L1 Judge here. If I were called to the situation you described in your first post, I’d rule that player B’s explanation is correct: Player A putting their Gisela in the graveyard indicates that they chose to apply the damage doubling effect first, which is a legal choice for them to make. Player B’s choice of applying the damage reduction effect first is also legal, so there’s nothing to do here: Player A’s Gisela is dead, Player B’s Gisela is alive, and they can continue with the game.
Note that it doesn’t matter whether Player A knew that they could choose in which order they apply the replacement effects. Player B gets an advantage for having a superior knowledge of the rules, but that’s how competitive Magic works.
@Islandswamp I have been thinking about Omniscience builds for the past couple of weeks and here I see that your list is two months old. Oh well! In theory I think that the Omniscience builds are the best suited right now.
Also I think we can shave a Misstep for another spell right now, preferably something like an Abrupt Decay which interacts favorably with Priest, Displacer, both Thalias, etc.
A card for 2 mana (totally playable in a deck that wants to spit the whole hand ASAP) cannot be compared with a card that costs 2RR, much harder to cast. Same for Jagged Poppet (I have seen it play in vintage). And this is a 5/5, way harder to kill.
Affinity seems the natural home, but even aggro mud can play it.
Going back to the original post and card list Brassman:
Considering all the mentor, the rise of the eldrazi and some recent success of various fish type decks would you swap out duress for thoughtseize? Seems a much better meta-game call to me.
@ChubbyRain actually I don't think there is ... you can just look at one tag (which would do it if everyone used "deck-discussion", but you can't look at everything BUT one tag ... definitely make a thread in metadiscussion/feature requests if that's something you could use
... not that I've been able to get to a ton of those lately
There are corner cases in which it has some value, like bouncing a Gush, Blightsteel, or your own spell
In what way are those corner cases? You literally just named a hyper common draw spell that gets hurt hard by this, one of the more prominent win conditions in the format, and the most common thing you see in any game of magic, your own spells.
Now in my eyes this is a sideboard card for the sake of versatility, and probably only one in a blue tempo list, but I can EASILY see it being played and that means it merits discussion.
When Natural state was spoiled people said it was trash and would not see play because of Natures claim and then it saw play and I did not hear people apologizing for being wrong. Jace is the example people always go to but we don't need to go to the largest example just to prove a point. A card is vintage playable under a lot of circumstances, I think this will see play for all the reasons people have already laid out.
They are corner cases because like I said before - I'd rather just counter the gush or counter the tinker that brought in blightsteel or swords the blightsteel. Counters and swords are already run in decks. You aren't replacing one of t hose with this card. Bounce card that are run in decks include echoing truth, chain of vapor, repeal and hurkyl's recall. You aren't running unsubstantiate over any of those except maybe chain of vapor. But honestly chain sees little to no play anymore. Hurkyl's and echoing truth are more efficient for the same cost unless you both happen to have blightsteel colossus in play. Then this card is better. That's about all I can think of.
But I guarantee you, people will try this and have success and think this proves them right. What they need to ask themselves is this - was that success because ANY bounce or counter would have worked or was that success because I had this particular card over card X? If its the latter, come back and make the case.
I play all of my artifact mana and cast Thorn. I hold back both Wasteland and Revoker.
I don't need Wasteland in play this turn to cast both Golem and Revoker next turn, and holding Wasteland back might entice a greedy opponent into playing or fetching a dual land, which will be catastrophic for them.
This is an incredibly complicated question. First off, I wonder why you want to compare two plays that come in defferent scenarios. In a normal game of Magic you will never be forced to choose between those two plays you presented. So I guess your question is purely theoretical (although it is still hard to define what the goal of such a comparison would be).
Basically you are asking "is the expected win percentage (EWP) in a match after doing a certain play minus the EWP after not doing that play a good metric for comparing Magic plays?". And whether a metric is good depends on what you want to know.
Obviously the most useful comparisons are between two plays in the same scenario. In that case we can probably agree that the proposed method is good, because it finds what we call "the optimal play" (the play after which you have the highest EWP). We still have little to no means of calculating it though. When you have different scenarios, things get more complex. Do you want to learn one play and know which one gives you the highest overall expected MWP? Then you have to also look at things like the metagame presence of decks and the likelihood of a certain scenario in a given matchup. You would even have to check your chances of playing a certain deck (because after you choose a deck, a maximum of one of these plays stays open to you).
Or maybe you want to choose a deck? And you have your spreadsheet with all of the possible scenarios that can happen in a game of Magic. So you look at these two plays and you think: is the Burn play better for my Burn vs the field strategy or the Twister play for my whateverplaystwister vs the field strategy? To know that, you need to, again, know the chances of that scenario coming up. Then you can see how much your percentages vs the field changed and you can choose a deck based on updated values.
Or maybe you came up with some crazy heuristic that will revolutionize Magic-playing bots. And somewhere under the hood you just NEED to know the difference in EWPs that you mentioned. Here obviously this information is very useful (the scenario itself is purely theoretical, but who knows, right?).
