Vault of Secrets

[Fall-Titan]

I had an idea for a brainstorm spinoff that was found in the form of an artifact.

Vault of Secrets
(1) Artifact
Vault of Secrets comes into play tapped.
(T): Sacrifice Vault of Secrets, set aside your hand until end of turn. Remove the top three cards of your library from the game. You may play 1 of those cards as though it were in your hand until end of turn.

I think its balanced enough to not be broken. You lose 2 cards out of the deal and the card you play cannot interact with cards in your hand which kind of limits cards like FOW etc. Also it takes a turn to activate. Thoughts?

[Fall-Titan]

Current Wording

Vault of Secrets
(3) Artifact
Vault of Secrets comes into play tapped.
(2)(T): Remove the top three card of your library from the game. Until the end of turn you may play with those cards as though they were in your hand. You can't play mroe than one spell this turn.

[Ephraim]

Why do you have to set aside your hand? Are you implying that if you use the Vault's ability that you won't be able to play the cards that are currently in your hand for some period of time? If so, when do you get those cards back? At the end of turn? When you play the one card of the three (what if you don't play any of them?) I also think that the "set aside" notation only works as a placeholder during the resolution of a spell or effect (see [card]Thieves' Auction[/card].) This "set aside" appears to last longer than the resolution period of the effect. Instead, you may need to remove the cards in your hand from the game as well. I agree that some penalty is necessary to ensure that digging three cards deep isn't so broken.

One possibility that changes the way this works a little bit, but which may be a little bit more elegant is this...

Vault of Secrets

Artifact

Vault of Secrets comes into played tapped.
: Remove the top three cards of your library from the game. Until end of turn, you may play those cards as though they were in your hand. You can't play more than one spell this turn.

***

This does allow you to play a land from the three removed cards and play a spell from among them. On the other hand, it imposes Rule of Law on you for using the ability. In fact, I'm pretty sure this even requires you to use the ability before casting anything else, since it would retroactively "know" that you'd played a spell this turn and would prevent you from playing a second spell.

[Fall-Titan]

Good ideas. The set aside part was in there much like the effect from a memory jar to limit the interaction between cards you reveal and your hand. I didnt want people going using a revealed force of will for free by pitching something from their hand. Your way seems to capture all that i wanted flavor wise out of the card but it is more simple and to the point.

Other than that do you think the effect is pretty neutral in its pros and cons? I realize its a universal effect that would see play in decks that run colors who cant get this effect but Divining top has shown that that is not an imposibility.

Thanks for the ideas.

[warble]

In what instance would this card be played over Divining Top?

Or do you think that Divining Top needs to be changed?  because it's too late for that.

[Ephraim]

Before he added the sacrifice, this was significantly better than Divining Top in many situations. Divining Top can have a hard time digging you out of a bad situation, because in many cases, it doesn't allow you to see more than one card deeper than you saw last time you used it. This, on the other hand, always digs three cards deeper (at least, it did when it was just a effect, rather than a /sacrifice effect.)

[Fall-Titan]

Point taken ill remove the sacrifice, I thought this card was in the gutter and wasnt expecting anymore replies but ill make the changes. Anything else?

[Jacob Orlove]

Isn't this just really cheap card drawing for decks that exhaust their hands early? Red would love this.

[rvs]

Isn't this just really cheap card drawing for decks that exhaust their hands early? Red would love this.

Indeed they would. But would it put them over the top?

[Matt]

What if it punished you if you failed to play one of the removed cards? That would be an interesting twist.

Also, it should probably cost more and then lose the CIPT.

[Fall-Titan]

How much do you mean by more?     three or two?

[Matt]

3 sounds about right.

[rvs]

How about you lose the CIPT, keep it an one, and make it sac upon use. That would definately make it less insane, but still pretty good.

[Fall-Titan]

It seems like our debate is over having it at 3 mana and a permanent structure having an effect over and over or having a 1 cost artifact that sacrifices apon use.

