Tower of Fortunes

Artifact

{8}, {T}: Draw four cards.

Legality

Format	Legality
1v1 Commander	Legal
Archenemy	Legal
Block Constructed	Legal
Canadian Highlander	Legal
Casual	Legal
Commander / EDH	Legal
Commander: Rule 0	Legal
Custom	Legal
Duel Commander	Legal
Highlander	Legal
Legacy	Legal
Leviathan	Legal
Limited	Legal
Modern	Legal
Modern Beyond Horizons	Legal
Oathbreaker	Legal
Planar Constructed	Legal
Planechase	Legal
Quest Magic	Legal
Vanguard	Legal
Vintage	Legal

Discussion (49)

TypicalTimmy on How do you evaluate split …

1 week ago

It's a matter of determining strategic value vs immediate value. If you want to play and cast Tower of Fortunes on a single turn, that's 12 mana. For 12 mana, you could do far more and in many cases even win the game or, at the very least, knock an opponent out of the game.

By that metric it's a terrible card. There are far cheaper ways to get 4 cards in hand, although this does come with the benefit of being colorless so it could potentially work in a deck that is limited on mana options such as mono white.

That said, it's also a good setup and bait piece. You could drop it as early as Turn 2 in some circumstances with most times being dropped at 3 or 4. Once there it'll sit with a board presence doing nothing. Against trigger happy opponents, it's a prime removal target which baits that removal out of their hand.

In late stages, it's a great option to have sitting around. Look, realistically speaking we have all been there. You've got 15 mana on the board and a hand full of nothing. If it's there, why not use it? Pop it off on their end step, then on your upkeep. Now, with your draw, you've got 9 additional cards in hand to try and dig for an answer.

So to answer your question, it depends on intent.

If your intent is to look toward immediate use, it's terrible.

If your intent is as a bait, it's okay.

If your intent is to dig yourself out of a hole later, it's invaluable. Because if you're in a hole and you have the option to be dug out or sit in there and be buried alive, I'll take the shovel anytime.

---

That said, it's also a case by case basis. What I just outlined for Tower may not be applicable for other cards.

So it depends, ultimately, on what your deck seeks to accomplish.

And moreso and just as important, your local meta. We often forget that aspect of the game because we are so caught up on hyper fixating on stats for online decks. But you're likely not seeing those decks IRL in your LGS. Your local meta likely is far different than online.

Online meta has the benefit of costing nothing so we can all build the idealized deck. But the real world has rent, utilities, low hours for work, debt, kids, etc. Most people can't afford their $3,400 deck so they settle for a $600 budget version. Nothing wrong with that, other than that is the reality.

So if you are up against a budget meta where games go into 15 turns, yeah Tower isn't actually terrible anymore.

So, like with all things... It depends.

Idoneity on How do you evaluate split …

1 week ago

When I was initially introduced into the game of Magic, I was taught to evaluate cards based on how much mana they demanded before they did their thing. Air Elemental costs five mana, Brimaz costs three, and Tower of Fortunes costs twelve.

Tower of Fortunes is an undoubtedly terrible card, but it isn't twelve mana; it's eight and then four. Burnished Hart is readily dismissed as "six mana ramp" despite its desired effect being split across its cast and activation.

I have been re-evaluating how I perceive cards with split costs, as the typical intuition of adding it all together hasn't exactly felt accurate. This intuition neglects the fact that cards often take their time over the course of the game. It has moreover led to many cards being naturally excluded from any consideration in the first place. As for a card I (and many others) have come around on, I initially dismissed Wayfarer's Bauble as three-mana ramp and never bothered to try it. I now consider it s staple in non-green commander lists.

Personally, I don't think the additive measure of cost is fluid enough for the game of Magic. There is too much going on for it to be quantified by a single number. I've been using cumulative mana across turns to consider costs in a way that feels more fluid. (Turn one provides one mana, turn two brings that to three mana, turn three brings it to six mana, etc...) This feels better but still imperfect.

How do you evaluate split costs? Do you think that the additive system is good enough as it or do we need something more fluid to more accurately measure a card's power? What do you think?

DreadKhan on Which is More Important: Total …

3 weeks ago

In my limited experience, most decks want it's 'key pieces' to be as low to the ground as possible, this is why Night's Whisper is a very good card, it works in hands where you are short of key resources (but not so short that you couldn't risk the hand), and it's still completely worth playing if you draw it fairly late in the game; drawing 2 cards is almost universally a good thing, and only paying 1B to do it means you can either play it early or play it late and follow it up with something you drew. In contrast a card like Tower of Fortunes is a trap in almost every list because you need to input a grand total of 12 mana to draw ANY cards, meaning it's a dead card until you can generate 8 mana in one turn. That makes the card a lot worse in practice, since every game has early turns and only some games go long enough for Tower to really shine.

