(Author’s note: This article featured the postponed reader-submitted conundrums from my mailbox and the Star City Forums.)
Type I News backlog
Dan Rowland computes Type I prices.
Avi Flamholz discusses budget hate decks.
Geordie Tait Disappoints Me
(I get emotional in this sidebar, so you this is your warning…)
[rant]
From his recent forum posts, I get the impression that if I gave Geordie Tait the Mona Lisa, he’d tear it up, urinate on it, and hand me a Xerox of his butt instead.
His last article prompted no less than Adrian Sullivan to write:”If this article would have been submitted to the Dojo back when I was managing editor, I would have put it up. In the back pages. And you’d quickly have people telling you to read the articles that did the topic justice.”
Geordie, whether he realizes it or not, has pushed”old school” concepts under different names, all the while ranting that the”old school” is senile and brain-dead.
Adrian advised him to read up on Eric“Danger” Taylor and Robert Hahn, and the inconsistencies of his”new” theory were called out by legendary TheDojo writer Mike Flores, MagictheGathering.com’s Aaron Forsythe, and well-known players Mike Turian and Ken Krouner.
How has he responded?
Ever ask Mohammed Saheed al-sahaf if American troops are in Baghdad?
I feel compelled to defend the”old school” with my own misgivings, comparing from”The Ten-second Card Advantage Solution“:
1) Geordie’s system is designed to count only the total end result, not plays as you decide to make them
2) Violation of Rule 2: Tokens are not counted as permanents
3) Violation of Rule 1: Flashback cards are counted as -1/2
4) Mangling of Rule 3:”Dead” cards are counted to an extreme
5) Card quality is inserted into the card advantage count
6) Tempo is inserted into the card advantage count
Problem: Count cards but not judge plays, and just rationalize things add up in the end
I’ll give you the recurring example: Geordie says that if you cast Call of the Herd then flash it back, that’s -1 CA (card advantage) because tokens don’t count.
Observe:
Play: You cast Call of the Herd. Your opponent does nothing. WTF?
-1/2 (Breaking Rule 1: Call of the Herd leaves your hand)
+0 (Breaking Rule 2: 3/3 token not counted)
Play: Opponent casts Terminate on 3/3 token. You do nothing. WTF?
-1 (Rule 1: Terminate leaves your opponent’s hand)
+0 (Breaking Rule 2: 3/3 token not counted)
Play: You flash back Call of the Herd. Your opponent does nothing. WTF?
-1/2 (Breaking Rule 1: Call of the Herd leaves your graveyard)
+0 (Breaking Rule 2: 3/3 token not counted)
Play: Opponent casts Terminate on 3/3 token. You do nothing. WTF?
-1 (Rule 1: Terminate leaves your opponent’s hand)
+0 (Breaking Rule 2: 3/3 token not counted)
This method concludes casting Call of the Herd is bad, and that killing a 3/3 is bad for your opponent.
Geordie dismissed this,”PCA is designed to do nothing but count actual pieces of cardboard. It is always correct, because it’s impossible to screw up a system where all it does is count cards… -1 card doesn’t mean ‘weaker position’ or ‘bad play’.” Then he said the numbers add up in the end, so it’s all cool.
It all adds up – after you need a count, after you make the play – but do two wrongs make a right?
So the system can count. Maybe it can recite Pi to a million decimal places, too. That doesn’t answer the real question: Should I cast that Elephant? Should I kill that Elephant?
-1 doesn’t mean bad play under a counting system?
“Ah did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
Problem: Card quality is mixed in
Geordie also said tokens don’t count because Nuisance Engine just makes 0/1s.
Inconsistency! If so, he also concludes that Camel is -1 CA, too, or that Phyrexian Processor is worthless.
Ken Krouner said it best:”C’mon, who do you think you are fooling with that argument? That is like saying if I cast Ardent Soldier or whatever vanilla 1/1, I am -13 cards because I didn’t cast a Krosan Cloudscraper.”
Geordie takes this selective mishmash of card quality and card advantage, then calls Paul Pantera and Brian Weissman handlebar moustaches-simply because the”old school” was never this confused.
(He also compared Dragon Tyrant to Decree of Justice, prompting a comment on TheManaDrain:”If Dragon Tyrant gave the same card advantage as Decree, we would all be playing Manacliff.dec.”)
