How many Blue cards are needed to support Force of Will?

[Kanabo]

Im currently playing 18 blue cards including forces, but im wondering if I need more? is 18 enough? what is the minimum ammount?

[Bardo]

Seventeen blue cards is about the minimum you need to reliably Force once; 20-22 blue is roughly the number of blue cards you need to double-Force. IMO, 18 is a little low for my taste, but it should be fine, depending on the deck.

[xTrainx]

I dunno, I wanna say something like 18 should be fine IF you have something like Top to support it/dig that blue card in the time of need.

But yeah, generally what Bardo said is right.

[Kanabo]

well the deck I play is Team america, and iv changing things to try to get an edge on aggro, and ended up with 18 blue cards. im just wondering if 18 is a good number. i was running 20, but figured that 2 less wouldnt hurt.

[johanessen]

18 Counting Force of Will itself is what I think.

[4eak]

I look at FoW's most important duty as being pulled in the first turn.

# of Blue cards in a 60-card deck (Including 4x Force of Will): Approximate chance to open with Force of Will + a blue card (including one of the remaining FoW's)

15: 31.4%
16: 32.6%
17: 33.6%
18: 34.5%
19: 35.3%
20: 35.9%
21: 36.5%
22: 37.0%

Remember that you have a 40% chance to open with at least one FoW. Subtraction will show you the percentage of hands where you open with an FoW but no other blue card.

There are diminishing returns to adding more blue cards for the sake of opening with an active FoW. Moving from 15 to 16 blue cards increases the odds by ~1.2%, but moving from 21 to 22 blue cards increases the odds by ~0.5%.

That is far from answering your question (which will be deck and metagame specific), but it is a decent starting point.





peace,
4eak

[pi4meterftw]

The number of blue cards needed is precisely Summation on i[Floor[Exp[Floor[Log[Log[Gamma[18 Union 19]]]]]]!!!!/(2^i)]

[Aleksandr]

The number of blue cards needed is precisely Summation on i[Floor[Exp[Floor[Log[Log[Gamma[18 Union 19]]]]]]!!!!/(2^i)]

sigged

[Pltnmngl]

I've always have been told 16. I believe the initial builds of AfFownity had 16 blue cards to support FOW.

[Rico Suave]

16 is a very, very low amount. Anything below 16 is just way too unstable, and even 16 will leave you with an inconsistent card.

18 is enough to get by, though you will run into a lot of situations where you don't have blue.

20 is comfortable.

22+ will not only let you Force with a great amount of consistency, but will also give you options in case you have an important blue card you don't really want to pitch.

A lot of people stop at 18 and think they're "ok" in regards to Force. This has to be taken in context though. For example if you are playing a TFK/Welder synergy deck, and your hand is Force/TFK/S.Titan, you *can* pitch Force but you will probably be crippled by it.

[Forbiddian]

16 is a very, very low amount. Anything below 16 is just way too unstable, and even 16 will leave you with an inconsistent card.

18 is enough to get by, though you will run into a lot of situations where you don't have blue.

20 is comfortable.

22+ will not only let you Force with a great amount of consistency, but will also give you options in case you have an important blue card you don't really want to pitch.

A lot of people stop at 18 and think they're "ok" in regards to Force. This has to be taken in context though. For example if you are playing a TFK/Welder synergy deck, and your hand is Force/TFK/S.Titan, you *can* pitch Force but you will probably be crippled by it.

Data?



15: 31.4%
16: 32.6%
17: 33.6%
18: 34.5%
19: 35.3%
20: 35.9%
21: 36.5%
22: 37.0%

You say that 31.4 is just way too unstable, and 32.6% is the minimum, and then 34.5% is enough to get by and 37% is very consistent? You could scroll up and see that your post added absolutely nothing to 4eak's analysis other than wild speculation and misinformation.

[chokin]

I've heard numerous things. I think 16 excluding Force is fine. The problem with running less than 18 or 20 total blue cards is that you sometimes just don't have the colors you need or end up blowing it on things that are important. What I mean is like FoW removing FoW or a Brainstorm that you want. If you have more blue stuff, it opens up your options.

