[Article] Play by Play

[J.V.]

Here (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/16709_Unlocking_Legacy_Play_by_Play.html) is Anwar's latest article, it is basically a small tournament report of Team America from the Source Anniversary Tournament. It was well written and the first SCG's article I've actually been able to stomach without being incredibly bored.

...Obligatory Discuss:

[troopatroop]

I thought it was very well written, with alot of insight on the matchups in the play by play. I liked it alot, especially since it was about the source anniversary tournament. Big namedrops to Nightmare and Roodmistah and all of EPIC. Sweet article all around.

OH. And its also promoting the best new deck in Legacy on a well read Magic website. Good idea.

[Jak]

I liked it a lot, but I am wondering (they talked about it on SCG) if you mixed up the order on the fetch activation, stifle, brainstorm, daze, force sequence. In the report, you say that Will is able to pay for the Daze after fetching, but the Daze would resolve first before the fetch activation.

[Eldariel]

The following turn Will plays a fetchland, which he tries to activate. Dan responds by attempting to Stifle the fetchland. Will casts a Brainstorm in response looking for an answer. Dan dazes the Brainstorm, but Will ends the sequence by casting Force of Will on the original Stifle.

This Force of Will allows Will to resolve the fetchland activation (for another Island) and pay for the Daze on his Brainstorm. Will loses Force of Will and the Blue card he pitched, and Dan used his Stifle and Daze, so they end up even on cards in the exchange as the Brainstorm resolves.

I wonder what happened here. The stack is:

Force
Daze
Brainstorm
Stifle
Fetchland

When Force takes out the Stifle, somehow the Fetchland Activation goes off and he pays for the Daze. I fail to see how that's possible.


EDIT: Friggin' portlandian ninjas.

Regarding the later games, I sorta wonder why Carl Forced the Goyf G1. I mean, he had the combo so he could've just went for protected combo and won in the face of the Goyf... Seems like a wasteful use of resources, especially since the deck has plenty of means to deal with Goyf (two removal-spells and 5 tutors for them plus 11 spells worth of digging). Even just Forcing the Stalker would've probably won the game, had he not gone for the combo.

It seemed like he was playing rather bad all-around - holding that LDV for Dan's inevitable Tombstalker (to Counterbalance it) seems like a much better play than trying to hurry ahead with card disadvantage effects that neuter your Countertop in a board position that you've got entirely under control. Wait, drop few lands, draw a few more cards, Top/Vault every spell opponent tries, drop a protected beater and win.

[citanul]

I wonder what happened here. The stack is:

Force
Daze
Brainstorm
Stifle
Fetchland

When Force takes out the Stifle, somehow the Fetchland Activation goes off and he pays for the Daze. I fail to see how that's possible.


I just started reading but that cought my attention as well.
How can a Daze be payed for by a fetchland that is being responded to. Sounds very wrong.

[frogboy]

This article reads like a punting contest. I can sort of understand the confusion about the Stifle/Daze timing though because I was too confused by why we were Dazing his Brainstorm when we just Thoughtseized him and saw Force of Will to notice.

I like articles like this, although it's sort of hard to provide precise game states while keeping the readers entertained. Feldman does a good job; I'd look at his archives of his doublefisted games.

[Pinder]

It seemed like he was playing rather bad all-around - holding that LDV for Dan's inevitable Tombstalker (to Counterbalance it)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. It can't be that you mean flip LDV to counter a Tombstalker because it still costs 8 even if you're delving for 6 of it. And you can't mean using LDV to put something on top that can counter it, because Tombstalker is the only even remotely playable 8-drop in the entire format (unless somehow the LDV player was desperately searching for that Sundering Titan).

[frogboy]

Painter boarded in the man plan, which includes Tombstalkers.

[AnwarA101]

I wonder what happened here. The stack is:

Force
Daze
Brainstorm
Stifle
Fetchland

When Force takes out the Stifle, somehow the Fetchland Activation goes off and he pays for the Daze. I fail to see how that's possible.