Problem: Tempo is mixed in
Geordie stretched Rule 3 beyond even Saheed al-sahaf safety levels when he discusses killing all your opponent’s land or suggests turn 1 double Phyrexian Negator Mind Twists your opponent’s hand.
I posted that if you mangle Rule 3 this way,”Using your logic, every player’s opening hand is dead, and he gains card advantage as he plays land.” Geordie replied,”Yes, you’re absolutely right, that’s part of VCA as well. This is why manascrew generally kills you.”
This is defensible under my own Rule 3, but so is”All girls are hot” after ten shots of tequila.
The problem with this stretch of Rule 3 is that it can only be counted when you’re sure of winning. Otherwise, it can’t count, or its results change depending on your hand size. (Look at Jesse Desmond’s problem further down for a concrete example.)
You don’t need a theory for two 5/5s on turn 1. You can say,”I’m too far ahead in tempo,” (see”Counting Tempo, Part I“)”I’m too far ahead in momentum,” (see”Momentum“, October 23, 2000, TheDojo.com)”I’m too far ahead in virtual card advantage,” or”My kung fu is better than your kung fu.”
Or, you can just say,”You’ll be at zero life in two turns.”
Nevertheless, the tempo explanation is sounder here than the card advantage version. If your opponent miraculously pulls out Balance or Pyroclasm, you don’t have to suddenly give Mr. Topdeck +5 CA and his hand back. The virtual card advantage angle feels like a stock market scam to simulate volume and counterintuitively mangle Rule 3.
(In the same way, if I play a first-turn Isochron Scepter with Counterspell or Mana Drain, it’s less exaggerated to say I stop him from using his mana in the early turns than saying I Mind Twisted his hand. See”Counting Tempo, Part II“)
The extreme Rule 3 also misleads you into Force of Willing every Dark Ritual and Mox out there. All hail Chrome Mox, the latest in card advantage?
Try the extreme Rule 3 on a less extreme, less spectacular example. What if I muster just one Negator? What if I Stone Rain only one land?
Maybe you can dress up in drag, flutter fake eyelashes and ask your opponent if he can cast anything yet so you can count your card advantage?
Again, it’s more practical to count mana, land drops and attack phases under what I’ve collectively called tempo (see”Counting Tempo“).
Yet Geordie says,”Tempo is dead, and Virtual Card Advantage killed it.”
Same dog, different collar, minus due recognition to EDT for both. Less excitably, treating a card as dead because you can’t cast it anytime soon isn’t illogical in itself. Anyone who’s used Cycling knows this, without being extreme. But if you’re looking for a Grand Universal Theory of Magic, there are neater ways to link card advantage and tempo than showing a Cartesian plane with a number line.
The extreme Rule 3 won’t quantify everything. Take this example: You have a mono-Blue deck, an Island in play, and Annul in hand. Your Stompy opponent has nothing but one-mana creatures, takes his Turn 1, and plays Forest and Mox Emerald.
Under this alternative theory, Stompy’s cards are all active, but Annul on Mox is good, and not for CA reasons.
Bottom line
After this Grand Canyon our logic is forced to Matrix-like leap over, Geordie just sidestepped the criticism and pulled a Mao Zedong: Children, attack your elders!
“Look at me! I’m Galileo! Sullivan and Flores are old Inquisition has-beens! I’m being flogged for being different!”
Spare us the teenage angst.
Again, straining logic is forgivable. But practically insulting the writers I grew up with?
Geordie said:”[M]y scribblings somehow managed to get the attention of many so-called ‘card advantage experts.’ The truth is that they mostly turned out to take me to task… I thought I was writing an introduction to card advantage as it has been defined for years by the first notable strategists of the game. True, I hadn’t actually read these works…”
Strap on those rocket shoes, boy, because you’re jetting straight into the Sarlacc pit, and trying to shout down Dojo demigod Adrian Sullivan only digs a deeper hole.
This irresponsible, irreverent behavior gravely disappoints me, from one of our Featured Writers, no less. Someone dunk the Terminator in a molten steel pit and give us our old, loveable Geordie back.
[/rant]
Erratum to”The Ten-second Card Advantage Solution“
A part of the Rule 5 discussion in last week’s article read:
Another possibility is to count a flashback card in the graveyard as a card in hand. What you get is the same result, from a more confusing method-this just reverses Rule 5 and counts the first Call as +1 CA and the flashback as +0 CA.
