Dig Through Time was last played in a Dimir control deck and it was almost always cast for 1UU or UU. Just saying.
I think that rather than 'how many cards were delved', the more interesting question would be, 'in what turns were they cast'. Can you elaborate please?
Fredo, the real question that I think wants to be asked is:
"When is the average turn you could cast Dig?"
We've found for us it's around turn 4.5. It can sometimes be cast before that, and in some games can't be cast until turn 6, but in general it can be cast around turn 4 or 5 when you factor in ramp, fast mana, cantrips, removal spells, and creature combat trading.
It's slower than Fact or Fiction for sure, but as I mentioned earlier, I don't really want to be using my full four mana on turn 3 or 4 casting FoF anyway. Add in the fact that the spell actually gets better the longer you put it off, and you have yourself a really great mid-to-late-game setup spell.
Fredo, the real question that I think wants to be asked is:
"When is the average turn you could cast Dig?"
We've found for us it's around turn 4.5. It can sometimes be cast before that, and in some games can't be cast until turn 6, but in general it can be cast around turn 4 or 5 when you factor in ramp, fast mana, cantrips, removal spells, and creature combat trading.
It's slower than Fact or Fiction for sure, but as I mentioned earlier, I don't really want to be using my full four mana on turn 3 or 4 casting FoF anyway. Add in the fact that the spell actually gets better the longer you put it off, and you have yourself a really great mid-to-late-game setup spell.
Well actually I was interested in Star Slayer's anecdotal evidence, but yes that's indeed the heart of the matter as it kind of determines whether the spell is any good or not.
Turn 4.5 on average seems unlikely to me, to be honest. I think it's more likely to be around turn 6-7. Keep in mind that your average suggests that roughly a quarter of the times, you'd cast Dig before turn 4 which I'm just not buying. At least, I don't believe that to be remotely possible for our environment, which is of course all that matters to me.
Maybe you're right. It's probably closer to turn 5. I was just thinking I can normally cast it about a turn later than FoF.
It's worth noting that Dig's able-to-be-cast turn isn't linear. It's not as easily to be cast on earlier turns because of the really high mana cost with few delve targets, so it's not like FoF where you can just simply add up the times when you'll get 4 mana in play. A lot more variables go into Dig, and those variables compound on themselves the later the game goes.
So just because I said it was able to be cast on average around 4.5 doesn't mean I can cast it on turn 3 25% of the time and turn 6 25% of the time. If my turn estimate is true (again probably closer to turn 5), then it would look something like turn 3 5%, turn 6 45%
I played the card a couple of times this weekend and it felt so very good. The average turn for me was closer to turn 6-7 as Fredo said. Of course, I was playing it in a very control-y deck so I was waiting for the right time once I stabilized. The most I paid for it the whole day was 1UU. Digging for that wrath or balance AND ANOTHER CARD at end of turn is so good.
Dig Through Time was last played in a Dimir control deck and it was almost always cast for 1UU or UU. Just saying.
I think that rather than 'how many cards were delved', the more interesting question would be, 'in what turns were they cast'. Can you elaborate please?
I would say it was usually cast between turns 5 and 7 (as long as it was already drawn at that time). I guess it was also cast on turn four, but that was a unique event due to drawing the right cards early. The deck ran many counterspells, spot removal and other card draw spells. Those meant that the graveyard filled up rather nicely. If the deck had more permanents in place of those instants and sorceries then the delve would have been less effective. Even then, I suppose DTT would have still been cast somewhere around turns 6 and 7, but for more mana. The thing was that DTT cost 4-5 mana on turn 5, 3-4 mana on turn 6 and 2-3 mana on turn 7 (slight simplification here). As I said, the card was usually cast for only 3 or even just 2 mana, leaving enough mana to cast something else in the same turn. It was basically a super-Impulse from turn 6 onward.
I played the card a couple of times this weekend and it felt so very good. The average turn for me was closer to turn 6-7 as Fredo said. Of course, I was playing it in a very control-y deck so I was waiting for the right time once I stabilized. The most I paid for it the whole day was 1UU. Digging for that wrath or balance AND ANOTHER CARD at end of turn is so good.
The average turn it was cast, or the average turn it could have first been cast?
I guess because you only payed at most 1UU for it, you're saying the former rather than the latter, since being able to remove 5-6 cards with it probably didn't all happen on turn 5 or 6.
It's more powerful (powerful =/= better) than Fact or Fiction. It's also more expensive. Of course that's to be expected because if the cards cost the same amount, Dig would be almost strictly better. More powerful means higher converted mana cost.
First, please don't use the strictly better terminology when they do not compare strictly; it just confuses the vocabulary and everyone involved. Secondly, casting cost =/= power; there are plenty of examples out there that defy that logic, including something simple like Lightning Bolt vs. Searing Spear/Lightning Strike. Also, the cards will never cost the same due to the UU vs. U in the casting cost, and FoF can net you anywhere from 1-4 cards depending on the situation.
I don't want to be casting Fact or Fiction on turn 3-4. I would rather be playing creatures, removal spells, counterspells, etc.
I cast FoF on turn 3-4 a decent amount of times, especially if I need something somewhat specific like more lands or a mass removal spell. Part of FoF's value include being able to cast it early AND in decks that have lower amounts of blue mana sources.
The (usually) lower cost is certainly better than Dig. However, most of the time when I'm casting Fact, I can also cast Dig, and Dig is just better in those scenarios. It's also far better if you're playing with any type of combos, which increase its pick value.
I'm not saying Dig is better than Fact. I'm just saying for my personal cube drafting style, and in my particular cube, I actually prefer to take Dig over FoF most of the time.
Nothing is wrong with that at all, of course! You play what you want to play the way you want to play it. I just don't think your evaluations above hold too much water in context of overall thought processes.
First, please don't use the strictly better terminology when they do not compare strictly; it just confuses the vocabulary and everyone involved.
I said almost strictly better, which it is if they were the same cost. I don't know how that's confusing.
Secondly, casting cost =/= power; there are plenty of examples out there that defy that logic, including something simple like Lightning Bolt vs. Searing Spear/Lightning Strike.
Yes, a lot of factors go into determining the costs of spells, but in general, higher casting cost = more powerful effect.
I'm sure you could pick out examples of other cards where one is unprintable today, like Ancestral Recall vs. Concentrate.
Also, the cards will never cost the same due to the UU vs. U in the casting cost, and FoF can net you anywhere from 1-4 cards depending on the situation.
Sure, I wasn't making any argument otherwise. Did you really think the crux of my argument was that they cost the same? Why argue against a point I'm not making?
I cast FoF on turn 3-4 a decent amount of times, especially if I need something somewhat specific like more lands or a mass removal spell. Part of FoF's value include being able to cast it early AND in decks that have lower amounts of blue mana sources.
Again, I never argued against this.
I personally haven't cast it on turn 3 or 4 most of the times I've played it, but there are times when I have. I'm sure people have cast Dig on turn 3 or 4 too. I don't know what this has to do with me preferring to take Dig over FoF most of the time.
I just don't think your evaluations above hold too much water in context of overall thought processes.
I think Fact is the better card overall because it can be played early and off a single source of blue mana. In decks that can't easily handle UU or in decks with a significant amount of early game ramp, I much prefer FoF. In decks that are a little slower, that can easily handle the double-blue cost, I prefer Dig because it has a stronger effect if both cards are being cast in the later stages of the game. But playing early acceleration and using Fact to orchestrate my midgame is a powerful part of what it does (as is the splashable cost) and so I'll pretty much give it the nod most of the time. It doesn't take anything away from Dig though, which is a spectacular draw spell.
I think what makes it so powerful later in the game is you can both dig through time AND have plenty of mana left over to cast other spells.
I find that particular cards have much more value than others in the later stages of the game and that selection becomes more and more important as the game drags on. 7 cards deep is absurd selection, all while generating card advantage, and having minor impact on tempo.
What's so great about the deep dig in a control deck is, not only can you dig into the answers you need, or the finisher you want, but it can also dig into more draw spells.
Fact or fiction in the mid-game is so sick since land drops, answers etc are all relevant. But come very long games like control mirrors, 4 to 1 splits are not completely unheard of, given the impact certain spells can have over others and lands losing value as time goes on.
This card has been performing even better than I thought (I now think it's the most powerful cube card in khans of tarkir), for many of the reasons that steam augury proved worse than I thought.
"Almost strictly better" basically means nothing, because the cards aren't on the same linear graph (if you will) to strictly compare them. Your language is very unclear, because the cards will NEVER be on the same scale.
