Asylumn Visitor
Modern forum
Posted on May 18, 2016, 9:04 a.m. by Xica
Why is Dark Confidant so much favoured over Asylum Visitor?
she has a stronger body,
can gain first strike thanks to her tribe (so reduces the drawback of being x/1),
can draw multiple cards each turn,
causes smaller life loss
(Well she is less useful for 8-rack, but i don't get why midrange decks don't play her more often)
Because she's way less reliable. If you drop a Dark Confidant on turn 2, it'll start generating advantage on your next turn, whereas Asylum Visitor could take quite a while to draw you anything. The opponent can just sandbag a land or something to ensure that the she doesn't draw anything on their turn and it's not always possible to be able to empty your hand every turn to get her to draw anything on your turn.
May 18, 2016 9:15 a.m.
It does not need empty hand from the opponent to be usefull, please read the bloody rules text.
So she does not sees play because Jund is "the midrange", and its cards don't always generate value (sometimes best left in hand), so having her on the field is less useful than having BoB.
Noone is even slightly disturbed by the fact that BoB is the main conspirator causing Jund to fall on its face against burn?
May 18, 2016 9:22 a.m.
CallMeCrazySam says... #5
Asylum Visitor is not guaranteed value, where Bob is guaranteed value. Say you draw the extra card off Asylum and you sit with two cards in hand. They are both lands. You play one, next turn you don't get to draw an extra card whereas Bob would have let you.Also, as a turn two play, it is way more weak than Bob. Bob will draw you a card every turn whereas Asylum will sit there for awhile until you or your opponent actually has an empty hand to draw cards.
Kind of similar to Time Warp being preferable to Stitch in Time. Do you sometimes want the extra turn or do you ALWAYS want it?
May 18, 2016 9:54 a.m.
So the reason is because midrange is Jund.And Jund cannot empty its hands early game (as it removals need to be present to save his ass), it has no option but to play dark confidant. When the draw from asylum visitor becomes guaranteed its too late for Jund already.
Is it possible for Jund to get away with using multi purpose cards, that always give benefit when cast, so no need to hold them in hand?
(Aka. is it impossible, or just noone is interested in trying it out)
May 18, 2016 10:18 a.m.
The only real deck for Asylum Visitor is 8-rack where you can consistently get your hand and your opponent's hand empty. However the problem there is that you play Ensnaring Bridge there, so your Visitor will be able to attack very rarely.
May 18, 2016 10:23 a.m.
...why would be there need to force your opponents hand to be empty?
Drawing 1 extra card per turn, for 1 life is good.
(of course drawing 2 is better... but one can live without it)
For me it seemed that Asylum Visitor could be a budget alternative for Dark Confidant (only other 
card that draws per turn), and with some tweaking of the decks (having cards that generate value no matter what - so no need to hold them in hand) it could be just as good... is this impossible, or just people are lazy, or unwilling to try new and unproven? or what?
May 18, 2016 10:34 a.m.
Jund plays the best cards in RBG and the idea is the cards are useful at every stage of the game. Ideally they want to get you hellbent so while you draw a 2/1 with flash and cast a spell, they are getting 2 mana 5/6s or 3 mana answer me before i destroy your mana.
This means if you are bursting out all your cards early, you aren't keep Lili fodda back, you aren't playing around the hate or threats, and you can't extend that glorious mid-game you seek to dominate.
Bob is a card every one of your turns, and will ping you for varying amounts of life, but surprisingly often it pings you for 0 as you gain a manland or similar piece of value. It means you can start forcing 2 for 1s, or even 1 for 1s without worrying about how you can stay ahead.
Visitor, while a stronger body, isn't guaranteed. First strike is mostly irrelevant. The multiple card thing requires 2 life and both players Hellbent, meaning if they keep a card back in hand, you are likely only drawing one card or none if you need to hold back removal.
Bob is just better at what the deck wants to do. Drawing on turn 3 always is better than sometimes drawing 2 turn 7+
May 18, 2016 10:34 a.m.
If you are trying to play budget Jund. Don't. Your deck won't have the efficiency or the consistency that makes Jund run.
You are better off playing Abzan or Big Jund, with mana dorks than the smaller grindy version.
May 18, 2016 10:35 a.m.
Xica - However there will be times where you'll get a Visitor draw and your draw step of 2 lands. Then you couldn't empty your hand for another draw. That is where Dark Confidant is better because you're getting that second card regardless.
May 18, 2016 10:38 a.m.
Thanks for the answer LeaPlath
I was just really interested why the card remains unpopular, so it seems that it doesn't fit existing archetypes well, and since most people netdeck, it will not be popular anytime soon. (To be honest i am in no way sorry for that, gives me time to get some copies - of course i am not playing jund)
May 18, 2016 10:42 a.m.
JWiley129 - That's why we play fetch lands, to not allow such things to happen. Since as the game goes on fetch lands will clear the remainder of your deck from lands, thus reducing the chance of drawing land (which are quiet bad topdecks lategame).
Or at least that is the main reason why i run fetches.
May 18, 2016 10:46 a.m.
Xica - If you're running Fetchlands to thin your deck, you're doing it wrong. Fetchlands are powerful because they allow you to get any color of mana in combination with the shocklands. Either way, Bob gives you more cards more consistently than Visitor. The extra power is largely irrelevant.
May 18, 2016 10:53 a.m.
Yes they allow to color your mana.
But many other cards do that with far enough reliability.
Fetchs thin the deck late game, beside that.
(I accpeted that inconsistency of the visitor makes it a big no-no for the established jund deck, and since that's what everyone plays, no one wants it, so i am happy because for my deck its good, so i can be happy as its cheap. I was just really curious why it is not played more - but i underestimated human lazyness, and our tendency to do the established things)
May 18, 2016 10:58 a.m.
I'm sure you can come up with a deck where Asylum Visitor is better than Dark Confidant. I'm even sure you can have that deck be in Jund colors. However it won't be an archetypal Jund deck, so if you want to explore that avenue you're more than welcome to do so.
Also, I can't stretch this enough, running fetches to thin your deck is wrong. The statistical advantage you get from thinning only shows up after thousands of draws. Do not run fetchlands simply because you want to thin your deck. Run them because they are the best lands at getting the colors you want. Not because of some incredibly marginal effect that makes you feel good inside.
May 18, 2016 11:08 a.m.
JWiley129
I would advertise the following site, as it helps deck building for the mathematically challenged & lazy (incl. myself):
With 6 fetches your chances of having 1 or more in your opening hand is 54,14% and after the 5th turn are 75,48% (assuming you don't draw extra card, just draw in your draw step)
With 8 fetches your chances are 65,35% in your opening hand, and 85,25% on your 5th turn (50,71% of having 2 fetches at the fifth turn).
This basically translates to playing a deck below 20 lands after the 5th turn (as each drawn fetch counts as 2 lands drawn).
So no, it shows up easily, no need for thousands of draws. It shows up quiet easily, and very noticeably. (and the more fetches you have the more pronounced the effect is, so its good to have fetches up to the number of basic lands in your deck.)
May 18, 2016 11:27 a.m.
I think Asylum Visitor's optimal home is something like an AEther Vial aggro deck that pumps out its creatures quickly, and can then lean on the Visitor for a refuel. In a sense, it'd be playing a similar role to Silvergill Adept in Merfolk (though not quite as expendable once resolved). Combine that with some cheap removal that you can get out of your hand quickly, and that should be a decent deck.
I don't think you should compare it to Dark Confidant from the value perspective, as Bob will be better value than this ever will. However, as an aggro creature that can get you value on the side, it has a nice little niche.
May 18, 2016 11:33 a.m. Edited.
Xica - Oh friend, you know not what wrath you have wrought. The numbers are not in your favor.
There are 4 links, by the way.
May 18, 2016 11:34 a.m.
averagenovice74 says... #20
Like why is this even a thing? Blood Scrivener is bad fit in JUND and Asylum Visitor is basically that. Conditions the require set-up for card advantage is rarely a good thing and having your hand empty is very conditional especially in midrange.
May 18, 2016 11:37 a.m.
JWiley129
Well the links just show what i said. Your deck will be thinner in the end by 1 or 2 cards, if you play 6-8 fetches. This equates to +4/5% chance of drawing a spell not a land.
We could argue what poker players, or really smart guys would do, but hoestly i don't care.
I am completly happy to trade 1-2 life for +4/5% chance of drawing a non-land card at the 5th turn (since i have options to gain life). Of course this may or may not be worth it for everyone.But i like to take this effect into account when building decks.
(But that maybe just my MMORPG player background... there one really learns to appreciate a few +% chances.)