Further, both these alternatives also return absurd results when you dump Flashback cards into your graveyard. (Try it on Quiet Speculation for three Calls of the Herd, then flashing back all three. You get the funny results of +0.5 CA and -1 CA, respectively. Rule 5 gives the more sensible result of +2 CA.)
Richard Melvin a.k.a.”soru” called me out in the forums, and I made a mistake:
Play: You cast Quiet Speculation for three Calls of the Herd and flash them all back. Your opponent does nothing. Use the alternative rule where you count a Flashback card in the graveyard as a card in hand. WTF?
-1 (Rule 1: Quiet Speculation leaves your hand)
+3 (Oops, Oscar, you forgot to type this line in your notes in the Christmas rush)
-3 (Rule 1: Three cards we’re pretending are in your hand leave)
+3 (Rule 2: Put three 3/3 tokens into play on your side of the board)
Don’t let your Dalmatian do your math, Oscar. Your alternative also gives +2, not -1 as you wrote.
Okay, I took another look, and now conclude the alternative rule I discarded works better. Just note playing the spell from your hand now seems better than the Flashback, because the”free” card is assigned to the original. Sorry for that glitch, Richard.
Bad Dalmatian…
The Ten-Second Card Advantage Solution against Chasey Lain
Last week, I said T.H.E.F.U.C.C. gives you faster results than Chasey Lain, and invited readers to send the most mind-boggling, ball-breaking problems so we can see how far the formula goes.
My thanks to all you demanding readers, you tried your damnedest. If T.H.E.F.U.C.C. is still standing after all this, Chasey is the only thing that can make it drop.
Let’s recap (with the erratum):
Tan’s Highly Educational Formula for Uber-Card Counting (abridged)
Rule 1: Card in hand or as though in hand (like Flashback) = +1 CA
Rule 2: Permanent in play or as though in play (like Incarnations) = +1 CA
Rule 3:”Dead” card = -1 CA
Additional Rule 4: All cards in hand and permanents in play are each equally worth 1 CA, regardless of characteristics
Additional Rule 5: Cards in the library, graveyard and removed from game zone are each worth 0 CA
Tan’s Highly Educational Formula for Uber-Card Counting
Rule 1a: Whenever a card moves to your hand or may be played as though in your hand (like Flashback), that’s +1 CA
Rule 1b: Whenever a card leaves your hand or may no longer be played as though in your hand, that’s -1 CA
Rule 2a: Whenever a permanent moves to or acts as though it’s on your side of the board, that’s +1 CA
Rule 2b: Whenever a permanent leaves or stops acting like it’s on your side of the board, that’s -1 CA
Rule 3a: Whenever a card in hand is”dead” or practically useless, that’s -1 CA even though it’s still in your hand. Do not count another -1 CA from Rule 1 if the dead card later leaves your hand.
Rule 3b: Whenever a”dead” card in hand becomes useful again, that’s +1 CA even though no new card moved to your hand.
Rule 3c: Whenever a permanent in play is”dead,” practically useless, has no additional effect on the game, or whose effects are all counted by one of these rules, that’s -1 CA even though it’s still on the board. Do not count another -1 CA from Rule 2 if the dead permanent later leaves your side of the board.
Rule 3d: Whenever a”dead” permanent in play becomes useful again, that’s +1 CA, even though no new permanent moved to your side of the board.
Additional Rule 4: CA does not change just because the characteristics of a card or permanent change (for example, a change in a creature’s power/toughness; a 1/1 is as good as a 10/10 for our simplified count).
Additional Rule 5: Cards in the library, graveyard and removed from game zone do not affect CA until:
1) they cause a card to enter or leave your hand
2) they cause a card to be playable as though in your hand, or stop being so playable
3) they cause a permanent to enter or leave play on your side of the board
4) they cause a permanent to act as though it’s in play on your side of the board, or stop acting so
5) they cause a card or permanent to become”dead”
6) they make a”dead” card or permanent useful again
In keeping with our lampoon spirit, all opponents in these T.H.E.F.U.C.C. scenarios will be named after editors.
I’m Too Young To Die, Level 1: Doug a.k.a. Ronfar on the forums on playing first
Play: Doug goes first. Ferrett draws a card on his first turn, he doesn’t. WTF?
