Duress Hymn vs Hymn Duress

[Rico Suave]

If you're trying to say that sometimes it is better to save the Ritual, then you are correct.

If you're trying to say that it is never correct to Ritual out Duress/Hymn early, then you are wrong.

[dahcmai]

I'm just of the opinion that if you Duress first you will get a non-land card of course. Then with the Hymn you have increased your chances (however minimal) that you will hit lands. Lands are almost always the best thing to hit with a Hymn.

[EssKay]

Again, you're trading 3 cards for 3 cards against decks that top deck better than you do. period. full stop.

You're blowing your load too early. So you steal a turn because they have to discard a land, "oh shit!" What are you playing turn two? Not your hymn, or anything else above a cc of 2. Mean while they top decked into something better.You're not "sacrificing card advantage in the short term for power in the long term," because decks recover too easily these days. Sure you blow them out turns 1-3, but what are you playing in the meantime to take advantage of assumed tempo you've created. The reason I would duress then hymn and save the ritual is it allows me to unload later in the game. Consistent discard over multiple turns is better than one huge move in the beginning because black based decks don't recover as well as their opponents

Personally, I think duress, then hymn then ritual into tombstalker is a much better play. Instead your down 3 cards on turn one, with most likely nothing come down turn two (sinkhole, confidant maybe) I don't mean to be redundant but your blowing your load too early.

You're all operating under the assumption that the hymn is going to something of importance, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. What if they topdeck goyf instead of having it in their starting seven, I hope you have snuff out. Assuming everything is going to go your way and disregarding counterfactual statements is just bad theory.

Assuming every blue deck will have a flawless top-deck recovery on turn 2 is every bit as absurd as assuming they won't. The correct play is entirely situational. I've had plenty of games where I go T1 Ritual -> Thoughtseize -> Hymn, T2 Hymn. If I start with Tombstalker in hand, then I'll probably save the ritual, otherwise I'm probably going to be as agressive with discard as possible.

Most people base their early game plan on their opening hand, and won't keep something without at least a couple strong plays, and the more you can disrupt that early plan, the more likely you are to put them in top-deck/recovery mode. Sure it's one-for-one, but unless you kept a hand full of discard with no threats to back it up, you're generally gaining the advantage.

Also, Bob is a common 2cc dude, and it can be a real bitch to get him to stick around for a few turns, so clearing out potential answers can really help.

[edgewalker]

The fundamental flaw that I'm trying to point out is that while you're putting them into recovery/topdeck mode you're also putting yourself into the same position. Turn 1 you have 3 cards in hand to their 4 + 1 that they will draw once you pass your turn. In addition most decks outside of combo get out of topdeck/recovery mode better than your deck does.

I will say that Turn 1: ritual + duress/thoughtseize + 2cc threat is a good play. If you replace Bob with hymn the scenario gets much better.

@Esskay: I'm simply trying to keep the situation consistent for both players. If we're going to assume the best case scenario for our side, why not assume the same for theirs? The problem is that everyone always has a knee-jerk reaction to assume what if things go their way without positing what if they don't. In this scenario I believe it's not going to go your way more often than it will.

[EssKay]

unless you kept a hand full of discard with no threats to back it up, you're generally gaining the advantage.

I don't think you read my whole post. You don't put yourself in recovery mode because you have a threat to follow up with. Now if they get lucky and draw an answer the next turn (something like a 45% chance to pull something that's a 4-of at that point in the game, provided all 4 are still in the deck), then yes, you've gained no ground. I think statistically though you're better off forcing them to draw answers rather than leave them in their hand.

You're not really keeping the situation consistent if you assume that the opponent's hand never has more than one play for turn 1/2, which Duress will handily take care of. Really by your logic, why play Duress at all? It's always a 1 for 1 and apparently almost every deck out there will have no trouble recovering.

[edgewalker]

I don't think you read my whole post. You don't put yourself in recovery mode because you have a threat to follow up with. Now if they get lucky and draw an answer the next turn (something like a 45% chance to pull something that's a 4-of at that point in the game, provided all 4 are still in the deck), then yes, you've gained no ground. I think statistically though you're better off forcing them to draw answers rather than leave them in their hand.

You're not really keeping the situation consistent if you assume that the opponent's hand never has more than one play for turn 1/2, which Duress will handily take care of. Really by your logic, why play Duress at all? It's always a 1 for 1 and apparently almost every deck out there will have no trouble recovering.

I'm not against trading 2 for 3 for multiple turns. The problem is doing 3 for 3 in one large swing. The scenario would be much different if everyone's hand was only 3 cards, but they're not. You have 3, but they have essentially 5. Did you really come out on top? Was it really worth it?