P.s.: If you try to convince someone:
1# Stick to facts. Bulshitting like "The statistical advantage you get from thinning only shows up after thousands of draws." will convince people that you have no idea what you are talking about.
2# Showing mathematical proofs is lot more convincing, than hyping up people "The problem with Mathemagics, however, was that normal kids werent as smart as Professor Benjamin. Benjamin was a really smart guy. Really smart. ".
Showing your emotional investment is a very bad idea, since such attitudes have a great correlation with being biased.
3# Last but not least it's a good idea to cite sources that prove your point, not undecisive discussions, and articles that do the opposite.
May 18, 2016 12:03 p.m.
Xica - I'm sorry, but are you reading the same articles I am? Because they are all refuting your claim.
You are claiming that fetchlands provide deck thinning and that's good enough to run them. However the articles all state that the deck thinning is negligible and not worth it. The life/cost ratio is not in your favor over the long-game.
Now to your points:
Heuristics are a reasonable way to approach topics, and while they lose accuracy, they still work. They lose their efficacy to hard numbers, but they still get the meaning across
In two of my links they had exact numbers and worked through the proof. As someone with a B.S. in Mathematics and a published paper to my name, I know how proofs work.
I did cite sources that proved my point.
May 18, 2016 12:33 p.m.
This is actually pretty well-established - you run fetches to increase your chances at getting the colors you need, not to "thin the deck". That effect is very minimal.
May 18, 2016 12:48 p.m.
You run fetch lands in mono colour for a number of reasons.
Brainstorm. Sensei's Top. Counterbalance. Easier enabling of delve and threshold and similar effects. Ponder.
Even then the none Brainstorm ones are minimal.
Deck thinning equates to 4 life and 4 fetches to "draw" a card on turn 20. Which is awful except in aggro. And aggro is dead by turn 20.
Run them to fix mana. Thinning and stuff is a rare bonus over thousands of games.
May 18, 2016 1:21 p.m.
UpperDeckerTaco says... #25
You're high if you think Asylum Visitor is better than "BOB".
May 18, 2016 1:24 p.m.
JWiley129
The problem caused by life loss need to be determined in context to a deck.
For Jund that bleeds itself from a thousand wounds already, its not worth it.
My only life loss is caused by lands, while i have plenty of lifelinker creatures, some with extort, and spells that heal me. So i will not bleed myself out.
So lets take a deck with 6 fetches as example.
we will have the following chances:
~24,51% 0 fetches
~41,04% 1 fetch
~25,56% 2 fetches
~08,79% 3 or more fetches
(until the 5th end step without extra draws)
the deck has 23 lands, so 38,33%, at the fifth end step this will mean 15,33 lands in the remaining deck, with fetches drawn it will mean 14,33 (1), 13,33 (2), 12,33 (3+) lands remaining in the deck. This corresponds to the following land % in the remaining deck: 35,83% (1), 33,33% (2), 30,83% (3+), which means the following increases in non-land cards:
2,5% - 1 fetch drawn
5% - 2 fetches drawn
7,5% - fetches drawn (i am lazy, so i will use this for the probability of lands even if we draw more than 3 fetches)
From this we can draw a crude approximation that will be a bit smaller than the actual chance.The weighted average will give ~2,96% increase in drawing a non-land card after turn 5 (its possible i missed the correct term, i am not native english speaker)
(was this sloppy? yes. But it believe it proved my point, having fetches means a visible increase in drawing non-land card in the late game after turn 5. the more fetches one has, and the longer the game goes on, the more pronounced the effect is.)
You still didn't do anything concrete.
(Beside stating qualifications)
And your original "The statistical advantage you get from thinning only shows up after thousands of draws." seems just false. At least you could admit that your estimation, was false. That happens to everyone.
Lets end this discussion here. I think we derailed the topic enough, and the question has been long before answered.
May 18, 2016 1:36 p.m.
UpperDeckerTaco
Good for me it seems, i am high even without drugs. :)
May 18, 2016 1:37 p.m.
mathimus55 says... #28
5% > 2.96%. As in, the percentage of life lost is nearly double the percentage of chances gained to draw a nonland card. This is all very hypothetical and is a constant "what-if" that is being presented.
In my Bushwhacker Zoo deck I run a fair amount of fetches, but the main goal isn't to thin my deck but to make sure that my Wild Nacatl is a 3/3 ASAP, not to make sure that 1 out of every 200 draws is a land. If you flood out on mana, you later then slow roll them and bluff a threat, removal, counter or whatever.