Yes, it doesn't work as the Fetchland would be resolve after the Daze and Brainstorm. I must have incorrectly noted what happened in this case. Its possible that the Force of Will just countered the Stifle, but the Brainstorm was still Dazed. Perhaps Dan or Will can shed some light on this situation. Sorry for the confusion.



I like articles like this, although it's sort of hard to provide precise game states while keeping the readers entertained. Feldman does a good job; I'd look at his archives of his doublefisted games.


I will check out Feldman's articles. Any specific ones that you can direct me to?

[Omega]

I found the article interesting. Seeing play by play can help us to understand mistakes we might have played. Also, i think the whole article showed how powerful indeed Stifle, wasteland combined with daze/fow can be in the early game. ITs probably something to explore in future deck building.

[Skeggi]

I liked it a lot
+1, well done Anwar :smile:

[Eldariel]

Painter boarded in the man plan, which includes Tombstalkers.

This. It would've also given him his own beater in turn. I guess he was worried about Krosan Grip. Seems wasteful to me in any event.

[Whit3 Ghost]

The stack might have been:
-Top-
Force
Stifle
Fetch
Daze
Brainstorm

As I might have had to dig for something on the mainphase. Other than that, idk what happened there.

It's what happens when you don't play tangible magic 9 months before the tournament, I guess.

As for Dazing the Brainstorm: Depending on my hand, I would probably have done it too, especially when you have Tombstalkers to resolve.

[jazzykat]

I normally don't get too excited over a tournament report but seeing that it had a back and forth coverage of important matches I enjoyed it. It pretty much backed up my thoughts on the subject of mana disruption and how good daze is, if kept relevant by manabase disruption.

Maybe rood can explain why he spellsnared his own standstill after getting his mage Snuffed Out.

[Nightmare]

Not to sound too much like Shithands Gearhart, but this article had a sufficient amount of me in it. Also, Carl Dillahay is my favorite. Especially when I hand him my deck and he top8's my tournament with it, then hooks me up with the prize I would have picked, had I played in the event.

[AnwarA101]

The stack might have been:
-Top-
Force
Stifle
Fetch
Daze
Brainstorm

As I might have had to dig for something on the mainphase. Other than that, idk what happened there.

It's what happens when you don't play tangible magic 9 months before the tournament, I guess.

As for Dazing the Brainstorm: Depending on my hand, I would probably have done it too, especially when you have Tombstalkers to resolve.

This version makes a lot more sense to me as well. I guess it works since you played the fetch to play around Daze, but it walked you into Stifle. You didn't have too many good options there anyway.

@Nightmare: I'm pretty sure you won in every way imaginable. You had 127 people show up to your tournament, if that isn't winning I don't know what is.

[Nightmare]

Yeah, that was a good weekend for me.

[frogboy]

Any specific ones that you can direct me to?

One of his recent Merfolk articles has a forty game set in it. Aside from that, I don't recall specifically, but I'll try to find the time to check around for you.

[Nihil Credo]

"One Game" is pretty awesome (although it contains one huge punt, see the forums), but I'm not sure it's exactly what you're looking for. Still, check it out.

[mercenarybdu]

Well written but it's missing something other than video coverage.

[Elfrago]

Nice article, well written and it was interesting to "see" Team America in action

[Rood]

Maybe rood can explain why he spellsnared his own standstill after getting his mage Snuffed Out.

I'm going to explain this to everyone right here I guess. At the time I had cast Standstill and he Snuff my Mage my hand was something like, Snare, Trinket Mage, Trickbind. He had virtually no cards in his hand and I knew if I would not be able to apply pressure to him and we'd both have full grips. So I went for the kill right there, right then and didn't give him a chance to rebuild under my own Standstill. If i had to do it again I would, it was absolutely the right play there without question.

[frogboy]

it was absolutely the right play there without question.

I think when the entire internet flips out you can't really say it's 'without question.'

Given that Team America does basically nothing going long and that you were nowhere close to seven cards I'm pretty certain that a none for two was a lot worse than a three for one.

[Rood]

I think when the entire internet flips out you can't really say it's 'without question.'

Given that Team America does basically nothing going long and that you were nowhere close to seven cards I'm pretty certain that a none for two was a lot worse than a three for one.