[pi4meterftw]

This is only meaningful if you actually do the math. Anything else is wild speculation. Unless you do the math, it's ludicrous to say: 31%: too low. 32%, good enough, yay!

But who wants to do the math? If you don't though, then you'll never find the true minimum. It's a continuum (well up to the discreteness of 1 card in 60), if you're looking to approximate then you might as well just recognize that and pick a number.

[Illissius]

For the record, what we're interested in isn't the odds of having Force + blue card, it's the odds of having another blue card assuming you have a Force. That would be something close to - but maybe not exactly - the aforementioned percentages multiplied by 250% (which is the inverse of 40%, which is the odds of drawing a Force). That would keep the relative difference between different numbers of blue cards the same, but magnify the absolute differences. (It's mostly just a difference of perception, but I think that's a better way to look at it.)

[4eak]

@ pi4meterftw

I will gladly admit that the true solutions are clearly mathematical. I disagree with the claim that the math isn't meaningful without the full set of computations though.

Math will give us some perspective.

Too many people think they can "feel" the difference between single card choices (X blue cards or X+1 blue cards, for example) when the truth is that they'd need a sizable sample size of testing to validly feel it; and even then, the differences are so small that only someone who had kept perfect records could honestly justify finding a difference. Cognitive science warns us about trusting experience when it comes to understanding randomness--a facet of the world which the human brain is not fit to understand; we see illusions of patterns in randomness all too often. Even Paul Erdos was confused (and originally went ballistic when he found out he was wrong) about the Monte Hall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem) problem--this stuff is not intuitive.

Math is more than a language here or some ultimately unsolved magic-thought-experiment. Math is a context-anchor for the conversation, hopefully preventing people from making claims they probably shouldn't be making. Math is a simple way to say, "hmm..most of you have never really played enough games (testing each alternative) to validly answer this question". I was originally trying to be diplomatic. I don't think the language (essentially hyperbole) I've seen regarding this question (in several threads) is acceptable given the context. That might go for magic conversation in general. I know I'm guilty of it. We should all be much quicker to admit our ignorance and much slower to claim detailed knowledge (this isn't a crack against absolute truth; I despise relativism).

As I said in my above post, the answer to this question is context specific. You need to provide the deck, pilot, metagame, etc., and only then can you honestly make a decision (or even an educated guess).


@ Illissius


For the record, what we're interested in isn't the odds of having Force + blue card, it's the odds of having another blue card assuming you have a Force.

Why would this be the best way to look at it?





peace,
4eak

[Illissius]

Why would this be the best way to look at it?


Because you can't change the odds of drawing Forces by including a different number of blue cards in your deck. What you're interested in is the percentage chance that you'll be able to cast the Force of Will which you draw.

[libingboy]

in that case, wouldnt you use the hypergeometric distribution?
assuming you have at least one FOW in your opening 7,
probability of being able to use your fow in the first turn is 1-hypgeomdist(0,6,n,59) <-excel has a built-in function
where n is the number of blue cards in your deck, excluding the 1 fow already in your hand.

i got the following: (note that a "15" means 16 blue cards)
15 0.843332274
16 0.864696055
17 0.883575675
18 0.900207721
19 0.914811469
20 0.927589749
21 0.938729788
22 0.948404032

probability seems quite high, am i missing something?

[pi4meterftw]

in that case, wouldnt you use the hypergeometric distribution?
assuming you have at least one FOW in your opening 7,
probability of being able to use your fow in the first turn is 1-hypgeomdist(0,6,n,59) <-excel has a built-in function
where n is the number of blue cards in your deck, excluding the 1 fow already in your hand.

i got the following: (note that a "15" means 16 blue cards)
15 0.843332274
16 0.864696055
17 0.883575675
18 0.900207721
19 0.914811469
20 0.927589749
21 0.938729788
22 0.948404032

probability seems quite high, am i missing something?

You're okay getting raped 15% of the time?

@4eak

I don't see how you can avoid, for one thing, a discussion based on feelings, experiences, and biases without doing the math. Besides the fact that this is a math problem, I see that as an issue with your perspective. What I don't see as an issue with your perspective is your hatred of relativism. I'm surprised anybody is stupid enough to espouse such a misinformed philosophy as relativism.

[Rico Suave]

Data?