All these cards do the same thing, along different metric lines. Incinerate is the same but adds no regeneration, Lightning Bolt is the same but adds an extra damage, Ancestral is the same but is cheaper and is an instant. Those are strictly better comparisons. Dig Through Time and Fact or Fiction, while similar in some ways, will never fall along the same line to strictly compare them. Any time there are other variables in place that skew the metric, the cards can't be compared on a 'strict' basis (that doesn't mean the card can't be better, it just can't be strictly better). All I want is clear language, and that isn't what is happening here because lots of Magic players tend to use the 'SB' phrase incorrectly, including your previous post.
re: when to cast FoF, my comment has everything to do with "I don't want to be casting Fact or Fiction on turn 3-4" and nothing to do with what you want in your deck. That's why I put it under that direct comment.
re: overall thought process: Was a nice way of saying your arguments didn't make sense, AKA misusing 'strictly better' and implying that one would never want to cast FoF on turns 3-4.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Dig, and said as much in every one of my Cube reviews for this set. I just don't think your arguments make much logical sense other than 'my Cube plays out this way so I want it instead', which is actually just the best argument for what should/shouldn't go in your Cube anyway.
I got to cast both FoF and DtT today in the same deck. Both were fantastic. Neither is strictly better, it just depends on what your deck is trying to do and what the game state is.
I resolved a FoF that would have been much worse if it were Dig, and vise versa. Either way I would recommend cubing both.
"Almost strictly better" basically means nothing, because the cards aren't on the same linear graph (if you will) to strictly compare them. Your language is very unclear, because the cards will NEVER be on the same scale.
No, being almost strictly better means that it is almost strictly better. It's really not a difficult concept to understand and I'm not surprised you're the only one taking issue with it when you're also using terms like "linear graph".
All these cards do the same thing, along different metric lines. Incinerate is the same but adds no regeneration, Lightning Bolt is the same but adds an extra damage, Ancestral is the same but is cheaper and is an instant. Those are strictly better comparisons.
Did you really think I don't know this? I just gave you the Ancestral Recall vs. Concentrate example.
You are being extremely condescending for no reason.
Dig Through Time and Fact or Fiction, while similar in some ways, will never fall along the same line to strictly compare them. Any time there are other variables in place that skew the metric, the cards can't be compared on a 'strict' basis (that doesn't mean the card can't be better, it just can't be strictly better).
Yep, I never said that Dig was strictly better than Fact or Fiction. I never said it was strictly better even at the same cost.
All I want is clear language, and that isn't what is happening here because lots of Magic players tend to use the 'SB' phrase incorrectly, including your previous post.
I didn't use the term incorrectly at all. I adhered to everything you just wrote above.
re: overall thought process: Was a nice way of saying your arguments didn't make sense, AKA misusing 'strictly better' and implying that one would never want to cast FoF on turns 3-4.
I never implied that no one would want to cast FoF on turns 3-4. You're either misunderstanding what I wrote or putting words in my mouth.
My exact words were: "I don't want to be casting Fact or Fiction on turn 3-4. I would rather be playing creatures, removal spells, counterspells, etc."
I have no idea how you get "implying that one would never want to cast FoF on turns 3-4."
That is straight misrepresentation of my point.
I just don't think your arguments make much logical sense
This is the most condescending post I have ever seen on this website, and your assertions against how much 'logical sense' my arguments make are just petty.
"No, being almost strictly better means that it is almost strictly better."
This is akin to being almost pregnant; you are or you aren't.
If you think that is condescending, then it's your perception. I'm merely illustrating my point using examples. I don't condescend to people intentionally; I speak plainly about my opinions, and my opinion was that your post didn't make sense to me because of the language you were using.
Also, 'I don't want to do x, I'd rather do y' isn't as far from 'one shouldn't do x, and should instead do y' as you think, apparently, especially in the context of a discussion board about something very specific (timing of casting spells). If that wasn't your point, please tell me what the point of that statement was. I'd be more than happy to know what you actually meant, and I won't deny that I may have slanted it towards illogical after your use of 'strictly better'.
If you took offense, I do apologize because that wasn't my intent, but I'm standing firm on my stance about your post and the language used within.
When I said that I would rather be casting stuff other than Fact or Fiction on turn 3 or 4, that's what I meant, not that no one should do that. You're saying that I'm "implying" that no one ever should. That's a ridiculous way to look at that statement.
If we wanted to take everything as plain language, look at what you wrote:
Why are we upset that we're casting Fact or Fiction instead of other spells by turns 3 or 4? That's the most confusing part about all of this. That seems like a totally awesome spot to wait for an EOT FoF and then start your next turn with a bunch more info. Any time you can use your mana for card draw when it's available seems good.