The same is true about ramping, something like Utopia Sprawl (or Crop Rotation might fit better lol) is incredibly efficient, it can be played turn 1 in many games and if it's drawn late it's literally mana neutral, making it a 'free roll' in decks that can count on having a Forest early. In contrast Explosive Vegetation is unplayable turn 1 in almost any situation, ditto for turn 2, and you will need to have ramped to play it by turn 3. This means that if you're stuck on 2 lands something like Farseek could find you a key land but Explosive Veggies will just sit there making you feel stupid. This makes Explosive Veggies a relatively unimpressive card, and that's why you don't see as much ramp that costs more than 3 (and many Spikey players hate paying more than 2 for ramp), it plays a lot worse in hands that would otherwise be keeps, and they can actually cost you games.

In contrast though there are 'value cards' (usually MV 4-6), these aren't necessarily going to win the game by themselves but these are important in metas that don't expect anyone to win too early. These types of cards can cost more mana because they're doing a lot, but most deck builders quickly realize you can only include so many of this type of card, specifically because they WILL clog your early hands. These types of cards drive up your average MV, most people like something in the 2.5-3.5 range (most prefer lower fwiw). It's worth noting that spells that cost 7-10 mana are often WAY more powerful, but most of these aren't necessary to win games, and due to their sky high MV these are even worse about clogging your hand. People are generally fine with Expropriate from a power level perspective, even if many find it boring, but I think a plurality of decks that are power level 7 and up eschew big mana stuff because they don't need it, if you can win with Rite of the Raging Storm then you don't need Expropriate. In cEDH people actually skew even lower on MVs, especially Ad Nauseam lists, and it turns out it's very possible to win games using almost nothing but MV 2 and under stuff, and unsurprisingly these incredibly fast and low to the ground win cons are the most powerful.

Ultimately the less resources you need to put into an effect the better that effect. It's equally true that all things being equal doing the exact same thing a turn earlier is MUCH better, and it keeps getting better each turn sooner (in an exponential manner). The complication for me is that cards aren't very equal, and it's actually possible to build decks that assiduously ignore all of the conventions I mentioned here (my Pavel Maliki deck has 17 5 drops and an average MV of 4.20, while my Sunastian Falconer deck has a gobsmacking MV of 5.35, both are functional decks IMHO) if you simply run better cards that have relatively high MVs, and run enough of them that you will consistently have one or more to choose from. The Pavel deck happily runs some stuff like Omen of Fire that can be completely dead because the deck can usually afford to have dead cards and still be a threat, and the Sunastian deck runs some pretty derpy 'big' creatures, many aren't even cost effective, it just doesn't matter because if you have enough huge creatures it doesn't matter if you paid extra for them, they're still huge creatures that will stomp the opponent into gravy! In effect both decks win the games they win via scale, Pavel tends to have a lot of cards that trade for multiple cards, and Sunastian's effects are often so bulky that they just go right over other decks.

Even in 1v1 some of my weird Legacy decks sneak in some pretty high MV cards, and often these cards can steal games when I'm in topdeck mode (in Legacy anything over MV 2 is considered 'really high' fwiw), even if they cost me a few when I draw terribly and have 5 3 drops in my first 9 cards and I scoop. Ball Lightning is a really bad card by many metrics, but if you playtest a Burn deck in throw one or two in they WILL steal the odd game due to card efficiency (Burn's biggest problem has always been running out of Bolts).

DemonDragonJ on Which is More Important: Total …

3 weeks ago

I often wonder which is more important for a card: its overall cost or its cost-to-effect ratio (i.e., its mana efficiency); for example, there is no question that Lightning Bolt is superior to both Shock and Searing Spear, but, between the other two cards, I would choose Shock over Searing Spear in the majority of situations, because Shock has a ratio of 2 damage for 1 mana, whereas Searing Spear has a ratio of 1.5 damage for 1 mana.

For a slightly more complicated example, compare Eladamri's Call to Shared Summons; the former card can find a creature for a mere 2 mana, which is very efficient, but it simply replaces one card in its controller's hand with another, whereas the latter card can search for two creatures, which leaves its caster with an additional card in hand, compared to before it is cast, but it is less efficient, costing 2.5 mana per creature found, so it is not as clear which card is superior, there.

Opportunity is literally a double version of Quick Study, as they both have the same ratio of cost to effect, but which is the superior card? Is it really better to spend six mana to draw four cards, as doing that would leave the caster with less mana to cast the spells that they draw? Also, Quick Study is strictly better than is Inspiration, as it costs 1 less mana to cast, but, between Concentrate and Tidings, I am not certain which is superior, since they both allow a player to draw one less card than their mana values.

On the subject of card drawing, in the realm of repeatable card drawing, Arcane Encyclopedia is strictly better than is Jayemdae Tome, as it costs only 3 mana to draw a single card, compared to 4, but Tower of Fortunes can draw four cards for 8 mana, which is a ratio of 2 mana per card, but that ability costs 8 mana, overall, so the question is if it is worth 8 mana to draw four cards.