Its vote time lol, which way are we going with this.

[Ephraim]

I'd much rather see the more expensive, but reusable version of this card.

[Jacob Orlove]

Isn't this still really good at 3 mana? What am I missing?

[Ephraim]

The fact that even though it digs three deep, it only actually draws you one card. It doesn't fill your graveyard. If you have other spells you want to play, you can't. It can't be used the turn it comes into play.

[Fall-Titan]

I agree the sac version seems a little bland.

[LordHomerCat]

It still seems pretty insane that EVERY TURN you get 3 free cards to do what you want with (at least one will probably be a land, and if you play the other, a 1 mana artifact for +2CA for FREE EVERY TURN seems kinda good).  So you cant play spells from your hand, big deal, if the spells in your hand are worth playing, then you wont be tapping this thing.  Once you use up your hand or need to dig, 3 free cards a turn is a pretty good way to do it.  

Compare it to the top even, that nets you NO cards EVER, the best it does is even card advantage, and it takes mana to do more than trade it for the top card of your library.  You can play multiple spells with it, but if you are tapping it to draw, what are the chances you are playing multiple spells anyway (cmon, how often do you use the top to draw when you arent in a topdeck war?).  With this card, instead of looking at the top 3 and maybe drawing one, you get to pick them up, play the land, play a spell, and then see 4 more fresh cards next turn.  Seriously, this thing is insane.

edit: Oh ya, one last thing about the top.  With this thing, you get to draw a card AND see 3 more every turn for free.  If you use the top to draw, you then draw the stupid thing next turn, play it for 1 mana, use it to stack for 1 mana (because you already know the next card, and if it was good you would have drawn it last turn), and you still see a mighty ONE new card for the turn.

[Godot]

I really like this card as it has some really neat interactions/consequences, but it just feels really powerful especially in quick beatdown oriented strategies.  It feels like Cursed Scroll except it can affect the early game a lot more.  Im not exactly sure if its too powerful as it is currently, but would changing the activation cost pull the power level down(or up) too far? Something like

X, (T): Remove the top X cards of your library from the game. Until the end of turn you may play with those cards as though they were in your hand. You can't play more than one spell this turn.

Its much weaker early, but gets stronger as the game progesses and cost tempers it from being truly abusive.  The Arcane Lab clause should be enough to keep slower strategies from abusing this too heavily, but if its not you can always add in the whole 'play this ability only when you could play a sorcery' thing.

Like I said, Im not completely convinced the card is overpowered in its current form, but it just feels sooooo busted in certain strategies that I think it may need to be reined in a little bit.

[Jacob Orlove]

Wait, this is one mana? I thought you people at least agreed on three.

I still feel that it's heavily undercosted at 3, though. You get at least a card and a land out of it, or a free burn spell if you use it on their turn, PLUS you build up cards in your own hand. If you alternate using this on their turn/your turn, you get about 5-6 cards out of every two draw steps.

This seriously needs an activation cost or a casting cost increase. I don't think the two should add up to less than 6, honestly.

[Fall-Titan]

I increased it to 2 mana to activate. I feel 3 cost activation is too much seeing as how it has other drawbacks. The only other drawback i can see putting on the card is to make it sorcery speed only but thats up to you guys.

[Nazdakka]

Wait, this is one mana? I thought you people at least agreed on three.

I still feel that it's heavily undercosted at 3, though. You get at least a card and a land out of it, or a free burn spell if you use it on their turn, PLUS you build up cards in your own hand. If you alternate using this on their turn/your turn, you get about 5-6 cards out of every two draw steps.

This seriously needs an activation cost or a casting cost increase. I don't think the two should add up to less than 6, honestly.

Even with the activation cost this is miles better than Jayumdae Tome. JMD is not a good card nowadays, but it is the sort of card we should think twice about making so spectacularly obselete.

[TheWellknownBrownie]

Anyone else much prefer the original version?