I had the game won at the point he Snuffed my Mage, I knew Trinket Mage for Dreadnought would get there considering he had nothing at all in his hand. Why even give him a chance to rebuild his hand and get back into the game with a Tombskull-Caver or something? I went for it right there, and it paid off.

[Bardo]

"One Game" - RF

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/fundamentals/14985_Deep_Analysis_One_Game.html

[frogboy]

I knew Trinket Mage for Dreadnought would get there considering he had nothing at all in his hand. Why even give him a chance to rebuild his hand and get back into the game with a Tombskull-Caver or something?

Because most of his deck is irrelevant at this point and you're going to be up a million cards by the time he gets around to affecting the board, and because you'd look like a jackass if he drew Snuff Out and a creature.

edit: if he had topped Thoughtseize after you'd played the Snare there's no way we would even be having this conversation. I'm pretty sure you're being results oriented.

[Rood]

I had no idea how long we'd be waiting for me to topdeck a Factory, and if took too long he could just sculpt a hand like (example)

Seize
Seize
Tombstalker
Force
Goyf
Brainstorm
Brainstorm

Brainstorm at EOT, I no longer have card advantage...he then proceeds to destroy me with Seizes and drops Tombcaver. Seriously, it's just a situation but I was being VERY careful it was the only time I've ever countered my own Standstill in all the games I've played with Dreadstill.

[frogboy]

I guess my point is that the odds of you drawing straight lands and him drawing straight spells is lower than the odds of him immediately hitting his three to seven outer.

[Forbiddian]

It looks like definitely the best play. If he topdecks a Thoughtseize, you still have either Trickbind or Trinket Mage. If he topdecks a wasteland, then it seems absolutely ridiculous NOT to counter the standstill. Half the internet isn't yelling at him, we're all just wondering what was behind that very awkward-looking play. Like a Queen sacrifice in chess, everyone's interested in why you'd take such a gamble.

This really illustrates why Dreadstill is such a strong deck, though. It's definitely a control deck that looks for card advantage, but it can also instantly turn the board on its head and make its opponent's entire deck irrelevant. He basically had one turn to draw removal or he lost.


I think the questionable play was playing the Standstill at all. If your opponent had spot removal, he'd obviously blow your critter advantage so he wouldn't lose the game. If he didn't have critter removal, then you're probably better off just waiting the one extra turn for NoughtBind. Maybe he was tapped out, though, I dunno. Or maybe the life totals were such that TM alone really was a big threat. Wasn't there, but it seems like a really interesting play, both in the weird nature of countering your own spell and in the fact that it paid off.

[Bryant Cook]

Passes my test. God job.

[J.V.]

.... Or maybe the life totals were such that TM alone really was a big threat. Wasn't there, but it seems like a really interesting play, both in the weird nature of countering your own spell and in the fact that it paid off.

Trinket Mage was absolutely a reasonable threat at the moment, Dan was at like 10 or 11 so the 2 was actually a big deal and if he didn't have removal the Standstill just up the odds of Rood having a counter for it when Dan tried to get back in the game. Also if I remember correctly, Dan only had the one card in hand (which was Snuff out).

[Forbiddian]

Trinket Mage was absolutely a reasonable threat at the moment, Dan was at like 10 or 11 so the 2 was actually a big deal and if he didn't have removal the Standstill just up the odds of Rood having a counter for it when Dan tried to get back in the game. Also if I remember correctly, Dan only had the one card in hand (which was Snuff out).

Well, that explains that. Really interesting decision, though, I would have loved to have seen that one live.

[Frenger]

The next turn, Dan plays his land and passes the turn. The following turn Will plays a fetchland, which he tries to activate. Dan responds by attempting to Stifle the fetchland. Will casts a Brainstorm in response looking for an answer. Dan dazes the Brainstorm, but Will ends the sequence by casting Force of Will on the original Stifle.

This Force of Will allows Will to resolve the fetchland activation (for another Island) and pay for the Daze on his Brainstorm.

How does this work?

Since the daze and brainstorm were both in response to the fetchland activation, how would the fetchland activation resolve before daze and brainstorm?

