thefreakaccident
07-26-2008, 08:23 AM
This was brought up between testing sessions with my teammates...
Considering archtypes, playstyle, MUs, and of coarse the opposing deck; do you elect to play first or second depending on the MU, or do you play first regardless of any of this information?
I considered this for a while, and there are many things that one can consider, and would have to in order to make these decisions properly...
But for now, I will be slightly vague, with some examples and my personal decisions on the matters...
Everyone, please give your thoughts/examples to help others know that this choice is actually relevant, just like mulliganing, the decisions that decide the game happen well before the game even starts.
Example/Scenario 1:
*This one is pretty obvious, but bear with me*
You are playing the aggressive deck, whether you be agro or combo, while your opponent is playing some sort of disruption that affects you.
My choice: Go first, as it will limit your opponent's options in the first couple turns, giving yourself an opening to either win the game, or put yourself in a better position to win the game in later turns.
Example/Scenario 2:
*Control v control MUs*
Depending on what form of disruption suite definitely changes this up quite a bit, but for simplicities sake, we'll assume the two control decks are blue based.
Now, generally, if I am personally playing vs a control deck with a control deck, I much rather get the additional draw, especially if they will not be attacking my manabase. Everyone knows that control on control MUs depend on board position and hand size, if you are winning in both aspects, chances are, you are winning the game. I decide to trade the early board position for the additional boost to my hand size, giving myself more cards quicker than my opponent.
My testing partner called me crazy... but I think the extra card has won me some games here, that I might not have otherwise.
Obviously, this is totally wrong if your manabase can/will be assaulted... in which case, you will trade the additional card for board position and play first.
Example/Scenario 3:
Daze
Another pretty standard choice here, why let their dazes be more effective later on? It comes down to landdrops, and being able to get enough, quick enough, so that one may be able to play around daze. Sometimes, one cannot help but playing right into daze, but when given the option of making dead cards in the opponents hand, people will often elect to play first rather than second.
So, I guess I will put a little bit more direction towards this discussion... so that is what I will do:
All these things are good to add:
- Comments about prior posts posted by other people (given).
- Further examples
- Times where these very decisions actually affected the outcome of a game.
- Particular insight as to what you would do/do do in particular MUs when choosing to play first/second.
- What you think of the mentality and decision making of magic outside of the game itself.
Considering archtypes, playstyle, MUs, and of coarse the opposing deck; do you elect to play first or second depending on the MU, or do you play first regardless of any of this information?
I considered this for a while, and there are many things that one can consider, and would have to in order to make these decisions properly...
But for now, I will be slightly vague, with some examples and my personal decisions on the matters...
Everyone, please give your thoughts/examples to help others know that this choice is actually relevant, just like mulliganing, the decisions that decide the game happen well before the game even starts.
Example/Scenario 1:
*This one is pretty obvious, but bear with me*
You are playing the aggressive deck, whether you be agro or combo, while your opponent is playing some sort of disruption that affects you.
My choice: Go first, as it will limit your opponent's options in the first couple turns, giving yourself an opening to either win the game, or put yourself in a better position to win the game in later turns.
Example/Scenario 2:
*Control v control MUs*
Depending on what form of disruption suite definitely changes this up quite a bit, but for simplicities sake, we'll assume the two control decks are blue based.
Now, generally, if I am personally playing vs a control deck with a control deck, I much rather get the additional draw, especially if they will not be attacking my manabase. Everyone knows that control on control MUs depend on board position and hand size, if you are winning in both aspects, chances are, you are winning the game. I decide to trade the early board position for the additional boost to my hand size, giving myself more cards quicker than my opponent.
My testing partner called me crazy... but I think the extra card has won me some games here, that I might not have otherwise.
Obviously, this is totally wrong if your manabase can/will be assaulted... in which case, you will trade the additional card for board position and play first.
Example/Scenario 3:
Daze
Another pretty standard choice here, why let their dazes be more effective later on? It comes down to landdrops, and being able to get enough, quick enough, so that one may be able to play around daze. Sometimes, one cannot help but playing right into daze, but when given the option of making dead cards in the opponents hand, people will often elect to play first rather than second.
So, I guess I will put a little bit more direction towards this discussion... so that is what I will do:
All these things are good to add:
- Comments about prior posts posted by other people (given).
- Further examples
- Times where these very decisions actually affected the outcome of a game.
- Particular insight as to what you would do/do do in particular MUs when choosing to play first/second.
- What you think of the mentality and decision making of magic outside of the game itself.