CA (Doug)
-0 (does nothing)
CA (Ferrett)
+1 (Rule 1: Card enters Ferrett’s hand)
Total CA: CA (Doug) – CA (Ferrett) = 0 – 1 = -1 CA
Excellent question. Yes, T.H.E.F.U.C.C. says you’re down a card, but why still play?
As discussed in”Counting Tempo, Part I“, trading a card to get the first land drop is one hell of a deal in most formats.
In Type I, this is obvious when the first land drop might come with Black Lotus or be Mishra’s Workshop and your opponent acts like it’s turn 4 or 5 already. More generally, you want to get your creatures out first, or get to two blue first to counter. Going second felt especially lousy in Invasion Limited if you were holding Prohibit, for example.
I’m Too Young to Die, Level 2: Mark Chacksfield
Play: Mark plays Chrome Mox. Ferrett does nothing. WTF?
CA (Mark)
-0 (Rule 1/2: Chrome Mox leaves Mark’s hand and moves to the board)
-1 (Rule 1: Imprinted card leaves Mark’s hand)
CA (Ferrett)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA: CA (Mark) – CA (Ferrett) = -1 – 0 = -1 CA
Mark is a lawyer from London who pilots a powered Vengeur Masque deck, except he has to proxy the Volrath’s Shapeshifters. Before he took up law, he studied ecology and evolution, and had a grand time with heavy-duty scientific modeling. Last week, we had a long-running debate on the bounds of my Rule 3 and dead cards, and he’s spoiling for a lawyerly brawl.
From T.H.E.F.U.C.C.’s viewpoint, playing Chrome Mox is similar to playing first, and you trade a card to go first in land drops. Thus, if you went second, suddenly, it’s like you went first. Hence, the card is most important to decks that need the additional tempo.
Mark asked (last December 29) if Chrome Mox might create CA under Rule 3, counting all cards you can’t cast yet as dead. Again, defensible, but I’m wary of it.
It exaggerates the benefits of casting Chrome Mox, and more so the need to counter it. It also makes Mox’s benefit fluctuate with your current hand size. For example, you’d conclude that Chrome Mox makes less CA if you mulligan.
I’m more comfortable saying it turns a card into a land drop and stopping there.
I’m Too Young to Die, Level 3: Severino Alvarez a.k.a. ThLunarian on Gilded Drake
Play: Sev plays Gilded Drake, trading it with Knut’s Exalted Angel. Then he activates Waterfront Bouncer, bouncing his Drake. WTF?
CA (Sev)
-0 (Rule 1/2: Gilded Drake leaves Sev’s hand and moves to the board)
-1 (Rule 2: Drake leaves Sev’s side of the board)
+1 (Rule 2: Exalted Angel moves to Sev’s side of the board)
-1 (Rule 1: A card leaves Sev’s hand due to Waterfront Bouncer’s activation cost)
+1 (Rule 1: Gilded Drake moves to Sev’s hand due to Bouncer)
CA (Knut)
-1 (Rule 2: Angel leaves Knut’s side of the board)
+1 (Rule 2: Drake moves to Sev’s side of the board)
-1 (Rule 2: Drake leaves Sev’s side of the board due to Bouncer)
Total CA: CA (Sev) – CA (Knut) = 0 – -1 = +1 CA
Sev is 21 and an aspiring entrepreneur from Charlotte, NC. He plays Standard, Extended and Draft.
After the shell game ends, everything looks the same, except Knut’s Exalted Angel is gone. T.H.E.F.U.C.C. says this is a great combo.
Further, this particular play snared a great fattie, gaining tempo.
I’m Too Young to Die, Level 4: “ScroungerGo” from the forums
Play: ScroungerGo plays three Terrors on Knut’s Morphling. It dies to the third, when Knut runs out of blue mana. WTF?
CA (ScroungerGo)
-3 (Rule 1: Three Terrors leave ScroungerGo’s hand)
CA (Knut)
-1 (Rule 2: Morphling leaves play)
Total CA: CA (ScroungerGo) – CA (Knut) = -3 – -1 = -2 CA
T.H.E.F.U.C.C. says you’re down two. Just because the alternative may be losing doesn’t mean you’re not in a lousy position nonetheless. In the same way, having to double- and triple-bolt fatties over time is a losing game for Red decks.
Of course, Rule 3 might come in. Morphling might be his only Terror target anyway, or it might be the blocker keeping your weenies at bay. Or, common sense might remind you it’s the last Morphling in your opponent’s library.
Finally, this result tells you it’s possible to use Morphling as a magnet for a Red player’s spells if you’re desperate. The Morphling gambit may drag enough of your opponent’s hand with it, giving you the breathing room you need to consolidate your defense.
I’m Too Young to Die, Level 5: Doug a.k.a. Ronfar on the forums on Careful Study
Play: Doug plays Careful Study on his first turn, discarding Wonder and Roar of the Wurm. Ferrett does nothing. WTF?
CA (Doug)
-1 (Rule 1: Careful Study leaves Doug’s hand)
+2 (Rule 1: Two cards move to Doug’s hand)
-0 (Rule 1/2: Wonder leaves Doug’s hand but acts as though it’s in play)
-0 (Rule 1: Roar of the Wurm leaves Doug’s hand but acts as though it’s still there)
CA (Ferrett)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA: CA (Doug) – CA (Ferrett) = +1 – 0 = +1 CA
This readily demonstrates the errata I issued after checking my math for Quiet Speculation. Normally, Careful Study is card disadvantage (you draw two, but discard three), but the Madness, Flashback and Incarnation cards Madness decks discard turn things around.
Hey, Not Too Rough, Level 1: Bud Leiser on Millstone
Play: He activates his Millstone twice and sends Ancestral Recall, Deep Analysis, Roar of the Wurm and Crush of Wurms into his opponent’s graveyard. Knut does nothing. WTF?
CA (Bud)
-0 (Millstone is already in play)
CA (Knut)
-0 (Rule 5: Ancestral Recall moves from Knut’s library to his graveyard)
+1 (Rule 1: Knut can now play Deep Analysis as though it were in his hand)
+1 (Rule 1: Knut can now play Roar of the Wurm as though it were in his hand)
+1 (Rule 1: Knut can now play Crush of Wurms as though it were in his hand)
Total CA: CA (Bud) – CA (Knut) = 0 – 3 = -3 CA
Bud turned 21 when he e-mailed me last December 29, and he’s Mobile Solutions salesman from Gainesville, FL. He plays”all formats, all decks, all casual formats, all tournaments, especially draft.” Whew! Happy Birthday and Happy New Year!
Historically, Millstone wasn’t the best of victory conditions, since it just sat there, irrelevant, until the opponent was about to get decked. A big creature was far more useful blocking weenies, for example. Millstone might be harder to get rid of, but the printing of Morphling put an end to that argument. Anyway, here, T.H.E.F.U.C.C. tells us that Millstone is worse than irrelevant – it’s like handing a loaded gun to the opponent.
Bud knows this, but asks if Millstone might be gaining card advantage anyway by getting rid of these cards. It’s a good question, but I’d have to say no.
Yes, you stop your opponent from casting Ancestral Recall, but it may well have been at the bottom of his library (and hey, you might have also Milled the cards on top of it, letting him topdeck it). As for the flashback cards, you robbed Knut of the first use, but they might have been at the bottom of his library, too. Moreover, you’d have to argue that Quiet Speculation or Intuition for Flashback cards loses CA.
I didn’t slap Crush of Wurms with Rule 3 since Millstone decks tend to be slow and this was e-mailed before Lion’s Eye Diamond was officially restricted.
Hey, Not Too Rough, Level 2: Richard Melvin a.k.a. soru on Rod of Ruin
Play: Richard plays Rod of Ruin. Ferrett does nothing. WTF?
CA (Richard)
-0 (Rule 1/2: Rod of Ruin leaves soru’s hand and moves to his side of the board)
-1 (Rule 3: Rod of Ruin has no further effect not covered by Rule 2)
CA (Ferrett)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA: CA (Richard) – CA (Ferrett) = -1 – 0 = -1 CA
Richard listed quite a few problems, but I split them into two groups, and this is the first set.
Basically, T.H.F.U.C.C. gives us -1 CA, but this was from Rule 3. This doesn’t mean Rod of Ruin was a bad play; as discussed”The Ten-Second Card Advantage Solution“, this just means it has to kill a creature to break even. It has no immediate effect, and we count its Rule 2 card advantage as it kills creatures. Note T.H.E.F.U.C.C. tells Richard to kill creatures instead of pinging Ferrett, unless common sense shows that he can bring Ferrett to zero.
Soru listed a few other permanents. I wouldn’t apply Rule 3 to Unspeakable Nature due to the nature of its ability [It’s unspeakable, of course. – Knut], and I’d just use Rule 2 whenever it kills something with combat tricks. Same with Bonesplitter, and note Equipment doesn’t mimic local enchantments. I model Lavamancer’s Skill like Rod of Ruin, too, the way it transforms a creature into a Prodigal Sorcerer.
Note some of these scenarios need a little more input from you, something unavoidable with Rule 3 unless you want to craft subrules for it.
Hey, Not Too Rough, Level 3: Doug a.k.a. Ronfar on the forums on Time Walk
Play: Doug plays Time Walk. Knut does nothing. Doug untaps, draws a card, and ends the extra turn. Knut does nothing on his turn. Doug takes his next normal turn and does nothing. WTF?
Decision: Should Doug play Time Walk or not? WTF?
Option 1: Doug plays Time Walk and takes his next normal turn afterwards. WTF?
CA (Doug)
-1 (Rule 1: Time Walk leaves Doug’s hand)
+1 (Rule 1: A card moves to Doug’s hand during his extra turn)
+1 (Rule 1: A card moves to Doug’s hand during his normal turn)
CA (Knut)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA (Option 1): CA (Doug) – CA (Knut) = +1 – 0 = +1 CA
———————————————————————————-
Option 2: Doug doesn’t play Time Walk and just takes his next normal turn. WTF?
CA (Doug)
-0 (Time Walk stays in Doug’s hand)
+1 (Rule 1: A card moves to Doug’s hand during his normal turn)
CA (Knut)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA (Option 2): CA (Doug) – CA (Knut) = +1 – 0 = +1 CA
Total CA: CA (Option 2) – CA (Option 1) = 1 – 1 = +0 CA
Doug answered his own question,”Time Walk is the best cantrip ever. You get one extra draw before your opponent’s turn that you wouldn’t have had otherwise.” In addition, Time Walk gains tempo as a Relentless Assault or a mana doubler, the latter allowing it to overpower counterwalls.
Incidentally, you might count Time Walk as -1 CA by not counting the card you draw off Time Walk, since T.H.E.F.U.C.C. almost never counts the regular draw. This is good reasoning, since some people play Arcane Denial and rationalize,”We’ll both draw two cards on my turn, anyway.”
In this case, though, Doug is right. You can see how just listing everything in a systematic T.H.E.F.U.C.C. table makes it hard to overlook something.
Hey, Not Too Rough, Level 4: Shane Flanigan on Pox
Play: Shane goes first and plays Swamp, Dark Ritual and Pox. He discards two Basking Rootwallas and they move onto the board. Ferrett discards Standstill, Psychatog, and Isochron Scepter. Shane loses his Swamp and both players go down to 13 life. WTF?
CA (Shane)
-1 (Rule 1: Dark Ritual leaves Doug’s hand)
-1 (Rule 1: Pox leaves Doug’s hand)
-1 (Rule 2: Swamp leaves play)
-0 (Rule 1/2: Two Basking Rootwallas move from Doug’s hand to the board)
CA (Ferrett)
-3 (Rule 1: Three cards leave Ferrett’s hand)
Total CA: CA (Shane) – CA (Ferrett) = -3 – -3 = +0 CA
Shane is 23 from Rotterdamn, NY, and styles himself”a player of the forbidden I.5.”
Interesting situation, isn’t it? Note how T.H.E.F.U.C.C. resolves a knot of complicated interactions very quickly, leaving more in-game time for the judgment call.
CA is even, Shane left with two 1/1s and two cards in hand (probably a land and a disruption spell) and Ferrett left with four cards (probably two land and two setup spells). Shane has the slight tempo advantage of having two small threats on the table on Turn 1, and turns up the heat when he gets two land on the table. The game depends on how Ferrett moves to recover and how Shane keeps up the disruption (see”Counting Tempo, Part III“.
Hey, Not Too Rough, Level 5: Wayne Smith a.k.a. DJ Kronofear on Buried Alive
Play: Wayne plays Buried Alive. Knut does nothing. WTF?
CA (Wayne)
-1 (Rule 1: Buried Alive leaves Wayne’s hand)
-0 (Rule 5: Three creature cards move from Wayne’s library to his graveyard)
CA (Knut)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA: CA (Wayne) – CA (Knut) = -1 – 0 = -1 CA
Wayne works for Harper Collins and is a Black mage specializing in reanimation. He asked how we can integrate the graveyard into CA counts, since it’s a very important zone for Reanimator decks.
T.H.E.F.U.C.C. tells us that Buried Alive is -1 CA, meaning CA is gained only when you follow up with something like Twilight’s Call, Wayne’s favorite card. Consider that unless you’re Burying Ashen Ghouls, letting Buried Alive go and waiting to counter Twilight’s Call is very different from letting Quiet Speculation go and waiting to counter each Roar of the Wurm.
Thus, we consider the graveyard here using Rule 2 when the reanimation spells are played, but not before. This still tells us that Living Death and Replenish can gain mad card advantage, without deluding anyone into thinking Hymn to Tourach doesn’t hurt him because he has Yawgmoth’s Will in his library.
Interlude
Having fun, so far? The actual computations (not including the judgment calls) can be done very quickly with T.H.E.F.U.C.C. and its three rules. Ten seconds, right?
We’re putting up a stiff fight against Chasey, but it only gets harder from here as we go deeper into CA.
Speaking of Chasey Lain, check out the topless vixen in this cheesecake link…
Oops, wrong column, sorry.
Hurt Me Plenty, Level 1: Doug Linn a.k.a. Hi-Val on Wheel of Fortune
Play: Doug plays Wheel of Fortune. Ferrett does nothing. WTF?
CA (Doug)
-1 (Rule 1: Wheel of Fortune leaves Doug’s hand)
–X (Rule 1: X cards leave Doug’s hand)
+7 (Rule 1: Seven cards move to Doug’s hand)
CA (Ferrett)
-Y (Rule 1: Y cards leave Ferrett’s hand)
+7 (Rule 1: Seven cards move to Ferrett’s hand
Total CA: CA (Doug) – CA (Ferrett) = (6 – X) – (7 – Y) = Y – X – 1 CA
Doug is a regular of the Wizards.com forums and wanted a more general understanding of the”Draw 7″ cards. T.H.E.F.U.C.C. gives you an intimidating formula that translates to,”Wheel won’t gain you CA if you have more cards in hand.”
Simple, no?
To complete your understanding, factor tempo. A Draw 7 is better for the person with the mana to bring the fresh hand to bear. Thus, a Red deck shouldn’t Wheel immediately on Turn 3, giving the opponent the first shot. This is also why control decks with Gorilla Shamans and Wastelands don’t balk at running Timetwister (see”Counting Tempo, Part I“).
Hurt Me Plenty, Level 2: Todd Davis a.k.a. Tristal on Confiscate
Play: Follow closely. Todd and Knut are playing Battle of Wits decks and both have 50 Islands in play. Todd plays Confiscate on one of Knut’s Islands. Knut plays a second Confiscate on the first Confiscate. Todd plays a third Confiscate on the second Confiscate. Knut trumps this by playing Aura Graft, moving the first Confiscate onto the third Confiscate. Just kidding. WTF?
CA (Todd)
-0 (Rule 1/2: First Confiscate leaves Todd’s hand and moves to the board)
+0 (Rule 2/3: Island moves to Todd’s side of the board due to the first Confiscate but who needs another Island?)
-1 (Rule 3: First Confiscate has no further effect)
-0 (Rule 2/3: Island leaves Todd’s side of the board due to the second Confiscate but who needs another Island?)
-0 (Rule 1/2: Third Confiscate leaves Todd’s hand and moves to the board)
+0 (Rule 2/3: Island moves to Todd’s side of the board due to the third Confiscate but who needs another Island?)
-1 (Rule 3: Third Confiscate has no further effect)
CA (Knut)
-0 (Rule 2/3: Island leaves Knut’s side of the board due to the first Confiscate but who needs another Island?)
-0 (Rule 1/2: Second Confiscate leaves Todd’s hand and moves to the board)
+0 (Rule 2/3: Island moves to Todd’s side of the board due to the second Confiscate but who needs another Island?)
-1 (Rule 3: Second Confiscate has no further effect on the board)
-0 (Rule 2/3: Island leaves Knut’s side of the board due to the third Confiscate but who needs another Island?)
Total CA: CA (Todd) – CA (Knut) = -2 – -1 = -1 CA
Todd is 21-year old Computer Science major from the University of Michigan, and he plays Mirrodin Limited and Type I (“The Deck”, Hulk Smash, Oath, NetherVoid, and Goblin). He’s also a damn judge, and the worst of the smart alecks who slipped rules headaches into their CA questions. WTF indeed.
The crux: Is there a point to playing Confiscate on my opponent’s Island when we both have fifty?
Obviously, no.
You have to apply Rule 3 to reflect this (yes, you conclude that cycling excess land with Trade Routes or Compulsion is good, though your actual hand size doesn’t increase). T.H.E.F.U.C.C. tells both Todd and Knut to save the Confiscates for something better.
Of course, Rule 3 works differently earlier in the game, or when things like Land Equilibrium and Limited Resources are involved.
Hurt Me Plenty, Level 3: Jesse Mason a.k.a. Kingcobweb on Warped Devotion
Play: Ferrett has Ancestral Recall on the stack and two Warped Devotions in play. Jesse has Daze, among other cards, in his hand. Both players’ land are all tapped. WTF?
Decision: Should Jesse Daze Ancestral? WTF?
Option 1: Jesse casts Daze using the alternate casting cost
CA (Jesse)
-1 (Rule 1: Daze leaves Jesse’s hand)
-0 (Rule 1/2: Island leaves play and moves to Jesse’s hand)
-1 (Rule 1: A card leaves Jesse’s hand due to the first Warped Devotion)
-1 (Rule 1: A card leaves Jesse’s hand due to the second Warped Devotion)
CA (Ferrett)
-0 (Ferrett’s Ancestral Recall is already on the stack)
Total CA (Option 1): CA (Jesse) – CA (Ferrett) = -3 – 0 = -3 CA
——————————————————————————————-
Option 2: Jesse doesn’t cast Daze
CA (Jesse)
-0 (Daze stays in Jesse’s hand)
CA (Ferrett)
-0 (Ferrett’s Ancestral Recall is already on the stack)
+3 (Rule 1: Three cards move to Ferrett’s hand due to Ancestral Recall)
Total CA (Option 2): CA (Jesse) – CA (Ferrett) = 0 – -3 = -3 CA
Total CA: CA (Option 2) – CA (Option 1) = -3 – -3 = +0 CA
T.H.E.F.U.C.C. says both are equally lousy in CA.
So would you rather discard or let your opponent draw?
Would you rather take your sister or your cousin to the Prom?
Rule 3 might help, though, in case you can spare an Island or a dead card.
Hurt Me Plenty, Level 4: John, a.k.a. FilthyCur on Illusionary Mask
Play: John plays Illusionary Mask, then Phyrexian Dreadnought. Knut does nothing. WTF?
CA (John)
-0 (Rule 1/2: Illusionary Mask leaves John’s hand and moves to the board)
-0 (Rule 1/2: Phyrexian Dreadnought leaves John’s hand and moves to the board)
CA (Knut)
-0 (does nothing)
Total CA: CA (John) – CA (Knut) = 0 – 0 = +0 CA
John is 16 from California, and you can see which deck catches his fancy.
This looks straightforward, but there’s the matter of Rule 3. This combo is usually described as an incredible tempo deal, since you get a 12/12 for only two cards and three mana. Focusing on CA, should you write off the Mask as irrelevant, the combo over and done with?
Obviously, at this point, you should aim whatever removal you can at Phyrexian Dreadnought and Null Rod isn’t going to help much. Nevertheless, it’s impractical to write off Mask with Rule 3.
Mask is very much a relevant threat. If you deal with Dreadnought, dealing with Mask second will slow him down even more, and forcing him to find a second Mask as well makes a big difference. This is most evident in Vengeur Masque, which has Survival of the Fittest. Killing Mask also makes a difference if you bounce Dreadnought.
Using Rule 3 is defensible only in a very fast build like Spoils Mask, but it’s still better not to. You should aim to use Rule 3 on cards that are dead, not cards that only happen to be dead now. Otherwise, you turn T.H.E.F.U.C.C. into an annoying toddler flicking a light switch on and off.
Finally, Mask makes creatures uncounterable, an effect outside Rule 3’s fine print.
[Editor’s Note: This article is continued in Part II]