You say that 31.4 is just way too unstable, and 32.6% is the minimum, and then 34.5% is enough to get by and 37% is very consistent? You could scroll up and see that your post added absolutely nothing to 4eak's analysis other than wild speculation and misinformation.

My data is thousands upon thousands upon thousands of games worth of experience.

If you want to look at it from a percentage point of view, think of it this way.

~40% chance to have Force of Will in opening 7.

% chance to have a blue card with that Force:

15: 31.4%
16: 32.6%
17: 33.6%
18: 34.5%
19: 35.3%
20: 35.9%
21: 36.5%
22: 37.0%

What we're concerned about is having a Force of Will and not being able to use it. What % of the time will we have Force of Will and nothing to fuel it?

With 15 blue cards, we'll have Force about 40% of the time and Force with a blue card about 31.4% of the time. This means that about 21.5% of the time we draw Force in our opener it will not be castable. In other words Force is only reliable about 78.5% of the time in the opening 7.

With 22 blue cards, we'll have Force about 40% of the time and Force with a blue card about 37% of the time. Force will not be castable about 7.5% of the time with this approach. Force jumps from a 78.5% chance of being reliable up to a whopping 92.5% chance.

The consistency and reliability of Force jumps by a full 14%. In a 20 game stretch, which would a reasonable expectation in a tournament, with 22 blue cards you'll see Force being useful in about 3 games that a build with 15 blue cards would not have a useful Force. That's like an entire match right there, and the difference between making top 8 or scrubbing out (they call it scrubbing out for a reason...).

So yea, I'd say I am spot on and I wasn't spouting misinformation or wild speculation.

Furthermore, math will never be a complete answer for this because there are simply way too many factors to take into account. Card manipulation, not using Force on the first turn but perhaps the 2nd or 3rd turn, possibly hard casting Force later in the game, and various other things will contribute to the effectiveness of the card.

Don't be so quick to discount first hand experience, especially when that experience isn't given as a cold hard fact but rather as a general guideline for others to make their own decisions.

[4eak]

@ Illissius


Because you can't change the odds of drawing Forces by including a different number of blue cards in your deck.

Clearly, this just isn't entirely true (although it is almost always true of the opening hand). It really depends on what blue cards you're choosing to use. Cards like Brainstorm, Ponder, Fact or Fiction, Standstill, Ancestral Visions, Fathom Seer (ya rly ;P), Silvergill Adept, Solidarity's list of interesting draw effects, Fire/Ice, etc. all affect the odds of drawing Forces throughout the game as well.

My problem is that assuming force is in your hand really doesn't represent what is actually happening in the game. We would be overestimating the value of Force if we assumed it was in our hand in every opener, and this would certainly change how we value the cards which support it. I definitely prefer adding (rather than removing) context to this problem.


@ pi4meterftw


You're okay getting raped 15% of the time?

Why should we not say you are getting raped 68% of the time instead? If they have the turn 1 kill (or eventual game-winning bomb) on you, then you either have FoW+Blue card, or you don't.


I don't see how you can avoid, for one thing, a discussion based on feelings, experiences, and biases without doing the math.

Assuming that no one can solve all the math, then you are assuming that we must use feelings/experience/biases, right? We are forced into that position. I didn't say I wasn't interested in anecdotal evidence and experience that hadn't done all the math--but I'm uninterested in some claims which I know can't be made because of the math I do have (you said much the same above). I just think we should be more careful about the conclusions we draw. I think math is more useful than you implied, even if only it helps us to weed out improper, hyperbolic claims.

I think with enough testing (and proper recording of results) you may be able to arrive at some conclusions. My point was that nobody had done enough testing to answer this problem, and as they hadn't solved the entire math problem (which includes so many more factors), then we probably should be more careful with our language. Some people talk about "the blue count for force" as if they are dealing with the facts instead of outright admitting these are guesses, that was my problem.

Of course, the entire math problem is far too difficult to solve. Yes, we can solve some pieces of the puzzle, and as both you and I have pointed out in this thread, that isn't enough to really arrive at the perfect answer. The math might still be a guide though. So, while we don't know the answer, we at least do have a way to gauge (from the math) some details about the value of experience and how much testing (at a minimum) might be required to draw certain conclusions.

