Oneiromancy - The Autoinclude Problem

[1990BW]

To my view, cards like Oneiromancy — at any price — are bad for the game. And comparing them to any of the myriad of other unhealthy tutors (Royal Decree, Land of a Thousand Fables, Geralt Quen, Call of the Forest, Avallac’h Sage, Amphibious Assault, Blood Eagle, Roderick of Dun Tynne, Whispering Hillock, John Natalis, Ermion, Ge’els, Menno Coehoorn, Vabjorn, Whisperess: Tribute, Fauve, Ferko the Sculptor) is not meaningful.

The tutors you mention here all have an condition, the majority require a deck to support them and they are quite expensive provision wise.
Oneiromancy doesn't have any of these downsides except it has higher provision costs BUT due to echo effect this doesn't matter.

In the posts above I see a lot discussion about rating the cards value in points in all sorts of complex ways.
You've got to rate this card in provisions Oneirmancy is worth 20 when you compare it to similar tutors:

Royal degree for an unit
Land of thousand fables for a spell
Avalach sage for an artifact

 

[InkognitoXI]

The tutors you mention here all have an condition, the majority require a deck to support them and they are quite expensive provision wise.
Oneiromancy doesn't have any of these downsides except it has higher provision costs BUT due to echo effect this doesn't matter.

In the posts above I see a lot discussion about rating the cards value in points in all sorts of complex ways.
You've got to rate this card in provisions Oneirmancy is worth 20 when you compare it to similar tutors:

Royal degree for an unit
Land of thousand fables for a spell
Avalach sage for an artifact

Disagreed, just doubling provision costs is describing Oneiromancy just as well as saying "Shaping Nature is an unconditional 20 for 9, this is game-breaking".
You have to take into consideration that you do not play Echos in one move, they take the spot of 2 cards and if you take into consideration that cards should be evaluated by the upside of paying beyond the minimal cost of 4p you will quickly realize that Oneiromancy costs 9 additional provisions, while cards like Royal Decree cost 6 additional provisions.
So if you really want Oneiromancy to be as provision expensive as the above 10p tutors it would need to cost 12 additional provisions and as such 16 provisions in total.
The equivalent to a single use of Oneiromancy is a tutor, which costs half the additional provisions, i.e. 9/2 and as such 4.5 => a single use of Oneiromancy is an 8.5 provision expensive tutor (which is admittedly significantly cheaper than Decree).

 

[DC9V]

Either remove the ECHO, or make it 17 provisions.

The Squirrel can cancel the Echo.

Someone already came up with the perfect fix for Oneiromancy and the rest of the other Echo cards a while ago in one of the other threads: make the second use be like an actual echo, as in a weaker version of the original. For example, Oneiromancy could choose any card from your deck when it's first used, but its Echo could only choose a Bronze card.

Unfortunately, I don't think any positive changes are coming with regard to the Echos. The best anyone can hope for is that they make Oneiromancy cost 1 or 2 more provisions. Even if they do occasionally fix individual cards, CDPR doesn't really ever address broken mechanics (see Defenders and Scenarios).

Pulling bronzes in R3? I don't know...


I think the card is fine.

 

[1990BW]

Disagreed, just doubling provision costs is describing Oneiromancy just as well as saying "Shaping Nature is an unconditional 20 for 9, this is game-breaking".

Sorry I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

You have to take into consideration that you do not play Echos in one move, they take the spot of 2 cards and if you take into consideration that cards should be evaluated by the upside of paying beyond the minimal cost of 4p you will quickly realize that Oneiromancy costs 9 additional provisions, while cards like Royal Decree cost 6 additional provisions.
So if you really want Oneiromancy to be as provision expensive as the above 10p tutors it would need to cost 12 additional provisions and as such 16 provisions in total.
The equivalent to a single use of Oneiromancy is a tutor, which costs half the additional provisions, i.e. 9/2 and as such 4.5 => a single use of Oneiromancy is an 8.5 provision expensive tutor (which is admittedly significantly cheaper than Decree).

Like I said before the numbers don't matter they only make things over complicated/impossible to compare.
For instance tutors like these should NEVER be used for playing low(est) provision cards but something like Oneirmancy is in some situations an exception.
If you didn't draw it in R1 but in R2 but this round didn't really got contested for whatever reason than it's possible to play something bad from your deck.
Also Oneiromancy thins twice while degree does once unless you tutor another tutor card (but that doesn't make sense )
What you also should consider is that the Echo card becomes a top deck in the next round (unless it gets squirreled).
You can play any card from your deck twice with something like Royal degree, Land of thousands fables etc. etc. you can only do this once.

These are the reasons (almost guarenteed top deck etc.) why Oneiromancy should be rated as 20 provisions of value.
Maybe you didn't spend that amount of provisions with Oneirmancy but that has nothing to do with the ability
You still played 2 Royal degree's or whatever type of card you'd tutor.
In the end if you do this without an Echo card you need to spend 2x 10 provisions to do the same thing.

 

[InkognitoXI]

Sorry I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
[...].

I am saying that this argument of just doubling the full provision cost would only make sense if the lowest provision cards would cost 0 provisions and you do not correct your calculation for that, so just doubling the provision cost on what you assume one use should cost majorly skews the image.

[...]
Like I said before the numbers don't matter they only make things over complicated/impossible to compare.
[...]

I do not get this point, you claim the numbers do not matter and should not be considered, only to then go for the naive (and wrong approach) of just doubling.

[...]
For instance tutors like these should NEVER be used for playing low(est) provision cards but something like Oneirmancy is in some situations an exception.
If you didn't draw it in R1 but in R2 but this round didn't really got contested for whatever reason than it's possible to play something bad from your deck.
[...]

If anything that is an argument why Oneiromancy should cost less, given that using it can be more awkward and less flexible.

[...]
Also Oneiromancy thins twice while degree does once unless you tutor another tutor card (but that doesn't make sense )
What you also should consider is that the Echo card becomes a top deck in the next round (unless it gets squirreled).
[...]

I do consider this, however if you compare Oneiromancy to including 2 10p tutors (which in this example would each do the same as an individual use of Oneiromancy) you only need to draw Oneiromancy once, however the propability of drawing Oneiromancy is significantly lower than drawing 1 of the 10p tutors, on the other hand drawing it means that you will be able to thin to more likely draw the other.
If you draw Oneiromancy you get both uses, however the consistency on drawing it in the first place is lower, so I would argue both situations are about even.

[...]
You can play any card from your deck twice with something like Royal degree, Land of thousands fables etc. etc. you can only do this once.
[...]

I am assuming you wanted to say "cannot play any card from your deck twice".
Again, in this case Oneiromancy should be even to 2 such tutors, which is what is being evaluated and a fair comparison.

[...]
These are the reasons (almost guarenteed top deck etc.) why Oneiromancy should be rated as 20 provisions of value.
Maybe you didn't spend that amount of provisions with Oneirmancy but that has nothing to do with the ability
You still played 2 Royal degree's or whatever type of card you'd tutor.
In the end if you do this without an Echo card you need to spend 2x 10 provisions to do the same thing.

First you claim numbers do not matter and then you just slap a more or less unfounded number on the provision cost ?
A number that you gave no arguments for, why it should be this number and not 19 or 21 ?
And again, the "Decree costs 10p => A card that can be played twice doing that should cost twice of that" is a flawed argument.
You pay 6 additional provisions, on top of the bare minimum you are forced to include in that cards spot (4p), so Decree costs 6 additional provisions for its use and as such Oneiromancy should cost the same additional provisions, in total 2*6=12 additional provisions and thus 16 provisions.
Unless you consider the statement you made above that Oneiromancy can play for significantly less if it is forced into an uncompeted round to still be played twice.
If anything with that argument it should cost 16 - 1 = 15 provisions to account for that weakness.


Edit:

[...]
Also Oneiromancy thins twice while degree does once unless you tutor another tutor card (but that doesn't make sense )
[...]

I actually overlooked this, however Oneiromancy thins only once overall, given that you remove 2 cards from your deck, however also prevent yourself from drawing 1 card from your deck, given the Echo topdecking, so Oneiromancy overall only thins your deck by 2 - 1 = 1.


Edit II: In case you still consider it unintuitive you have to start with the base consideration by which deckbuilding functions:
You start wth 25 4p cards and have 50 + leader provisions to upgrade your cards. The only really important part of deckbuidling is how you spend those upgrade provisions.

 

[1990BW]

Sorry I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
[...].

I am saying that this argument of just doubling the full provision cost would only make sense if the lowest provision cards would cost 0 provisions and you do not correct your calculation for that, so just doubling the provision cost on what you assume one use should cost majorly skews the image.

Rating an tutor by it's minimum target just isn't correct.

1990BW said:


[...]
Like I said before the numbers don't matter they only make things over complicated/impossible to compare.
[...]

I do not get this point, you claim the numbers do not matter and should not be considered, only to then go for the naive (and wrong approach) of just doubling.

No it really doesn't the equivalent is what matters here.
If for example Royal degree, land of thousand fables etc. would each cost 7 provision costs they would be much closer to Oneiro.
They match more or less provision wise but have a slight advantage in draw rate being spread over 2 cards.
But still Oneirmancy still holds it's indisputable advantages: play any type of card & echo top deck.

1990BW said:


[...]
For instance tutors like these should NEVER be used for playing low(est) provision cards but something like Oneirmancy is in some situations an exception.
If you didn't draw it in R1 but in R2 but this round didn't really got contested for whatever reason than it's possible to play something bad from your deck.
[...]

If anything that is an argument why Oneiromancy should cost less, given that using it can be more awkward and less flexible.

1990BW said:


[...]
Also Oneiromancy thins twice while degree does once unless you tutor another tutor card (but that doesn't make sense )
What you also should consider is that the Echo card becomes a top deck in the next round (unless it gets squirreled).
[...]

I do consider this, however if you compare Oneiromancy to including 2 10p tutors (which in this example would each do the same as an individual use of Oneiromancy) you only need to draw Oneiromancy once, however the propability of drawing Oneiromancy is significantly lower than drawing 1 of the 10p tutors, on the other hand drawing it means that you will be able to thin to more likely draw the other.
If you draw Oneiromancy you get both uses, however the consistency on drawing it in the first place is lower, so I would argue both situations are about even.

No this no reason to rate a card lower this could happen with any tutor
It's called RNG

1990BW said:


[...]
You can play any card from your deck twice with something like Royal degree, Land of thousands fables etc. etc. you can only do this once.
[...]

I am assuming you wanted to say "cannot play any card from your deck twice".
Again, in this case Oneiromancy should be even to 2 such tutors, which is what is being evaluated and a fair comparison.

Nope this sentence is more related to Oneirmancy advantage over 10p tutors

[...]
These are the reasons (almost guarenteed top deck etc.) why Oneiromancy should be rated as 20 provisions of value.
Maybe you didn't spend that amount of provisions with Oneirmancy but that has nothing to do with the ability
You still played 2 Royal degree's or whatever type of card you'd tutor.
In the end if you do this without an Echo card you need to spend 2x 10 provisions to do the same thing.

First you claim numbers do not matter and then you just slap a more or less unfounded number on the provision cost ?
A number that you gave no arguments for, why it should be this number and not 19 or 21 ?
And again, the "Decree costs 10p => A card that can be played twice doing that should cost twice of that" is a flawed argument.
You pay 6 additional provisions, on top of the bare minimum you are forced to include in that cards spot (4p), so Decree costs 6 additional provisions for its use and as such Oneiromancy should cost the same additional provisions, in total 2*6=12 additional provisions and thus 16 provisions.
Unless you consider the statement you made above that Oneiromancy can play for significantly less if it is forced into an uncompeted round to still be played twice.
If anything with that argument it should cost 16 - 1 = 15 provisions to account for that weakness.

Nope these are not unfounded numbers like I already explained they are based on equivalents

1990BW said:


[...]
Also Oneiromancy thins twice while degree does once unless you tutor another tutor card (but that doesn't make sense )
[...]

I actually overlooked this, however Oneiromancy thins only once overall, given that you remove 2 cards from your deck, however also prevent yourself from drawing 1 card from your deck, given the Echo topdecking, so Oneiromancy overall only thins your deck by 2 - 1 = 1.

Yes correct due to Echo you add 1 card to your deck

 

[InkognitoXI]

Rating an tutor by it's minimum target just isn't correct.
[...]

I am not rating a tutor by it's minimum target, I am taking into consideration that by Echoing Oneiromancy you draw it instead of another card and as such the value of Oneiromancy, after the Echo, is the difference in value between Oneiromancy and the card one would have drawn instead (which at the very least is a 4p card), so the Echo of Oneiromancy is, in terms of value, a relative improvement over a 4p (or more expensive) card, thus Oneiromancy being played twice takes at the very least 17 provisions into consideration.

[...]
No it really doesn't the equivalent is what matters here.
If for example Royal degree, land of thousand fables etc. would each cost 7 provision costs they would be much closer to Oneiro.
They match more or less provision wise but have a slight advantage in draw rate being spread over 2 cards.
But still Oneirmancy still holds it's indisputable advantages: play any type of card & echo top deck.
[...]

If those would cost 7 provisions they would be considerably more efficient than Oneiromancy, given that, as I have pointed out before, a single use of Oneiromancy is the equivalent to an 8.5p tutor (not considering the fact that the second use is only a relative improvement, rather than its full value). The Echo topdeck is mentioned in the next part.

[...]
No this no reason to rate a card lower this could happen with any tutor
It's called RNG
[...]

I am glad you agree.
My point was that the RNG between including 2 Royal Decree-type of cards or 1 Oneiromancy evens out, so that there is no advantage in relations to consistency I would like to attribute to one case over the other, given that they have similarly valuable advantages over each other.

[...]
Nope this sentence is more related to Oneirmancy advantage over 10p tutors
[...]

Again, the fair comparison would be to compare it to 2 copies of Royal Decree, which you are otherwise arguing, so I do not see the point.
Noone was arguing a single copy of Royal Decree would be equivalent.

[...]
Nope these are not unfounded numbers like I already explained they are based on equivalents
[...]

The statement on it having to be 10*2 = 20 provisions is out of the blue and from my perspective not consistent.

I guess I have to put this into a more precise picture:
1.) Your statement is not consistent under shift to an equivalent frame, if the observer moves into a different frame the consequences of your argument change dramatically.
Since deckbuilding is invariant under a shift into certain equivalent frames (like the frame of transformed provisions I was refering to above) the argument also has to be consistent in that regard.

In case of interest and context an explanation on Transformed Provisions:
1.) You take the provision cost of every card and subtract 4.
I.e. a 4p card has transformed provisions (tp) of 0, a 10p cards has 6tp.

2.) You subtract 100 provisions from the total amount of provisions you can spend for your deck, these will be refered to as available tp.
The available tp of a deck are 50 + the leader provision bonus.

3.) If you include more than 25 cards you subtract 4 tp for each card above 25 from the available tp.
(since noone really does that this step can be skipped)

Deckbuilding is exactly the same in this frame and the information you get is equivalent to a correction for the minimum amount of provisions you have to spend on each card, thus what tp show you is how you spend the additional provisions available to you.

Now if we put this into perspective (we take a 15p leader for this example, although the number does not matter).
This is easier to calculate in the frame of Transformed Provisions, however you are free to check that the results are precisely the same in the regular frame people use.

If you want to only invest your available tp (i.e. upgrade provisions) into copies of Royal Decree you can run (50+15)/6 = 10.83... copies of Royal Decree and 14.16... copies of 4p cards.
If you want to only invest your available tp (i.e. upgrade provisions) into copies of Oneiromancy you can run (50+15)/9 = 7.22... copies of Oneiromancy and 17.77... copies of 4p cards.

Since we agreed that Oneiromancy should take the spot of 2 copies of Royal Decree in the deck we can clearly see that by the statement "Oneiromancy's value, it's upsides and downsides aside, in terms of the double tutoring, is equivalent to 2 copies of similar tutors, like Royal Decree, one can include instead" we get the result that Oneiromancy is definitely quite a bit too cheap and one should only be able to include half the copies of Royal Decrees, which would be 10.83.../2 = 5.42... copies.

If we now consider the cost of 20 provisions you suggested (which translates to 16 tp) one couldn run (50+15)/16 = 4.06... copies of Oneiromancy, which would be a significant overnerf.
If we consider the 12 tp (i.e. 16 provision), I suggested would be equivalent, one couldn run (50+15)/12 = 5.42... copies of Oneiromancy.

As I have shown only for a change of the provisions to twice the tp of Royal Decree (i.e. 16 provisions) would one be able to consider running 2 copies of Royal Decree as as expensive as 1 copy of Oneiromancy.
Which would still result in a nerf by 3 provisions.

 

[1990BW]

The statement on it having to be 10*2 = 20 provisions is out of the blue and from my perspective not consistent.