Conversely, in my merfolk deck I run a whopping 0 fetches. Not because I don't want my deck thinned, but because one of the great things about running a mono colored deck vs Jund for example is that I save 5+ life compared to my opponent in most games. That means because I'm not running fetches I automatically put my opponent at a 25% handicap in some matches. It's a calling card of Merfoln decks having that advantage of NOT NEEDING TO FETCH.
Now then, can you accounting and numbers nerds stop being so needy so we can get back to talking about pieces of cardboard?
May 18, 2016 2:30 p.m.
5% > 2,96%, tru, but:
Games often go longer than 6 turns, people play draw and filter spells.
Players can run more than 6 fetch lands.
For aggro decks, or decks with huge potential life loss (like, Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet
+
Dark Confidant
, its clearly a bad option.
Tell me why is it bad for souls sisters (or any other deck with life gain)
May 18, 2016 3:03 p.m.
In the case of Soul Sisters, it's because they have a better option for the job. Flagstones of Trokair mostly does the same thing while costing no life.
In the case of decks like Merfolk, it's because it doesn't materially advance the odds of drawing a nonland card. Your math takes a couple of shortcuts and still comes up with a number short of 3%. It might not be "thousands of draws", as was claimed above, but it will more than likely be dozens, and by then matches have come and gone. It's much more likely that you'll need the 1-2 points of life you coughed up during those matches than you are to need a nonland card and come up with a land that a fetch would have "thinned away". Having to deal 20 damage is one of the major reasons Burn is considered to have a bad matchup against Merfolk, for example. Additionally, there are decks with disruptive effects out there (such as Leonin Arbiter or even Shadow of Doubt) that make fetches feel pretty bad.
May 18, 2016 3:10 p.m. Edited.
mathimus55 says... #31
Yea...that doesn't really further your argument much. It's just circular logic and unrelated variables you're trying to force to fit the argument...
And nobody said Asylum Visitor was bad for Soul Sisters. You were just drawing a direct comparison to Dark Confidant to which people gave thorough and researched rebuttals to Bob being the superior card for the specific Jund midrange deck. They also encouraged you to find a deck where Asylum Visitor might be good in there so you can jam your cheap copies. It might be soul sisters. So make the deck and let us know what you think. There wasn't anyone sidling your creativity, only showing your direct comparison to Bob was a poor one. Then the life loss tangent ensued, where we will have to agree to disagree.
May 18, 2016 3:14 p.m.
Yeah, no matter how much you gear your deck toward taking advantage of it, Asylum Visitor will never be as consistently valuable as Dark Confidant from the card advantage perspective. The way to go if you ask me is to suit it up with some first strike (courtesy of Stromkirk Captain) and have it lay down some beats while refueling your hand after you Vial in a bunch of guys.
May 18, 2016 3:17 p.m. Edited.
APPLE01DOJ says... #34
I run both Dark Confidant and Asylum Visitor in the same deck and they work quite well. Asylum Visitor is a better beat stick and it's quite nice to draw cards on the opponents turn. (especially while looking for removal) but Dark Confidant is more consistent and while it may sound odd, you can survive off Bob longer than you can Visitor.
Ummm WHAT?!?! Attack of the Bobs!
Modern*
SCORE: 1 | 2 COMMENTS | 215 VIEWS
May 18, 2016 3:32 p.m.
Just thought I'd pick up on the fact that you accused Dark Confidant of causing Jund to suffer against Burn. Jund doesn't suffer that badly against burn and even if it did it wouldn't be because of Dark Confidant
May 18, 2016 4:49 p.m.
Xica Why are you being so hostile and hell bent on making Visitor good?
May 18, 2016 5:34 p.m.
McSleuthburger says... #37
I mean Asylum Visitor's cloak w/ hood game is on point
rothgar13 says... #2
Because you or your opponent needing to be hellbent in order to get your draw is one heck of a weakness. Bob's purpose is to overwhelm your opponent in card advantage, and that usually makes him a "deal with me or lose" proposition. Asylum Visitor requires setup in order to yield its benefit, and is therefore nowhere near as threatening. The body is also close to irrelevant in Jund midrange, who will not play Stromkirk Captain (too fragile and useless on its own) and is going to close out games with some combination of Huntmaster of the Fells Flip, Scavenging Ooze, Tarmogoyf, or Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet.
May 18, 2016 9:09 a.m. Edited.