My response to your post was that the math, indirectly, was more useful than you implied. Not much more really; I agreed with the rest of your post =).


@ Rico Suave


My data is thousands upon thousands upon thousands of games worth of experience.

Wait, you tested thousands of games at each: 15 blue cards, 16 blue, 17, 18, 19, etc.? You kept great records of this? Are you sure you aren't being just a little biased? These aren't large percentages we are talking about -- 1 or 2 card differences, especially for an event which we don't necessarily pay perfect attention to throughout our testing and experience, is not very easy to 'feel'.


What we're concerned about is having a Force of Will and not being able to use it.

If reliability is understood in terms of the opening hand (which I will admit, there is more to the card), then we cannot understand its value by assuming it is in your hand and discounting the times it wasn't in your opening hand--which is what you've done.

The reliability of FoW in the opening hand begins at a 40% ceiling. You can't make it more reliable than that, it only goes down from there.

Take a different example:

If I only have 1 Battle of Wits added to my 299 Island deck, I can't really understand the reliability of casting Battle of Wits by assuming it was already in my opening hand. I must understand it in a broader context, I need to account for the odds of drawing that Battle of Wits itself. Likewise, we need to take into consideration the odds of drawing FoW itself to help us understand how we should go about supporting it. Unlike Battle of Wits, which actually wins the game, FoW may or may not be as useful (compared to the rest of our deck) in helping us win, and with only a 40% chance to see it in the opening, we must give thought to the other cards in the deck. Perhaps slots which would have supported FoW could have been used more wisely for other functions that don't support FoW.


Don't be so quick to discount first hand experience, especially when that experience isn't given as a cold hard fact but rather as a general guideline for others to make their own decisions.

I'm sorry, you aren't offering just "general guidelines". I agree when you say say this:


This has to be taken in context though. For example if you are playing a TFK/Welder synergy deck, and your hand is Force/TFK/S.Titan, you *can* pitch Force but you will probably be crippled by it.

However, you extended your anecdotal evidence too far. Your language included:


very, very low amount....way too unstable....enough to get by....spot on....That's like an entire match right there, and the difference between making top 8 or scrubbing out (they call it scrubbing out for a reason...)

This was the problem. These aren't general guidelines. You setup a blue count list, and ran through them like these were facts, not anecdote and your experience.

The more I play this game (and think about it), the more I realize how much I don't (and will likely never) justifiably know.





peace,
4eak

[Forbiddian]

in that case, wouldnt you use the hypergeometric distribution?
assuming you have at least one FOW in your opening 7,
probability of being able to use your fow in the first turn is 1-hypgeomdist(0,6,n,59) <-excel has a built-in function
where n is the number of blue cards in your deck, excluding the 1 fow already in your hand.

i got the following: (note that a "15" means 16 blue cards)
15 0.843332274
16 0.864696055
17 0.883575675
18 0.900207721
19 0.914811469
20 0.927589749
21 0.938729788
22 0.948404032

probability seems quite high, am i missing something?


Those numbers seem about right.

It really highlights the crux of the issue and why it's so hard to discuss: Decks that run with only 15 or 16 blue spells can still cast Force of Will very reliably. It would take a large number of games before you'd even see a few games where the low blue count deck didn't have the turn 1 Force of Will whereas the higher blue count deck would have. And the difference is even more slight if the issue is Force of Will midgame or lategame (where the problem boils down more to the strength of the blue spells and their function rather than the raw number count).

Assuming that Force of Will is still needed, it might be the correct play for a deck to run Force of Will even with just 14 or 15 blue cards total.

But once you do that, the deck probably ends up with an optimization problem. When you're running Force of Will, every spell that's blue gets a big advantage just by virtue of the fact that it's blue and can be pitched to Force of Will, since each one adds like a 1% chance to get the Force of Will. When you reoptimize the deck, you'll probably end up with a deck with around 16-22 blue spells.


It's up to the deck designer to optimize it, but a lot depends on the type of blue spells, what you need the Force for, and most importantly: What your best blue/non-blue alternatives are, because that's the real point of transition. If you have a very good blue alternative, even if you're running 24+ blue spells, it's probably worth it to run more blue. If your next-best blue alternative is a huge step down, it might be better to run with 16 or 17 blue spells rather than take that step backward.