@Salmo: No one is upset that anyone is casting FoF instead of other spells. If I have the option of FoF and another spell that advances my board state or detracts from theirs, I'm generally going to play the spell other than FoF. Obviously everything is context based.
The discussion arose from when Dig can be cast, which is, imo, only a bit slower than most people are probably casting FoF. In my experience, anyway, I am normally casting FoF not when I hit 4 mana, but usually when I have more, just because the board state is usually not clear for me to be spending my resources on pulling ahead rather than keeping even at that point in time.
Any time you can use your mana for card draw when it's available seems good.
Obviously if you don't need to spend your mana on a blocker, removal spell, counterspell, etc, playing a draw spell is nice.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
Uril, the Miststalker RGW -- Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre C -- Vhati il-Dal BG -- Jor Kadeen, the Prevailer RW -- Animar, Soul of Elements URG
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker R -- Maga, Traitor to Mortals B -- Ghave, Guru of Spores BGW -- Sliver Hivelord WUBRG
"When is the average turn you could cast Dig?"
We've found for us it's around turn 4.5. It can sometimes be cast before that, and in some games can't be cast until turn 6, but in general it can be cast around turn 4 or 5 when you factor in ramp, fast mana, cantrips, removal spells, and creature combat trading.
It's slower than Fact or Fiction for sure, but as I mentioned earlier, I don't really want to be using my full four mana on turn 3 or 4 casting FoF anyway. Add in the fact that the spell actually gets better the longer you put it off, and you have yourself a really great mid-to-late-game setup spell.
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
Turn 4.5 on average seems unlikely to me, to be honest. I think it's more likely to be around turn 6-7. Keep in mind that your average suggests that roughly a quarter of the times, you'd cast Dig before turn 4 which I'm just not buying. At least, I don't believe that to be remotely possible for our environment, which is of course all that matters to me.
It's worth noting that Dig's able-to-be-cast turn isn't linear. It's not as easily to be cast on earlier turns because of the really high mana cost with few delve targets, so it's not like FoF where you can just simply add up the times when you'll get 4 mana in play. A lot more variables go into Dig, and those variables compound on themselves the later the game goes.
So just because I said it was able to be cast on average around 4.5 doesn't mean I can cast it on turn 3 25% of the time and turn 6 25% of the time. If my turn estimate is true (again probably closer to turn 5), then it would look something like turn 3 5%, turn 6 45%
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
Visual Spoiler
Draft!
Uril, the Miststalker RGW -- Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre C -- Vhati il-Dal BG -- Jor Kadeen, the Prevailer RW -- Animar, Soul of Elements URG
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker R -- Maga, Traitor to Mortals B -- Ghave, Guru of Spores BGW -- Sliver Hivelord WUBRG
The average turn it was cast, or the average turn it could have first been cast?
I guess because you only payed at most 1UU for it, you're saying the former rather than the latter, since being able to remove 5-6 cards with it probably didn't all happen on turn 5 or 6.
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
-AA
I use descriptive language. Assume that I'm being nice and respectful. (I'll tell you when I'm not.)
My Cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9029
I said almost strictly better, which it is if they were the same cost. I don't know how that's confusing.
Yes, a lot of factors go into determining the costs of spells, but in general, higher casting cost = more powerful effect.
I'm sure you could pick out examples of other cards where one is unprintable today, like Ancestral Recall vs. Concentrate.
Sure, I wasn't making any argument otherwise. Did you really think the crux of my argument was that they cost the same? Why argue against a point I'm not making?
Again, I never argued against this.
I personally haven't cast it on turn 3 or 4 most of the times I've played it, but there are times when I have. I'm sure people have cast Dig on turn 3 or 4 too. I don't know what this has to do with me preferring to take Dig over FoF most of the time.
The context of overall thought processes? What?
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
I find that particular cards have much more value than others in the later stages of the game and that selection becomes more and more important as the game drags on. 7 cards deep is absurd selection, all while generating card advantage, and having minor impact on tempo.
What's so great about the deep dig in a control deck is, not only can you dig into the answers you need, or the finisher you want, but it can also dig into more draw spells.
Fact or fiction in the mid-game is so sick since land drops, answers etc are all relevant. But come very long games like control mirrors, 4 to 1 splits are not completely unheard of, given the impact certain spells can have over others and lands losing value as time goes on.
This card has been performing even better than I thought (I now think it's the most powerful cube card in khans of tarkir), for many of the reasons that steam augury proved worse than I thought.