Continuing that theme, there are numerous creatures (and one enchantment) that allow a player to repeatedly draw cards, such as Azure Mage, Spectral Sailor, Faerie Mastermind, Triskaidekaphile, or Treasure Trove, a ratio of 4 mana for one card, but Mystic Archaeologist can draw 2 two cards for 5 mana, a ratio of 2.5 mana per card, which is definitely far superior, in my mind.

Hedron Archive is literally two Mind Stones put together, and Dreamstone Hedron is literally a triple Mind Stone, so they all have the same cost-to-effect ratio, but I prefer the original Mind Stone, since the existence of Thran Dynamo and Gilded Lotus makes it difficult to justify using the other mana rocks, at least, for me.

To use the example of Skyward Eye Prophets, a 1/1 creature for 2 mana is perfectly acceptable, a 2/2 creature for 4 mana is slightly expensive, but nothing outrageous, but a 3/3 creature for 6 mana is simply too much, although, as a side note, I have a copy of that creature, in one of my decks, because I really like its ability.

For a further example, I would choose Mantis Rider over Lightning Angel in the majority of situations, since it provides a better rate than does the angel, and, similarly, I would choose Wilt-Leaf Cavaliers over Vernadi Shieldmate, since the former creature is more efficient for its cost.

I believe that I have provided a sufficient number of examples, for this discussion, so which trait do you believe is more important: overall mana cost or cost-to-effect ratio/mana efficiency? I certainly am interested to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Profet93 on Hold your colour

10 months ago

Colorless draw is difficult. Endless Atlas but I don't think it would help. I think it just comes with the territory. Other draw would be very costly and expensive CMC wise. Tower of Fortunes, maybe a Trading Post?

I usually prefer artifact ramp over dork ramp because they are slightly harder to remove. I wouldn't add helm of awakening, I believe Cloud Key or Semblance Anvil would be a better fit should you need it.

Side Note: Swap out like 7+ wastes for nonbasics to add utility in the mana base.

Eldrazis....

Desolation Twin - 2x 10/10's, eh it's something

Emrakul, the World Anew - Interesting. I actually want to add this to one of my creatureless decks, I'm unsure of how it would work here. All the more reason to focus on artifact > creature ramp should this be added. Definitely worth trying out.

It That Heralds the End - Anthem + Ramp, definitely worth a spot

Matter Reshaper - Card draw/value

Pathrazer of Ulamog/Ulamog's Crusher - Eh, annihilator is always nice

Thought-Knot Seer - Can target 2 different opponents for each section. Worth considering

I can give you ideas of cuts should you need. Hope this all helps!

mattzim666 on Muzzio, Visionary architect

3 years ago

Some cards which I think should be cut because I think they are not too great or have fallen out of love with them are: Inkwell Leviathan, Jhoira's Toolbox, Myr Battlesphere, Myr Enforcer, Scarecrone, Willbender, Brittle Effigy, Darksteel Ingot, Dreamstone Hedron, Lux Cannon (unless you have a way of getting counters more quickly), Staff of Nin, Tower of Fortunes, Trading Post, Dismiss, Dissipate, and Dream Fracture.

NorinTheWise on Norin's ETB Extravaganza

4 years ago

Profet93

Thanks for all the awesome suggestions, you got me back into hardcore brewing mode! I have been workshopping this deck for a long time and am excited about the direction it has taken. Although the deck could be slightly more consistent without it, I am proud of how well the decks sub theme of playing other peoples cards is integrated.

First off, I dove head long into solving the card draw problem. I added your suggestions: Hedron Archive, Outpost Siege, Arch of Orazca, and Humble Defector. I also took on the card draw challenge by changing the deck up a little bit and going big mana/artifact. I added cards like Thran Dynamo, Hedron Archive, Curse of Opulence, and Ugin, the Ineffable. (Ugin can be a powerhouse in this deck with almost half the spells being colorless.) With having more mana I added spells like The Immortal Sun and Tower of Fortunes which can now be played and/or activated far earlier than their respective curve.

Personally I am not a fan of Plainswalkers as a whole in the game of MtG. I don't like the way they slow down the game. I added Ugin mainly for his passive ability, with the bonus of his card draw, but otherwise have shied away from plainswalkers in most of my decks. Thus, Chandra, Torch of Defiance isn't really my cup of tea. I even opted for The Immortal Sun instead of Staff of Nin in order to shut down others plainswalkers.

I added Buried Ruin, it was a great reccomendation.

I have opted away from Goblin Matron since I have very few Goblins and it feels more situational in that case.

I have been debating Flametongue Kavu since the beginning but just couldn't figure out what I wanted to get rid of to add it. But with all of the positive feedback I have seen on that card I am finally hopping on the bandwagon!

I am still debating Volcanic Offering. I think it will depend on my playgroup more than anything. Kind of a side board card for me.

Your Norin deck is fantastic as well, I enjoyed looking it over. I will right a few suggestions I have in the comments soon!

Cheers!

Anarkhy on Urza, Ugin, Eldrazi

4 years ago

I managed to get my hands on Grim Monolith and Mana Crypt, and looking to sub those two cards in, along with Voltaic Key, and Tower of Fortunes.

Any help would be greatly appreciated