[Obfuscate Freely]

I'm going to explain this to everyone right here I guess...
I don't agree that Snaring the Standstill was correct, but if you're going to defend it, I think you need to examine whether playing Standstill was a good idea at all. If you were already winning, allowing a potential Snuff Out to trade for three of your cards is a pretty big risk to take.

Honestly, though, it seems like your entire gameplan at that point was designed to maximize Dan's chances at getting back into a game he had otherwise lost. First you three-for-oned yourself, and then you expended the rest of your hand on an unprotected Dreadnought, just daring Dan to draw his out.

Obviously, it worked for you, but I think your odds would have been better with other lines of play. I certainly wouldn't describe that series of decisions as "careful."

[Zinch]

Well, by playing the standstill you are forcing your opponent to kill you mage right now. So if he has only one card and doesn't kill you mage, then you'll win anyway. If he does, then you dreadnought is safe unless a lucky topdeck.

[jazzykat]

I have played a ton of Ur Dreadstill and I think that Rood was spot on playing the standstill.The opponent has 1 card in hand so if it's not a snuff out then at best he trades a counter (I am not sure if that was even possible given lands untapped) to stop the standstill. He gave his opponent 1 out at that point because casting a threat or whatever within 5 turns into a standstill (and that's not to say a factory/wasteland...moot point) would have provided Rood with more answers/threats. MAYBE, the other trinket mage would have made more sense as to have had 2 threats then and could pick up an artifact.

While I can't say if he made the "best play" I can say that sometimes you have to be the aggressor and go for it. A long time ago I learned that some control/control-aggro decks only have control for a certain tenuous window (more so with aggro control) where you have to risk it and win otherwise your opponent can rebuild and out threat you.

[AnwarA101]

How does this work?

Since the daze and brainstorm were both in response to the fetchland activation, how would the fetchland activation resolve before daze and brainstorm?

It doesn't work. It was a mistake as I wrote down what was happening and I mixed up the order in which things would resolve.

Will (Whit3 Ghost) provided a more plausible explanation of what happened on the first page of this thread. His post is included below.


The stack might have been:
-Top-
Force
Stifle
Fetch
Daze
Brainstorm

As I might have had to dig for something on the mainphase. Other than that, idk what happened there.

It's what happens when you don't play tangible magic 9 months before the tournament, I guess.

As for Dazing the Brainstorm: Depending on my hand, I would probably have done it too, especially when you have Tombstalkers to resolve.

[xsockmonkeyx]

This really illustrates why Dreadstill is such a strong deck, though. It's definitely a control deck that looks for card advantage, but it can also instantly turn the board on its head and make its opponent's entire deck irrelevant. He basically had one turn to draw removal or he lost.

Quoted for Illissius, Nightmare and others who have said repeatedly they don't understand Dreadstill. Not ripping you guys at all, just thought this was a good explanation.

[frogboy]

I think you need to examine whether playing Standstill was a good idea at all.

And at that point, why it's even good in your deck.

[Nihil Credo]

And at that point, why it's even good in your deck.


4 Mishra's Factory
3 Wasteland
What happened to Rod is not much different from a Landstill player who plays Standstill with a Dragon in hand, seven mana, and a Factory in play, only to be met by, say, a cycled Decree of Annihilation in response from his opponent at five life. (With the difference is of course that cycled Decree is not as expected as Snuff Out, but bear with me. Make it a 2/3 Tarmogoyf from a "Voroshstill" player if you prefer.)

[scrumdogg]

My question comes with several caveats, including my abysmal performance at the 5 Year, my totality of experience with Dreadstill being an opponent (far too often...), and that I'm benefiting from the luxury of time & distance from the actual play. That being said, however, why would you not have simply played the second Trinket Mage, fetching the Dreadnought, then attempted to drop the Standstill next turn? That would almost guarantee you one (possibly two) active 2/2 in play versus an opponent with either an empty hand or an irrelevant hand. It worked out fine, but it just doesn't seem to have been an optimal play from the perspective of maximizing your resources and putting the maximum pressure on the opponent.

