@serracollector I'm just thinking of Company. I have no idea since I haven't tested. It just feels like... well, like a turn behind Workshop since you have to play a land to play Cobra and pass the turn. Workshop comes down and taps right away... Not trying to argue. Test it. Go nuts and let us know what happens. I'm glad you are interested.
I'm really late to this party but I am attorney myself and wanted to say congrats! It's a long road ahead but the LSAT is a big step out of the way. Stay confident and work as hard as you can in law school if pays off in the long run!
@brianpk80 pppffffttt... get a load of this Brian dude everybody. Like this guy knows anything about Oath decks. Next he will be telling us to play with some big dragon from type 2 like a 14 year old. What a noob.
@fsecco Yeah I see that... I'm still not certain about this ruling though.
Anyways... Here's a deck I tested last night. It went 2-2 against a Jeskai build similar to the current one's doing will. This deck is terrified of Null Rod obviously, though doesn't actually just fold to it, and it has a ton of trouble against resolved Planeswalkers. On the upside. As Foretold is crazy with a couple of counters on it. I feel like people are missing the whole "each turn" language on this things. Instants that you can play on opponents turns for free are bonkers. It also plays very nicely with Thoughtseize. In all, this deck is lacking punch right now... maybe a big tinker target or something like that? Idk. Balance opponent's hand away then Jace fateseal is a real thing though.
1 Sol Ring
1 Time Vault
1 Voltaic Key
1 Sensai's Top
1 Lion's Eye Diamond
I have also listened the MUD's player reasoning. Also from another perspective: there is always that person at a tournament that quickly loses chances because he was paired against a weird deck in first round and quickly lost chances to perform Top8. That was really usual years ago when there were lots of budget decks around playing 4 null rods: combo or blue players could be prepared against Tier 1 decks, but then suffer against rogue decks. However MUD is quite strong against most "rogue" decks, being a great deck to start winning rounds.
I also understand the gush player reasoning. Once you assume you have a deck capable of having a >50% wins, and capable of win rogue decks, you can focus on Tier 1 decks. Since gush decks are really Tier 1, focusing on the mirror totally makes sense.
In my case, I don't design my deck to maximize chances of winning random decks. I just try to pack some cards that I'm confortable with, bearing in mind tier decks. Since I don't play a tier deck, I never had to play a mirror (after about 40-50 rounds of tournament and dozens of matches in cockatrice), so I don't think at it at all.
Which brings me to my first point... the bad players have gotten better. Now do we know this for sure? No. Because again we have no measure of how bad the bottom losing players really were a decade ago, but I'm just going to make some inductive reasoning here. Player's access to information about strategy, tactics, and especially deck lists has gone way way up in the past decade. Thanks to MODO, their ability to practice has gone way up. Heck Steve wrote a friggin book about Gush, which is simultaneously kind of hilarious and also probably important. I'm assuming some people buy it. I'm assuming those people read it. I'm assuming it makes those players at least a little better. The cumulative effect almost has to be profound. And part of it's effect is that it's likely more difficult for the best players to beat the average player than it was in the past... ergo, more based on the fall of the cards than it was.
I think this is a great point. A few years ago, the average person would only have a chance to get better by:
1.) Being friends with better players or live in a Vintage hotbed.
2.) Doing a ton of reading and goldfishing
3.) Playing other formats.
These days, with MTGO, streaming, player videos, and a proliferation of articles, the average player has so many resources. Many years ago you could put in thousands of hours into Magic, but not really get better. These days, if you have the time, you'll get better. Just the ability to get dozens of live Vintage reps in a week is something unfathomable years ago for a bulk of Vintage players.
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).
I guess if you get used to playing on Cockatrice you are all set. All you need to is find some Vintage players (seems there are plenty).
I from time to time play a match but even though I used to play on Cockatrice I can't concentrate on the game that well and mess up and that is why I rather play on MODO. but I wanted to try xmage to see the difference (haven't done that yet)
People usually play 'casually' so if there is something strange happening it is usually your opponent changing mind about his play or something similar and players do not tell you that your life total is supposed to be different or something. I usually add counters/change life with delay because I can't play properly on Cockatrice.
So to answer your question I have nothing against Cockatrice. It's all about the players.
Watching LSV biencarnate himself as Reid Duke tonight and bury Randy Buehler's white Eldrazi under a seemingly unending rain of Swords to Plowshares... that was fun. It also forced me to notice some interesting things about Gush decks beating Aggro Midrange decks (Kikashi Aggro I like to call it), specifically Eldrazi in this case... trading 1 for 1 against decks that have no draw engine at all is really really good.
Humans, and Hatebear and Eldrazi have no drawing cards at all... what a bunch of psychopaths. Just trading down resources, and then resolving any drawing spell at all, seems to give the Gush deck a huge advantage. Its when drawing spells get locked out that the blue decks find themselves in big trouble, while the biggest weakness of the Aggro type of decks may yet prove to be that they can just be attacked by blue decks, or any deck that refills it's hand for that matter, simply by trading 1 for 1 in cards and slowly pulling ahead with drawing cards... would one actually board in more drawing cards against these types of decks? Is there a cheap drawing spell that remains playable through thorn effects used by these decks? Mulldrifter seems not powerful enough, yet almost close. Certainly a deck with 4 Gush, 4 Mulldrifter, 6+ Swords/Paths, and any sort of Snapcaster or Flippy Jace effects, would be a nightmare for Eldrazi right now....
I wonder what other people think about the possibility of beefing up draw as well as removal, as a possible way to attack these Aggro decks... as well as what this says about the potential importance of Spirit of the Labyrinth in the matchup.
For what it's worth, Uba stax as a whole handles the deck pretty well:
Maindeck it has 3-4 Ensnaring Bridge, 3-4 crucible with 4 wasteland 1 strip Mine with 3-4 bazaar to find them. I feel like sticking an ensnaring bridge is almost always just GG, and having 5 strip mines to slow them down is huge.