When I used to play DIF's old list of UWb wishstill, I would go to time and win on turns 95% of my matches, in fact, all but two of my matches of the hollywood side event this happened.
Playing anything for an entire day is not too difficult for me... the most thought provoking decks in the format are actually FT and solidarity, and a lot of people truly cannot play those two decks for an entire tournament without letting the stress get to them.
It is strange how playing control for so long eventually fine-tunes your skills as an all around player eventually.
Unfortunately, I got sick of LS, and focus on playing every archtype equally to further enhance my skills, and this is something that I suggest to all magic players.
Don't become a one deck person, or you will eventually loose the ability to use certain facets of the game...
Just like Nightmare's comment about stress and creature combat.
I've been playing UWb landstill for about 4 months now and have experienced long matches that don't go to time. To say you never go to time, come on now, be honest.Originally Posted by thefreakaccident
The toughest part about landstill is grinding long matches all day, not like 50+ minute matchs, but more along the lines of 15-20 minute games or 30-40 minute rounds each round. At my last tournament, I played Ichorid twice and ended up 2-0, 4-1 against it. After a 25 minute stalemate with a million tokens versus ee @ 0, I can say I was a little on edge. I usually don't get tired until I walk across the parking lot to my car. That is when the true mental fatigue sinks in. At that point, you have a chance to reflect on every play you made and it can be a little daunting, but control is too much fun not to play.
Co-Founder of Team Awesome - I heard Randy Buehler say a while back that good players give themselves the most number of turns to find the answer.
The Source on MTGO - Predator8785 and RockOut
As long as you're advancing the game state, it's not stalling.
Tom LaPille has a great article on mechanically playing faster that is especially important with Top decks. It's the kind of stuff that you can't learn any other way, and will cause you to draw with a manipulation heavy or land heavy deck like Landstill that isn't quite slow play: http://playmagicwith.tomlapille.com/...o-play-faster/
Magic Level 3 Judge
Southern USA Regional Coordinator
Anusien: Yeah; the best example is just holding your win condition and pretending you haven't drawn it yet or w/e while continuing to make land drops or something similar.
Nihil: You obviously only run the clock in a game one situation.
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
But that is an even less realistic scenario. A non-terrible opponent would then concede even earlier, i.e. as soon as his chances of winning game 1 become lower than the chances of winning both postboard games.
YOU'RE GIVING ME A TIME MACHINE IN ORDER TO TREAT MY SLEEP DISORDER.
You would think :B
(I actually think pretty much all Magic players are terrible, and consider myself to be merely "not terrible" but still a very far cry from "good.")
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
Good thing there are <100 of those.
Magic Level 3 Judge
Southern USA Regional Coordinator
It doesn't matter how dumb you think it is, it's the rules. You don't get more time to act when the game state becomes more complicated.
@Nihil: I suppose I misspoke a bit. You can have LESS time to act if the game state is complicated, but not the other way around, and that's just a judgment call on my part. Some judges will give you the same ~10 seconds no matter what. Personally I'll give you 10 seconds unless you have 0 permanents in play and are topdecking, at which point you probably need to move a bit closer. But like I said, that's just how I personally run. No matter how you look at it though, you never get more time to act for a complicated game state. That's where some of the most playskill intensive portions of the game come.
If there's <100 people that know how to milk a slower control deck for time to their own advantage in a tournament, then I'm pretty sure they've been busy engaging in a vast conspiracy to always follow me around get paired against me at tournaments.
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
I've been playing UWb landstill for about 4 months now and have experienced long matches that don't go to time. To say you never go to time, come on now, be honest.
When I used to play DIF's old list of UWb wishstill, I would go to time and win on turns 95% of my matches, in fact, all but two of my matches of the hollywood side event this happened.
Or your opponents just suck and play slowly in general.
Magic Level 3 Judge
Southern USA Regional Coordinator
Wait, what?
You are saying as Landstill, you'd only run the clock in game 1 (ie, you have things sealed up and are sitting on that DoJ not cycling it to eat time), correct?
I would have to imagine that as Landstill you could want to run the clock in game 2 after a game 1 win as well. Not in the "I sit back on my DoJ not trying to put the match away, but in the "I'll side out some win conditions for more control elements so I can't possibly lose, drawing game 2, creating a match win." While not an exact overlap, Smmenen did this with Mono Blue Control in Vintage Champs (or maybe it was a SCG P9 event?) one year (2005?). He would side out the Morphlings after winning game one, with no intention of actually trying to win game 2.
Theory:
Say you've won game 1 and there are X minutes left. And let's say if you board for the draw the function for chance to draw game 2 is 100-X percent (for this particular match), losing is X percent, and in the event of a lose, your odds of drawing and losing are again the same.
Then let's say that if you don't board for the draw, your percentage chance to win game 2 is 3X percent (for this particular match), (100 - 3X)/3 to lose the game, and 2(100 - 3X)/3 to draw.
So, if game 1 takes you 30 minutes (leaving you 20 minutes), you'd have a 60% chance to win if you board to win game 2, 13.33% to lose, and 26.66% to draw, you're obviously better than the 20% chance to lose (likely to result in match draw) by boarding out windconditions.
However, if you take 40 minutes to win game 1, we change to 30% chance to win game 2 (boarding to win), 23.33% to lose, and 46.66% to draw, you're worse off than boarding for the draw, at 90% to draw (results in match win), and 10% chance to lose (likely to result in match draw).
Additionally, I'll throw the hypothesis out there, that as a control deck, when you board for the draw in game 2, if you actually lose game 2, you're more likely to draw game 3 as well (because you'd eat more time in game 2, where as boarding to win in game 2, and losing game 2, you'll have a greater chance of winning/losing due to more time being left on the clock, there will be more time because you had less answers to your opponent's threats, generating a faster win for them).
So, if game 1 was long and dragged out, boarding and playing for the draw in game 2 can be the correct play (because as a control deck, you chances of winning goes down based on some proportional function of time).
Except when they're down a game.
Yeah.
Unlikely.
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
Hmm...you really sure about that ? There is a complex creature situation and both players holding five or six cards in the control mirror, and if you take longer than ten seconds to think about what you'll do you get a warning/game loss ?
georgjorgeGeistreich sind schon die anderen.
Pretty much. First you'll probably get a Caution, which is just the judge asking you to play faster. Then you'll get a Warning. Keep playing slowly and it escalates.
That was pretty much my point. How many games do you play that both you and your opponent act that quickly? Probably a very small portion. And I think that's what contributes to most draws.
I can't believe almost all of you are of the opinion that opponents who play slow are not only wrong and furthermore foolish for doing so, but also breaking the rules" enough to call a judge on.
You're the one who decided to play Landstill, knowing full well that your opponents will shiver in their boots about what you COULD be holding in your hand, knowing that they can't make any mistakes otherwise it could cost them the precious game needed to win. You're playing a deck where your opening hand rarely contains an actual win condition. I don't think Landstill has any right to complain.
The fact that you're happy that your opponents' adrenaline kicks in when you call the judge in order to be a wimp ("jerk", "lawyer", or "fun killer" would give you too much credit) just means that you REALLY don't play this game for enjoyment. Your counterargument is probably that "winning is my enjoyment" or "I like making complicated decisions"... neither address the situation here.
Do you forget you're facing a human opponent? Purposely making them hate you enough to make misplays after you call the judge is really pretty rude. It's happened to me enough times at tournaments to make me realize that only people like this seem to play the game. I've had very few enjoyable matches when I go to tournaments, mainly because nobody is actually playing their own deck because they are under the impression that they MUST win - and the only way to do so is to play the best deck, or prove their superiority by boosting their ego with Landstill.
If you simply like the deck, then forgive the rant, as it probably doesn't apply to you
So how much time should I be allotted to play my half of my match? Fifteen minutes?I can't believe almost all of you are of the opinion that opponents who play slow are not only wrong and furthermore foolish for doing so, but also breaking the rules" enough to call a judge on.
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
I always thought matches should be handled this way. Of a 50 minute match, each player has 25 minutes. It would necessitate chess clocks though.
It's probably not practical, and there are so many shortcuts it would probably be a time waster when first implemented, but the basic idea is obviously sound.
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
Why do you use quotation marks? There's no speculation here. Stalling is against the rules. You'll get warnings from it with or without player interference if a judge sees it. In the meantime, judges like being informed of whether or not the rules are being broken, generally.
There's so much incoherence here I can't make heads or tails of it. What are you saying? That people should feel bad for playing a deck that people might not like playing against? That people are, somewhere, someplace I've never heard of anyway, so terrified of playing against Landstill that they wet themselves at the table the first time they see a Mishra's Factory? That people should be compensated via being allowed to break rules, such as stalling, for getting a matchup that requires tight play (like, y'know, most of them)?You're the one who decided to play Landstill, knowing full well that your opponents will shiver in their boots about what you COULD be holding in your hand, knowing that they can't make any mistakes otherwise it could cost them the precious game needed to win. You're playing a deck where your opening hand rarely contains an actual win condition. I don't think Landstill has any right to complain.
I considered dissecting the rest of your post and addressing it piece by piece, but then I decided not to.
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote