Dude, you are not off evaluating a card, you are factually mathematically wrong. I am just as likely to hit my next land drop if I was hit by Ingest as I am if I was not. I am just as likely to draw a threat as well. Ingest does not alter the chance to draw any given card at any stage in the game at all.
In other words: the card I need is just as likely to be on the top of my library as it is to be second to the top. If you Ingest the top card of my library I am just as likely to draw the needed card.
This is not quite accurate, and the way in which it is inaccurate is probably the source of Buffsam's confusion:
On turn 3, player A attacks and ingests a card from Player B. Now the odds of drawing any given card in Player B's deck can be updated because we know an additional card it is not. If a land was ingested, Player B is less likely to draw a land. If a creature was ingested, Player B is less likely to draw a creature.
The problem for Buffsam's argument is that when we look at the general case, we end up realizing that ingesting will make it more likely to draw the card that they want some of the time, just as it will make it less likely some of the time. If there is 1 card they are looking for, a small small percentage of the time we will hit it, but far more often, we will improve their odds of drawing it. The net effect is neutral.
I'm not a fan of fertile thicket. It's the worst of the lot in top deck mode. Mortuary mire seems like the best to me. Being able to replay a bomb in limited is game winning. The other 4 seem like varying degrees of niche. The red land probably functions as "deal 1 damage to target player" which is fine but not crazy. Skyline cascade seems like its the most niche and is only truly good when you and your opponent are racing eachother. The white land also functions as "deal 1 damage to player" but potentially acts to preserve your life total as well, meaning its probably better than the red land. The green land is great in the first few turns, then falls off to become a strictly worse forest. Then again, I may be underestimating how impact-fall the ability to guarantee a late game land fall trigger is.
Later in the game, the ETBT clause becomes less and less relevant, and it's two lands in one for any landfall effects. If you need to rip an untapped land THAT TURN, then yes, it's worse, in most other cases it's better, and early in the game it is by far the best of the lot.
This is purely and simply a definitional argument. Your definition is not "superior" to the one other people are using. If you are confused about the meaning of a word, ask what they mean. Telling them that's not what the word means is almost always pointless and foolish. In the rare case someone was actually mistaken about the meaning of a word, congratulations, you've educated someone, but that's not what is happening here. Some people have decided to use "strictly better" in ways which allow it to apply to Magic cards, with varying levels of strictness, and other people have not.
This card is almost always better than Sowing Salt. That's what everyone in this thread is saying, so there's no actual argument.
I think it will be either UR or RW as the last one, because Red should have a land in the set with 3. BG should definitely be in Oath, because Abzan doesn't need pushed more.
I think Shambling Vents is strong, and I will play it in an Esper control deck. The lifelink is relevant, and the animation cost is nice and low.
Hammerhead Shark
Sigarda, Host of Herons
Hammerhead Shark
Acidic Slime
Hammerhead Shark
Braingeyser
This is not quite accurate, and the way in which it is inaccurate is probably the source of Buffsam's confusion:
On turn 3, player A attacks and ingests a card from Player B. Now the odds of drawing any given card in Player B's deck can be updated because we know an additional card it is not. If a land was ingested, Player B is less likely to draw a land. If a creature was ingested, Player B is less likely to draw a creature.
The problem for Buffsam's argument is that when we look at the general case, we end up realizing that ingesting will make it more likely to draw the card that they want some of the time, just as it will make it less likely some of the time. If there is 1 card they are looking for, a small small percentage of the time we will hit it, but far more often, we will improve their odds of drawing it. The net effect is neutral.
Love it.
Hammerhead Shark
Kytheon, Hero of Akros
Watercourser
Hammerhead Shark
Later in the game, the ETBT clause becomes less and less relevant, and it's two lands in one for any landfall effects. If you need to rip an untapped land THAT TURN, then yes, it's worse, in most other cases it's better, and early in the game it is by far the best of the lot.
This is purely and simply a definitional argument. Your definition is not "superior" to the one other people are using. If you are confused about the meaning of a word, ask what they mean. Telling them that's not what the word means is almost always pointless and foolish. In the rare case someone was actually mistaken about the meaning of a word, congratulations, you've educated someone, but that's not what is happening here. Some people have decided to use "strictly better" in ways which allow it to apply to Magic cards, with varying levels of strictness, and other people have not.
This card is almost always better than Sowing Salt. That's what everyone in this thread is saying, so there's no actual argument.
I think Shambling Vents is strong, and I will play it in an Esper control deck. The lifelink is relevant, and the animation cost is nice and low.