Either way, the best information isn't a vague description of the feeling you get when someone says a number, it's the actual statistical breakdown on how the deck's chances are affected. Deck designers can use that information to get a better understanding of what their deck needs to do.


Raw blue count will always be a good measure of how reliable Force of Will will be, but it's worth noting that there are many other factors at stake.

[Lothian]

I think with enough testing (and proper recording of results) you may be able to arrive at some conclusions. My point was that nobody had done enough testing to answer this problem, and as they hadn't solved the entire math problem (which includes so many more factors), then we probably should be more careful with our language. Some people talk about "the blue count for force" as if they are dealing with the facts instead of outright admitting these are guesses, that was my problem.

Triviality

If you were a worker, you would be a secretary typing excessively

If you were a coder, you would be a spagetthi

If you were blue, you would be the Force withOut the Will

[Rico Suave]

Wait, you tested thousands of games at each: 15 blue cards, 16 blue, 17, 18, 19, etc.? You kept great records of this? Are you sure you aren't being just a little biased? These aren't large percentages we are talking about -- 1 or 2 card differences, especially for an event which we don't necessarily pay perfect attention to throughout our testing and experience, is not very easy to 'feel'.

I don't know how many games I've played at each, nor do I have records, nor do I care. What I do know is I have played with Force of Will a lot. Like really a lot. I don't want this to become a bragging contest so I'll leave it at that.

The first time I sat down and went through extensive testing of the blue count for Force in a deck was when playing Rector Trix. This deck in particular was the first deck I ran across which really wanted Force of Will but had trouble finding enough blue to support it, and it really pushed the boundaries for how low can the blue count get while still supporting Force. Given that the deck was completely fresh and new after fetchlands were printed, the only real way to improve the deck at the time was to just play out a lot of games, change 1-2 cards, then play out a lot more and see what the 1-2 cards did. I literally played hundreds of games each with 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 blue cards respectively in the deck and took notes of it. Granted I wasn't just testing the blue count, but I was also testing the effective power level of many cards in the deck too (like, say, Timetwister).

While fine tuning a deck down to 1 or 2 card differences may be foreign and incomprehensible territory for a lot of people, it's not that way for everyone. Especially in decks where you have tons of draw and manipulation, as opposed to something straightforward like Zoo, you would be greatly surprised how often that 1 card difference comes up once you get really used to it. If you don't believe me, perhaps you will believe Adrian Sullivan:

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/extended/6444_Sullivan_Library_Building_Singleton_Psychatog.html


If reliability is understood in terms of the opening hand (which I will admit, there is more to the card), then we cannot understand its value by assuming it is in your hand and discounting the times it wasn't in your opening hand--which is what you've done.

The reliability of FoW in the opening hand begins at a 40% ceiling. You can't make it more reliable than that, it only goes down from there.


You are talking about the chance for a deck to cast Force.

I am talking about the chance to use Force, assuming it is drawn.

Both measure how reliable it is. The first just measures how reliable the deck is, whereas the second measures how reliable the card is. The difference is it is easier to see and gauge the effectiveness of the blue count using the second method.


This was the problem. These aren't general guidelines. You setup a blue count list, and ran through them like these were facts, not anecdote and your experience.


The guy asked a simple question, I gave him a simple answer. I even told him things must be taken in context, how can you possibly take that post as anything but a general guideline? Relax.

[Illissius]

I literally played hundreds of games each with 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 blue cards respectively in the deck and took notes of it. Granted I wasn't just testing the blue count, but I was also testing the effective power level of many cards in the deck too (like, say, Timetwister).

This is good to know. Made me go and reread what your guidelines were again. :-)



Both measure how reliable it is. The first just measures how reliable the deck is, whereas the second measures how reliable the card is.

I was going to say something similar, but not formulated nearly as well.

[Maveric78f]

This is a problem as old as Alliance edition.

Still funny to read, but for once, I would agree with Rico_Suave. The count isn't the only indicator. It's not even the main one I'd say. Other indicators:
- how long do you keep blue cards in hand? Playing Serum Visions and counterspells will not have the same impact on the playability of FoW.
- what's your SB? Playing at a too low blue cards count will make your SBing options difficult.
- what's your metagame? Is there a lot of turn1 spell to counterspell? Are they worth the card disadvantage?
- what's the use of FoW? Is it to counterspell on turn1? Is it to coutnerspell while you're developing? Is it to protect your combo?

In a deck like Team America, I would not hesitate to remove FoW from the MD. With Daze, Spell Pierce, Spell Snare, Thoughtseize, Snuff Out, you should be able to deal with almost everything. FoW is still a strong SB option to replace daze on the draw. In other words, in Team America, I'd rather cut FoW instead of playing it without the full power.

[DragoFireheart]

Have some of you never been to school? It's great that you show your answers, but where is the work?

Please, someone show me the math demonstrating the % of times you will have a opening hand containing 1 FoW and 1 other blue card with 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 blue cards not including FoW.

[Maveric78f]

Have some of you never been to school? It's great that you show your answers, but where is the work?

Please, someone show me the math demonstrating the % of times you will have a opening hand containing 1 FoW and 1 other blue card with 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 blue cards not including FoW.

What will you do with it? Don't you trust people? If you can't figure it yourself, do you really think you'll be able to judge soundness of others' math?


p(noFoW/handOf7) = (56/60)*(55/59)*(54/58)*(53/57)*(52/56)*(51/55)*(50/54)
p(atLeast1FoW/handOf7) = 1-(56/60)*(55/59)*(54/58)*(53/57)*(52/56)*(51/55)*(50/54)
p(noOtherUCard/atLeast1FoW&handOf7) = ((60-x)/59)*((59-x)/58)*((58-x)/57)*((57-x)/56)*((56-x)/55)*((55-x)/54)
p(atLeast1OtherUCard/atLeast1FoW&handOf7) = 1-((60-x)/59)*((59-x)/58)*((58-x)/57)*((57-x)/56)*((56-x)/55)*((55-x)/54)

p(x) = p(atLeast1FoW/handOf7)*p(atLeast1OtherUCard/atLeast1FoW&handOf7)
p(x) = (1-(56/60)*(55/59)*(54/58)*(53/57)*(52/56)*(51/55)*(50/54))*(1-((60-x)/59)*((59-x)/58)*((58-x)/57)*((57-x)/56)*((56-x)/55)*((55-x)/54))

[Forbiddian]

Have some of you never been to school? It's great that you show your answers, but where is the work?

Please, someone show me the math demonstrating the % of times you will have a opening hand containing 1 FoW and 1 other blue card with 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 blue cards not including FoW.

Lol, wtf? Have you ever been to school?




The count isn't the only indicator. It's not even the main one I'd say.

Blue count is still always going to be the main indicator. If you have like 5 more blue spells, you'll always have better Forces. If and only if the difference is like 1 blue spell AND the soft-factors are all like completely maxed out (like one guy plays all creatures and the other guys all draw spells) do the soft-factors matter a lot. Especially (exclusively?) when we're looking at the odds to Force of Will turn 0.




Both measure how reliable it is. The first just measures how reliable the deck is, whereas the second measures how reliable the card is.


What are you talking about? It's the same number, slightly converted. It's like if someone told you the temperature in Kelvins and you talked about how that number is useless because you wanted it in Fahrenheit.

Especially based on the thread title: "How many Blue cards are needed to support Force of Will?" The number to use should definitely be the odds of being able to use a Force of Will (which gives a much more realistic depiction of how the deck's effectiveness scales with blue spells) and not the odds of being able to use a Force of Will, given that you have a Force of Will (which doesn't even come close to reflecting a real-game situation e.g. when you have to mulligan onto a Force of Will against Belcher or something else).

You could argue, "but it tells you the odds you have a dead card." Which is generally irrelevant, since you'll draw into a blue (or 3UU). I have no idea why one of the two numbers would be that preferential, and if you had to twist my arm, I'd say the blue+force odds much better reflect a real-life situation.

And anyway, how hard is it to just divide by 0.4. You guys aren't retarded, and Illisius even pointed out that's what you do.

[Maveric78f]

Blue count is still always going to be the main indicator. If you have like 5 more blue spells, you'll always have better Forces. If and only if the difference is like 1 blue spell AND the soft-factors are all like completely maxed out (like one guy plays all creatures and the other guys all draw spells) do the soft-factors matter a lot. Especially (exclusively?) when we're looking at the odds to Force of Will turn 0.
When I said that the blue count was not the main indicator, I was clearly exaggerating. But regarding what you say after, it already answers my soft indicators. If you look FoW as a turn0 answer, then you expect to use it in a specific way, for a specific metagame. Incidentally, I think that people seem to overestimate the need for a turn0 counterspell. It's definitely not the primary use of FoW. Just think about it. How often do you counterspell something at turn 0. In legacy, FoW is more a daze-proof turn 1 hard counterspell.

[DragoFireheart]

Lol, wtf? Have you ever been to school?


There's nothing wrong with asking to have the work shown. Why you are acting offended is puzzling.

[Illissius]

There's nothing wrong with asking to have the work shown. Why you are acting offended is puzzling.

Because you didn't say, "could you some of you guys show me how you arrived at these results? thanks", you said, "have you guys never been to school?". Why you are puzzled when your actions have their predictable result is, itself, puzzling.

[Phoenix Ignition]

Still funny to read, but for once, I would agree with Rico_Suave. The count isn't the only indicator. It's not even the main one I'd say. Other indicators:
- how long do you keep blue cards in hand? Playing Serum Visions and counterspells will not have the same impact on the playability of FoW.

This is one of the major points in the discussion that has been largely untouched, and has not been taken into the math. It is true that a turn 0 FoW is in the majority of matches not going to be the best play, depending on many things, including the deck you are playing yourself.

I know in plenty of matches the best spell you can counter is their late game bomb, such as Natural Order, Elspeth, or even just a solution to your own bomb. Any deck that plays hand disruption turns your FoW into a late game counterspell instead of an early one, so the total amount of blue spells matters more here.

One good thing to keep in mind is that situational blue cards are going to have a stronger effect on the number of mid to lategame blue cards you have in your hand. If you play Standstill, Ancestral Visions, Stifle, Spell Snare, Daze, and other situational blue cards you play are much more likely to have one sitting in your hand when you top deck a FoW than you would when you play exclusively cantrips.

I know it's not part of the OP's deck, but running Tops + fetchlands or just Brainstorm + fetchlands effectively adds to the amount of blue cards you will see during a game.

Lastly the cost and importance of each blue card would need to be taken into consideration. If you have a new jace + FoW in your hand you will always be able to FoW the 2nd turn Tarmogoyf if need be, but if you had a FoW + Ponder it is quite possible you wiffed the top 3 cards being blue and have a dead FoW. If you use blue creatures you might need to play a creature to stay alive next turn, and counter their new Tarmogoyf this turn. That could leave you pitching your only creature card in order to try and not die next turn.

Unless the question is specifically how many blue cards should you run to have a FoW that is usable on the first turn only, then this is going to be too hard to solve with math. Anecdotal evidence is not particularly convincing either, but it's really the only way you can go about giving any sort of meaningful answer to the question, even if it is completely emotional.

[DragoFireheart]

Because you didn't say, "could you some of you guys show me how you arrived at these results? thanks", you said, "have you guys never been to school?". Why you are puzzled when your actions have their predictable result is, itself, puzzling.


I'm not puzzled: I expected answers faster since people respond quicker to negativity.

[Rico Suave]

Especially based on the thread title: "How many Blue cards are needed to support Force of Will?" The number to use should definitely be the odds of being able to use a Force of Will (which gives a much more realistic depiction of how the deck's effectiveness scales with blue spells) and not the odds of being able to use a Force of Will, given that you have a Force of Will (which doesn't even come close to reflecting a real-game situation e.g. when you have to mulligan onto a Force of Will against Belcher or something else).

Perhaps a hard example will help clarify what I mean.

Let's say we were playing a deck that is trying to force through a combo of some kind, and that our two main options for protection are Force of Will and Duress. Let's assume that Force is the better card in this deck, but it's not that much better than Duress to warrant playing Force at all costs. If it were possible to come up with a theoretical power level, and say that Duress is 90% as good as Force, then we have some things to weigh in our decision.

Now if the deck changes the blue count and loses the ability to Force 1-2% less, we have to take into account the fact that the card itself drops in power by about 2-5%. If we drop enough blue cards that Force is only at, say, 90% of its original effectiveness then the aforementioned Duress would actually become a better card for the deck.

Do you see what I mean?

[Forbiddian]

Perhaps a hard example will help clarify what I mean.

Let's say we were playing a deck that is trying to force through a combo of some kind, and that our two main options for protection are Force of Will and Duress. Let's assume that Force is the better card in this deck, but it's not that much better than Duress to warrant playing Force at all costs. If it were possible to come up with a theoretical power level, and say that Duress is 90% as good as Force, then we have some things to weigh in our decision.

Now if the deck changes the blue count and loses the ability to Force 1-2% less, we have to take into account the fact that the card itself drops in power by about 2-5%. If we drop enough blue cards that Force is only at, say, 90% of its original effectiveness then the aforementioned Duress would actually become a better card for the deck.

Do you see what I mean?

Sorry, I still really don't see what you mean. It again seems like using the true force probability will better help your deck decide whether it's beneficial to cut blue count AND Force of Will for Duress OR keep a high blue count and Force of Will, to me anyway.

But at any rate, just divide by 0.4 in your head. If it helps you see it better, all the power to you and you should definitely do that. It's more clear to me to see the Force of Will + Blue Count probabilities, as long as you're clear which one you're actually doing. Honestly if he reported the number as Usable Force given Force, I would multiply by 0.4 in my head.

I dunno, it's like in Chem Lab when I still mentally convert 20 degrees Celsius to Fahrenheit cause I grew up in god damn America (specifically mild-weathered Bay Area) and any temperature between 15 and 25 degrees Celsius I visualize better in Fahrenheit, so I mentally convert them, but then anything outside that range I visualize better in Celsius. Seems retarded, but it helps me run my reactions, so w/e.

Either way, it's just a conversion away (and a very small additional factor), it's not like we're looking at fundamentally different numbers here.

[4eak]

@ Rico Suave


Let's say we were playing a deck that is trying to force through a combo of some kind, and that our two main options for protection are Force of Will and Duress. Let's assume that Force is the better card in this deck, but it's not that much better than Duress to warrant playing Force at all costs. If it were possible to come up with a theoretical power level, and say that Duress is 90% as good as Force, then we have some things to weigh in our decision.

Now if the deck changes the blue count and loses the ability to Force 1-2% less, we have to take into account the fact that the card itself drops in power by about 2-5%. If we drop enough blue cards that Force is only at, say, 90% of its original effectiveness then the aforementioned Duress would actually become a better card for the deck.

Here's the problem: you're assuming you simply 'know' the value of FoW and Duress in this deck. That is the sort of the information you could only know by not assuming FoW was in your hand and actually looking at the real odds of having an active Force compared to the real odds of having an active Duress.

Sure, if you already knew this information, and cutting blue cards changed nothing else about the deck (or Duress' value) besides FoW's value, then it would make more sense to do what you've said. The problem is that we don't have those actual values of FoW and Duress. At this point, the best way to judge card value is at a macro-level, with as much context as we can muster; we must try understand how it interacts with the rest of deck (opponent and metagame as well).

Judging how much you improve the value of a card, without knowing the overall value of that card with regards to the deck as a whole, isn't as meaningful. If I was sporting a Tarpan in my deck, and I was to run this card: "Aura, :g::g:, enchant only cards named 'Tarpan', this creature gets +3/+3", perhaps we'd argue that Tarpan is now X% more effective. But, if you don't understand Tarpan's value to the deck as a whole, then it isn't as meaningful to discuss how to support it. I'd want to consider Tarpan's value to the deck (as much context as possible actually) when justifying or describing how we should support it.

I definitely prefer not assuming FoW is in hand (only a small calculation away from what you prefer) simply because it puts the problem in a context that forces us to at least attempt to gauge the value of FoW. In your case, since we don't actually have a clue about the values of FoW and Duress in a deck, not assuming FoW in hand at least gives a larger picture view, and perhaps even some context by which we could compare it to Duress.




peace,
4eak