My opinion won't change I still believe the card should be rated in equivalents.
Ultimately I see no need to compare tutors relatively to each other the value they give may vary between match- ups, highly relies on RNG and deck build.
Given these facts we can write books about it but still don't agree
In the end all that matters in a match is drawing your best cards.
One can do this with mulligans or by adding more consistency in the form of tutors.
In post #14 I already have given my statement about the Oneiromancy's ability:

Oneiromancy shouldn't be an echo card the ability in itself is already amazing enough given the provision costs.
The card basically is an Royal Degree and Land of the Fables in one both these cards cost 10 provision costs.
13p is already cheap when compared to that but playing it twice is simply broken.
Echo should only work if you play an devotion deck

This is my final verdict about the card and the change which I consider to be fair

 

[InkognitoXI]

My opinion won't change I still believe the card should be rated in equivalents.
[...]

That is fine, in that case we can just agree to disagree.
After all that is the sign of a healthy discussion.

 

[Anaeto]

My opinion won't change I still believe the card should be rated in equivalents.
Ultimately I see no need to compare tutors relatively to each other the value they give may vary between match- ups, highly relies on RNG and deck build.
Given these facts we can write books about it but still don't agree
In the end all that matters in a match is drawing your best cards.
One can do this with mulligans or by adding more consistency in the form of tutors.
In post #14 I already have given my statement about the Oneiromancy's ability:



This is my final verdict about the card and the change which I consider to be fair

I see your point but i only agree with that change at 12 provisions.

 

[CallMeHoot]

Seriously, this has GOT TO STOP! It's going back to Midwinter Update levels of tutors and bad game design.

Oneiromancy Into Royal Decree into John Natalis into Reinforcements into the ONE CARD THE GUY NEEDS WHILE ALSO THINNING HIS DECK FOR THE SHORT ROUND.

COME ON CDPR. SORT THIS OUT.

The Midwinter Update was the most maligned update you ever put out and you're forgetting what you promised. You're going back to this lazy "cards that play other cards" design philosophy that by and large people HATED. Come on. Sort it out.

 

[EduFerraz]

Seriously, this has GOT TO STOP! It's going back to Midwinter Update levels of tutors and bad game design.

Oneiromancy Into Royal Decree into John Natalis into Reinforcements into the ONE CARD THE GUY NEEDS WHILE ALSO THINNING HIS DECK FOR THE SHORT ROUND.

COME ON CDPR. SORT THIS OUT.

The Midwinter Update was the most maligned update you ever put out and you're forgetting what you promised. You're going back to this lazy "cards that play other cards" design philosophy that by and large people HATED. Come on. Sort it out.

Sorry, but Who did that "combo"? Also He tryed to win The match with that?

I cant see a competitive deck spending all this provision

 

[ReaperTek]

Sorry, but Who did that "combo"? Also He tryed to win The match with that?

I cant see a competitive deck spending all this provision

He's probably talking about Inspired Zeal Blu Stripes Commandos which really is a Tudor Fiesta.

 

[Guest 4375874]

Seriously, this has GOT TO STOP! It's going back to Midwinter Update levels of tutors and bad game design.

Oneiromancy Into Royal Decree into John Natalis into Reinforcements into the ONE CARD THE GUY NEEDS WHILE ALSO THINNING HIS DECK FOR THE SHORT ROUND.

COME ON CDPR. SORT THIS OUT.

The Midwinter Update was the most maligned update you ever put out and you're forgetting what you promised. You're going back to this lazy "cards that play other cards" design philosophy that by and large people HATED. Come on. Sort it out.

Yup. It's basically the tutor game now. Been hanging on to hope but judging by the last few matches I just had it's about time to look elsewhere. I refuse to use Oneiro and everyone else uses it so this is quickly turning into a game that's not for me anymore.

 

[CallMeHoot]

Sorry, but Who did that "combo"? Also He tryed to win The match with that?

I cant see a competitive deck spending all this provision

If you can't see it then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe a fuller explanation will aid your "vision".

It was the second round. He won the first. He was pushing me all-in for a thin deck in round 3 should I have won the second. The point is that he used Oneiromancy in the first round to win it (because drawing a big swing card isn't a problem when you can just play any card in your deck at any time with zero downside) and despite drawing none of the cards he tutored (Decree > Natalis > Reinforcements) going into round 2, he had the ECHO Onerio from the first round and used it to swing me out of round two as well, despite me being a card up.

Oneiromancy in it's current form is bullshit. End of story.

I'm not saying you're leaping to Oneiro's defense, but those that do defend it at this point are so reliant on it as a crutch to draw what they need, when they need it, rather than you know...learning the matchups and learning how to actually pilot their deck.