[frogboy]

My question comes with several caveats, including my abysmal performance at the 5 Year, my totality of experience with Dreadstill being an opponent (far too often...), and that I'm benefiting from the luxury of time & distance from the actual play. That being said, however, why would you not have simply played the second Trinket Mage, fetching the Dreadnought, then attempted to drop the Standstill next turn? That would almost guarantee you one (possibly two) active 2/2 in play versus an opponent with either an empty hand or an irrelevant hand. It worked out fine, but it just doesn't seem to have been an optimal play from the perspective of maximizing your resources and putting the maximum pressure on the opponent.

I stone missed this but I think it's really strong.

[jazzykat]

@scrum's question: My thinking is that the threats from TA are way more powerful than 2 trinket mages. The dreadnought plan for the next turn would have definitely rocked. Shoulda/woulda/coulda while these are the nuances that determine winners in really close games I don't think there is an optimal series of plays per say but perhaps optimal based on what you thought the opponent was holding.

[T is for TOOL]

I don't think there is an optimal series of plays per say but perhaps optimal based on what you thought the opponent was holding.There is always at least one optimal line of play for any game-state even when the scenario includes hidden information (assuming all information is quantifiable).

[jazzykat]

@TOOL: I hadn't considered it like that. Given that a 3rd. party (omniscent) may be able to evaluate the optimal line of play what would you say it is?

For Rod would there have been a seemingly optimal line of play given that he didn't know exactly what the opponent was holding?

Also, where did you draw that statement from, game theory? That is a very powerful statement that off the top of my head always seems to be true. In general, how does the probability of drawing x,y, or z outs figure into things?

[T is for TOOL]

For Rod would there have been a seemingly optimal line of play given that he didn't know exactly what the opponent was holding?
Assuming that Dan was holding one card, and that it was an unknown, you want to chose a line of play that wins the most scenarios. Since can get tedious and unrealistic during matches, the rule of thumb is to look at the worst case scenario and adjust your play accordingly. By accounting for the worst case, you usually also address the better scenarios as well.


He had virtually no cards in his hand and I knew if I would not be able to apply pressure to him and we'd both have full grips. So I went for the kill right there, right then and didn't give him a chance to rebuild under my own Standstill.
If this is true, then playing Standstill in the first place was incorrect. Better would be playing Trinket Mage to fetch Dreadnought. That puts him on a faster clock, keeps board pressure if he has removal, and gives you an immediate answer to both Goyf and Tombstalker.


Also, where did you draw that statement from, game theory? That is a very powerful statement that off the top of my head always seems to be true. In general, how does the probability of drawing x,y, or z outs figure into things?
That statement was taken from the Book of TOOL, verse 69. The probability of drawing outs would be included when calculating scenario successes. Note that things become complicated if we try to include qualitative assessments (using poker tells etc. to affect the proabilities).

[Rood]

I didn't want to play the Trinket Mage first in case he had topdecked a Force or something. That's why I had played the Standstill first if I remember correctly. Basically at the point he Snuffed me I didn't really care to Snare my own Still at that point..the game was won =/.

[frogboy]

I didn't want to play the Trinket Mage first in case he had topdecked a Force or something.

So you decided to just go all in on a Dreadnought and hope he didn't topdeck a Snuff Out?

[Rood]

So you decided to just go all in on a Dreadnought and hope he didn't topdeck a Snuff Out?

Considering he had just burned one I didn't really fear him topdecking a Snuff Out at all to be honest. Throwing him out there in that situation didn't make me the least bit worried. The Standstill was merely the card to read what exactly it was he had. Since he gave me that info, I was able to make the optimal play from that point on.

[frogboy]

Considering he had just burned one I didn't really fear him topdecking a Snuff Out at all to be honest.

There is a really minuscule difference in 4/~40 and 3/~40.

And if your second Mage gets Forced, can't you just play Standstill and kill him with your Mage in play?

[Artowis]

The Standstill was merely the card to read what exactly it was he had.

lolwut? Care to unpack that at all?

[Rood]

There is a really minuscule difference in 4/~40 and 3/~40.

And if your second Mage gets Forced, can't you just play Standstill and kill him with your Mage in play?

Probally dude, but again the play once he played the Snuff was to Snare my own Standstill. If he topdecks one Wasteland who knows how long it would be for me to topdeck multiple Factories to counter.

So basically I may have messed up initially but I corrected my play after it and won.

[frogboy]

Probally dude, but again the play once he played the Snuff was to Snare my own Standstill.


Because most of his deck is irrelevant at this point and you're going to be up a million cards by the time he gets around to affecting the board, and because you'd look like a jackass if he drew Snuff Out and a creature.

edit: if he had topped Thoughtseize after you'd played the Snare there's no way we would even be having this conversation. I'm pretty sure you're being results oriented.


I guess my point is that the odds of you drawing straight lands and him drawing straight spells is lower than the odds of him immediately hitting his three to seven outer.

I mean, I punt all the time, but I don't try to bend over backwards in attempts to justify it.

[Rood]

Sorry Frog you're right...I'm horrible and have no idea what I'm doing, clearly. /Endsarcasm

Anyways this very small play error is getting way too much attention, lol. Does it really matter?

[Bardo]

Anyways this very small play error is getting way too much attention, lol. Does it really matter?

THIS IS THE INTERNET, EVERYTHING MATTERS!!!! ROAR!!!!!!

Seriously though, fuck that shit. You made the play that seemed to be the play to make at the time. Let's let the thing lie.

[frogboy]

I'm actually not just out to make you look bad. I just didn't understand the logic behind the play, and once I did, disagreed, then I just got frustrated because it bugs me when people don't own up to their mistakes. I don't think I'm good at Magic,* and actively try to throw away most games, succeeding usually about once or twice a tournament. I think the main limiting factor for most people at getting better is tilt control and analyzing their mistakes instead of just complaining about 'that asshole who drew all four Wraths.'

Sorry.

*I think there are maybe five people in Oregon and Washington who are actually good at Magic, not counting WotC staff.

[Anusien]

I thought people knew by now, if you write an article people will ignore the focus of it and zoom in on whatever nuances they like.

That said, it is an interesting discussion. Your logic seems to be "I intentionally 1 for 3ed him because I had another threat and getting rid of the card in his hand was just that important." which is fine if that's true, but you're sort of walking around that point without coming out and saying it.

@frogboy: Interestingly I've seen the same people be results-oriented when they win, but when they lose it was because they did everything right and got unlucky or someone else got lucky. Dunno whether it's just refusal to believe they ever punted or just bad behavior naturally reinforcing itself. That must be the 4th Law of Thermodynamics or something.

[Brehn]

I thought people knew by now, if you write an article people will ignore the focus of it and zoom in on whatever nuances they like.
..................

Can we spend more time talking about the random pop culture references? Some of those were actually hard to work into the article, and only two people have commented on them. Thumbs up, thumbs down?
.................
...what?

[Happy Gilmore]

Probally dude, but again the play once he played the Snuff was to Snare my own Standstill. If he topdecks one Wasteland who knows how long it would be for me to topdeck multiple Factories to counter.

So basically I may have messed up initially but I corrected my play after it and won.


There may have been reasoning for, and against playing standstill...however there is none what-so-ever for countering it yourself. This will never ever be the right play in any situation. By doing so you gave Dan every chance in the world to draw an out that would have completely annihilated you. What happend happend, the game was won. Bringing it up over and over is just inviting criticism. The play was poor, you should have either let the standstill resolve or not play it.

[Anusien]

...what?
I try to entertain with my articles, and sometimes that's weird analogies or awesome pop culture references. More people should mention Firefly, Voltron or Heroes in their articles. I have dramedies and night time soap operas, and Doug Linn has weird word etymologies and hipster culture (or whatever it is that sends chills down Bardo's spine). To each their own.

[jazzykat]

The reason I have been paying attention to this play so much is 2 fold:

1. It won you an important game
2. It is controversial and brings out the nuances of Dreadstill and to a more general extent Magic.

The chances are that if we are on this site we can tap mana to play spells. It is these little things that tend to decide the winner in a close game. I like to optimize my chance of winning so I like getting an edge when I can adapt or improve my lines of complicated play.

In short this is for me to learn and mentally masturbate. I think Rod did just fine as evidenced by a first place finish.