Last Updated 02/07/24
Streaming Standard/Cube on Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/heisenb3rg96
Strategy Twitter https://www.twitter.com/heisenb3rg
Incinerate > Searing Spear: strictly better
Lightning Bolt > Shock: strictly better
Ancestral Recall > Concentrate: strictly better
All these cards do the same thing, along different metric lines. Incinerate is the same but adds no regeneration, Lightning Bolt is the same but adds an extra damage, Ancestral is the same but is cheaper and is an instant. Those are strictly better comparisons. Dig Through Time and Fact or Fiction, while similar in some ways, will never fall along the same line to strictly compare them. Any time there are other variables in place that skew the metric, the cards can't be compared on a 'strict' basis (that doesn't mean the card can't be better, it just can't be strictly better). All I want is clear language, and that isn't what is happening here because lots of Magic players tend to use the 'SB' phrase incorrectly, including your previous post.
re: when to cast FoF, my comment has everything to do with "I don't want to be casting Fact or Fiction on turn 3-4" and nothing to do with what you want in your deck. That's why I put it under that direct comment.
re: overall thought process: Was a nice way of saying your arguments didn't make sense, AKA misusing 'strictly better' and implying that one would never want to cast FoF on turns 3-4.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Dig, and said as much in every one of my Cube reviews for this set. I just don't think your arguments make much logical sense other than 'my Cube plays out this way so I want it instead', which is actually just the best argument for what should/shouldn't go in your Cube anyway.
-AA
I use descriptive language. Assume that I'm being nice and respectful. (I'll tell you when I'm not.)
My Cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9029
I resolved a FoF that would have been much worse if it were Dig, and vise versa. Either way I would recommend cubing both.
Edit: LSV tweeted a vintage deck with 3x DtT. https://twitter.com/lsv/status/522236080104685569/photo/1
Dig is quite a card,
Maybe you're using the word differently, but that would be confusing, which is what Antknee is complaining about.
This guy's got the right idea.
You can also personally think that 2+2=5 if you'd like. Everyone's entitled to an opinion.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
No, being almost strictly better means that it is almost strictly better. It's really not a difficult concept to understand and I'm not surprised you're the only one taking issue with it when you're also using terms like "linear graph".
Did you really think I don't know this? I just gave you the Ancestral Recall vs. Concentrate example.
You are being extremely condescending for no reason.
Yep, I never said that Dig was strictly better than Fact or Fiction. I never said it was strictly better even at the same cost.
I didn't use the term incorrectly at all. I adhered to everything you just wrote above.
I never implied that no one would want to cast FoF on turns 3-4. You're either misunderstanding what I wrote or putting words in my mouth.
My exact words were: "I don't want to be casting Fact or Fiction on turn 3-4. I would rather be playing creatures, removal spells, counterspells, etc."
I have no idea how you get "implying that one would never want to cast FoF on turns 3-4."
That is straight misrepresentation of my point.
This is the most condescending post I have ever seen on this website, and your assertions against how much 'logical sense' my arguments make are just petty.
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
-Luis Scott-Vargas (10-15-14)
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
This is akin to being almost pregnant; you are or you aren't.
If you think that is condescending, then it's your perception. I'm merely illustrating my point using examples. I don't condescend to people intentionally; I speak plainly about my opinions, and my opinion was that your post didn't make sense to me because of the language you were using.
Also, 'I don't want to do x, I'd rather do y' isn't as far from 'one shouldn't do x, and should instead do y' as you think, apparently, especially in the context of a discussion board about something very specific (timing of casting spells). If that wasn't your point, please tell me what the point of that statement was. I'd be more than happy to know what you actually meant, and I won't deny that I may have slanted it towards illogical after your use of 'strictly better'.
If you took offense, I do apologize because that wasn't my intent, but I'm standing firm on my stance about your post and the language used within.
-AA
I use descriptive language. Assume that I'm being nice and respectful. (I'll tell you when I'm not.)
My Cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9029
If we wanted to take everything as plain language, look at what you wrote:
Really? FoF can always be cast on turn 4 or earlier? Dig can't?
Get off your high horse.
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
The discussion arose from when Dig can be cast, which is, imo, only a bit slower than most people are probably casting FoF. In my experience, anyway, I am normally casting FoF not when I hit 4 mana, but usually when I have more, just because the board state is usually not clear for me to be spending my resources on pulling ahead rather than keeping even at that point in time.
Obviously if you don't need to spend your mana on a blocker, removal spell, counterspell, etc, playing a draw spell is nice.
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
This pretty much sums up this entire argument from the thread.
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic