Originally Posted by libingboy
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.
TrivialityI 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.
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
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/e...Psychatog.html
You are talking about the chance for a deck to cast Force.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.
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.
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.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.
Suddenly, Fluffy realized she wasn't quite like the other bunnies anymore.
-Team R&D-
-noitcelfeR maeT-
This is good to know. Made me go and reread what your guidelines were again. :-)
I was going to say something similar, but not formulated nearly as well.Both measure how reliable it is. The first just measures how reliable the deck is, whereas the second measures how reliable the card is.
SummenSaugen: well, I use Chaos Orb, Animate Artifact, and Dance of Many to make the table we're playing on my chaos orb token
SummenSaugen: then I flip it over and crush my opponent
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.
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?
Code: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))
Lol, wtf? Have you ever been to school?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
SummenSaugen: well, I use Chaos Orb, Animate Artifact, and Dance of Many to make the table we're playing on my chaos orb token
SummenSaugen: then I flip it over and crush my opponent
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.
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.
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?
Suddenly, Fluffy realized she wasn't quite like the other bunnies anymore.
-Team R&D-
-noitcelfeR maeT-
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.
@ Rico Suave
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.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.
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,, 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
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote