost - French | Uril, the Miststalker - Voltron | Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury - Goodstuff
Ghost Council of Orzhov - Tokens | Lazav, Dimir Mastermind - Control | Isamaru, Hound of Konda - Tiny Leaders
Your equation misses an important factor. One of your two lands must produce blue mana.
RBGLiving EndRBG
EDH
UFblthpU
BRXantchaRB
BGVarolzGB
URWZedruuWRU
1. Personal anecdotal evidence.
2. The tone and absoluteness of the nay-sayers. (Which went against my experience of the card.)
3. I didn't initially knew about the gold-fish data, and am generally suspicious of that data anyway. It's also, like scry, more skill-testing than the average card.
4. I do think that the card is a low pick, 22nd/23rd card.
I think the last point is very important. There is a difference between cards that you would never play (say, pure life gain) and cards that are last include / last cut.
Can you expand on what you find suspicious about the results?
RBGLiving EndRBG
EDH
UFblthpU
BRXantchaRB
BGVarolzGB
URWZedruuWRU
(1) Should running more than one ever be considered?
(2) Around which pick does it become reasonable to take one?
My gut says no to the first one, because it likely renders the deck too durdly and prone to sputtering out. I'm also thinking that multiple Schemings in the same game become incrementally worse, but both of those are based on speculation. On the second question I'm thinking last 5 picks, provided nothing better has fallen through the cracks. The copy I got last week was pack 2's happy birthday, even if you affirmatively want one for some reason I don't think there's any reason to pull the trigger any sooner.
Pauper: Burn
Modern: Burn
Legacy: Burn
EDH: Marath, Will of the Wild - Ramp/Combo | Anafenza the Foremost - French | Uril, the Miststalker - Voltron | Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury - Goodstuff
Ghost Council of Orzhov - Tokens | Lazav, Dimir Mastermind - Control | Isamaru, Hound of Konda - Tiny Leaders
Goblins have poor impulse control. Don't click this link!!
some of my favourite flavour text:
Wayward Soul
"no home no heart no hope"
—Stronghold graffito
Raging Goblin
He raged at the world, at his family, at his life. But mostly he just raged.
Probably, but there's no way to really know, which is one of my beefs with it.
Pauper: Burn
Modern: Burn
Legacy: Burn
EDH: Marath, Will of the Wild - Ramp/Combo | Anafenza the Foremost - French | Uril, the Miststalker - Voltron | Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury - Goodstuff
Ghost Council of Orzhov - Tokens | Lazav, Dimir Mastermind - Control | Isamaru, Hound of Konda - Tiny Leaders
1,500+ people played the card in that particular subset of Khans data. Basically, your question becomes did 1,375 people play a good card incorrectly or is the card bad. The only consistent variable is the card itself across that many different games/players.
RBGLiving EndRBG
EDH
UFblthpU
BRXantchaRB
BGVarolzGB
URWZedruuWRU
It's interesting that I had the same initial evaluation of the card as you. "Index + small upside, never playable, always 15th pick, take the land over it in the hope that the next person plays this trash". Etc etc etc. I have been proven wrong since.
Of decks that can cast Scheming (Sultai, UGbrw morph, Jeskai, RUG, and some fringe archetypes), only a minority (Sultai and UGbrw morph) have access to black mana, so the fact that Bitter Revelation is better doesn't matter often.
If it is in your opening hand, the card reduces how often you need to mulligan. 4 lands plus Scheming is a hand that won't run out of gas the way that 4 lands without Scheming easily can. 2 lands plus Scheming is a hand that will hit its 4th land on time. 3 lands plus Scheming is going to hit its 5th land on time and not have a 6th land early.
Scheming is simply far better than it reads, and it is far better than it would be in different formats. It's a late pick and a card you will usually leave in the board, but there are definitely reasons to play it. It goes up in value if you have ridiculous bombs to dig toward, and down down down if you are playing an aggressive deck.
To ignore the data on Scheming is to say that all the individual card data on Goldfish is literally useless, because it doesn't suffer from any of the known biases. This goes back to my earlier comment that you can ignore the data but it kind of makes you a conspiracy theorist, choosing to ignore objective evidence because it doesn't support your belief.
IOW, it is a lot more beneficial to be suspect of the cards in the top half of the data than it is to encourage cards on the bottom half.
My Decks:
EDH: Sygg, River Cutthroat , Road to Scion
Grimgrin, Corpseborn
Modern: Polytokes
IRL: Progenitus Polymorph , Goblins
Just a friendly reminder that I will drive this car off a bridge
It's a last cut card that might go in instead of an off-color morph or if you somehow managed to draft a crazy delve combo deck in which case you might want to run more....
1. Scheming cost 2 of a single color of mana and doesn't require any specific board state. As such, it's a card that is going to be played as soon as the mana necessary to play it wouldn't otherwise be used. IOW, if someone has it in his hand, it's going to get played.
2. Cards with higher mana cost are always strictly be seen as proportionally better than they really are to their cost. A 9 mana card will only be shown in a game where the holder doesn't die before getting to 9 mana.
3. Scheming is more skill-testing. Compared to winmate roc (pretty hard to play incorrectly), pump spell (only played incorrectly in desperate condition or by someone *really* new to the game), removal (misplayed by people wasting their removal too early). It's also a more unusual effect (although we've had some training recently thanks to scry), compared to more common things like say, creature, combat tricks and removal.
These factors alone ensure that scheming isn't really the 12th worst card of the set.
PS: actually, nightwyrm, borderline cards are naturally more discussed since obviously powerful ones are not controversial.