 

[MedievalHistory]

I want to give feedback — GWENT: The Witcher Card Game | Technical Support — CD PROJEKT RED

Welcome to CD PROJEKT RED Technical Support! Here you will find help regarding our games and services, as well as answers to frequently asked questions.

support.cdprojektred.com

CDPR: "To share your ideas and suggestions with us, please visit our forums. Our development team regularly visits them to read comments from our players."

I used to give 99.9% of my feedback directly to CPDR exclusively through emails, but 'much to my displeasure' in the last year or so they've redirected all feedback/suggestions to these 'rarely visited' forums (at least in my case) where it can easily get lost in the shuffle... I'm posting for the first time since 2019.

I've been playing Gwent since the early days of beta. It is a real slog to play anything nowadays. I won't even log in for weeks at a time with a purchased Journey... I get bored within the first 30 seconds of a match because I can generally play out the entire match in my head before it happens (win or lose) depending on the opening plays of my opponent and their hero power (it is far too predictable). I'd rather have the ol' days of 'Schirrú' + 'Scorch' + 'Eithné' than have to play another match against certain neutral cards which are dominating the meta.

'Oneiromancy' gives way too much value for the initial investment with zero drawbacks, and it is extremely oppressive and much too reliable. Just like 'Portal' and 'The Witcher Trio' were nerfed into the ground, so should other oppressive neutral cards so that 'even greater' deck diversity can shine again.

You (CDPR) trivialize your own well thought out designs and strategic elements inherent in the game when you allow cards which totally bypass all mechanics with no drawbacks. 'Oneiromancy' is an auto include in nearly every deck. It is a double tutor of any two cards that you desire. Echo is an easily abused mechanic which should never have been tied to tutoring in any form. If it must stay a tutor, limit it to only units, spells, or artifacts (not all of them together) or make it pull a random unit/spell/artifact instead. Something needs to be done to nerf the reliability of this card, as it is a 'neutral card' and seen in almost every competitive deck worth its salt.

 

[EduFerraz]

If you can't see it then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe a fuller explanation will aid your "vision".

It was the second round. He won the first. He was pushing me all-in for a thin deck in round 3 should I have won the second. The point is that he used Oneiromancy in the first round to win it (because drawing a big swing card isn't a problem when you can just play any card in your deck at any time with zero downside) and despite drawing none of the cards he tutored (Decree > Natalis > Reinforcements) going into round 2, he had the ECHO Onerio from the first round and used it to swing me out of round two as well, despite me being a card up.

Oneiromancy in it's current form is bullshit. End of story.

I'm not saying you're leaping to Oneiro's defense, but those that do defend it at this point are so reliant on it as a crutch to draw what they need, when they need it, rather than you know...learning the matchups and learning how to actually pilot their deck.

Ok, i undestand, but i have never see someone playing royal decree, oneiro and also AA in the same deck. For me its a lot of provision just for tutorious.

 

[kachigar_gwent]

I disagree with message of the post. There actually is initiatives not to put oneiro in the deck: it is very expensive and Devotion keyword exists. Also i think it is great that there are tools for me as a player to play cards from the deck that i want to play. Right amount of consistency is great in card game, and i dont think that oneiro breaks this consistency balance in GWENT.

 

[ya1]

There is no problem with Oneiromancy. I'd actually argue that it's too expensive for a consistency card with zero built-in value. The problem is how needed it is for the decks that use it. This points at a bigger problem of how binary and draw dependent Gwent is. Not having drawn into a specific card when it's needed often results in a steamroll game which is unwinnable no matter the sequencing (meaning skill). Luckily, devs are apparently looking into it and focusing more on alternative consistency (Pincer, thinning, etc.).

Also, saying that Oneiro is autoinclude kind of reveals limited knowledge of the meta. Three strongest factions right now are devotion in the meta: SY, NG and NR. Furthermore, SK non-devo uses discard so no overpaying for Oneiro. Only ST and MO use Oneiro, and not always. And the only deck I can think of that is actually competitive and where Oneiro is a no-brainer and absolute necessity is Kelly.

Also, comparing Oneiro to Decree is a fallacy. Decree is outdated and unbuffed for years. Nobody uses it except Viy. It does not carry any meaning in a balancing discussion, just like Wolf Pack or Peasant Militia.

 

[quintivarium]

All general purpose tutors are bad for the game. All echo cards are bad for the game. Al cards that clearly supersede all related cards are bad for the game. There is nothing OK about Oneiromancy.