So I think you see the pattern. In a real world it is hard to imagine a situation when you want to compare two plays in completely different scenarios. If you want to just be theoretical, then you need to define what are you talking about, as "mathematically identical" is not very precise (depends what is used to measure identity). Different goals can lead to different answers.
However, we still have to remember that even should this kind of measure ever proof useful, we don't have any ways to reasonably estimate it (other than learning from the data, but I don't think we will ever have enough data to analyze the very rare and specific scenarios).
PS: Let's say both scenarios are equaly likely (which is usually just false). Then from the perspective of overall expected MWP those two plays are the same. BUT. Maybe your matchup vs Storm is great and against Burn you basically just lose. And you only have time to learn one play before the tournament. Also, you want the best chance of a money finish. In this case, notice that if you learn the Storm play, your MWP has more variance than it would have if you learned the Burn play. If your expected finish isn't too high before choosing which play to learn, you might want higher variance! (Your expected finish is the same with learning either play, but your range of likely finishes is wider with more variance. So provided that you don't care about a finish unless it is a money finish and money is being given only to the very best finishes, more variance - the Storm play - is better).
Alright, now I'm done :D
@Dumpsterac1d That scenario is insanely unlikely. If you're casting Laboratory Maniac without casting the Doomsday, you're in bad shape. You should be keeping that shitter in your hand to remove to Force of Will.
But what do I know? I have only played Doomsday variations since 2004.
Changed Cruise to Mana Drain, sideboard changed Dread to Spitters and cut third Leyline for another Mana Drain. Went 4-3 in P9 challenge. Losses to Dredge, Esper Mentor, and Montolio (Tks Shops). Beat Dredge, UW Standstill, Blue Moon, and UWR Mentor. Main deck feels pretty good at this point. I might want to change 1 of the colorless lands or the basic swamp to some other land (Bayou or Trop). Sideboard is very tough to figure out. You need certain cards like Cage to not auto lose to Oath but maybe Oath is so small a % it is worth skipping? They would just be more Leyline anyways though. Spitters are great against White Eldrazi and Grixis but suck against TKShops and Mentor. Idk what to do with the board from here.
Vintage has been in a pretty sweet place recently where the board actually matters. Therefore there's only a certain amount of do-nothing you can afford to play. Thirst is definitely taking a backseat to Gush in the do-nothing race, however the exact wrong conclusion to draw is that "only Gush decks are good"
People are increasingly spending their mana on multifaceted tactics like planeswalkers, Baleful Strix etc. Storm combo is moving towards Dark Confidant and Pack Rat of all things. I expect to see more of this going forward.
You see this a lot in Standard where card advantage comes in more forms than just "card draw spells". Vintage players and analysts would do well to think about that.
@Serracollector Even if this did work, "Take your opponent's next turn" is not as good an effect as "win the game."
This is probably worth considering anyway, if we're talking about effects that cost 10ish mana. There are a lot of single cards that do better than this - if there weren't we would see a lot more Mindslaver in non-welder decks.
@Brass-Man No... Oh, crap... no my brain just farted onto your website. I meant to say that more and more slots are being taken up by Swords to Plowshares (another vintage card, with a name that is syntactically structured like... noun preposition noun, and apparently is stored in the same toy bin in my head... Seemingly I was in a rush, and grabbed out the wrong name.)
The point I was going for, that I didn't at all make, was that with more 1 for 1 spot removal. A draw engine of some kind doesn't seem out of the question for Shops. I think Endbringer for example, seems like a pretty strong include in Eldrazi, since it has the words "draw a card" printed on it. The times I've seen any sort of blue deck beat Eldrazi or Shops lately, have been games where the blue 1 for 1 removed the threats while resolving at least a draw spell and getting ahead and finding more removal, while the Shops or Eldrazi deck eventually flooded with lands.
Anyway, that's what I was going for. I'll not edit so that other people can potentially laugh at me... no, Force is maybe at an all time low in value right now... because I think Storm is pretty bad right now with all the Thorns and Missteps and Thalia's running around. Everyone is almost preboarded for it anyway. That plus so many Caverns makes Force pretty bad.
Feels too slow to me, but I agree this would be good:
T1: Mox Jet, Mountain, Goblin Guide, Ascension, attack (1 counter)
Op T1: Island, whatever.
T2: attack (2 counter)
Op T2: Bolt them during end step
That seems fine, and I think you win any game where you're getting Ascension online that fast.
That involves no countermagic on the side of the opponent, or no blocker for guide, or no bouncer for ascension.
T1 oath (requiring 3 cards, not 4), T1 tinker (1 more mana, 1 less card), T1 thalia, confidant, magus of the moon... seem better.
Maybe it really works, who knows? but i cannot think of a common deck that gets really hampered by this. Maybe storm if you can get it online before it goes nuts, or decks with ancient tomb.