How would you play out this hand?

[DubDub]

If we want to advance our development I'd still rather go for Mox Sapphire than Lotus.

Crucially, Sapphire allows you to have Drain available on their turn, but still enable Duress+Jace on your next turn (if either Drain resolved on something CMC 1+ or you drew any mana source).  Also, I think there's some small bonus value in still having Lotus in your deck where it can fuel a more explosive Will turn (pre- and post- Will).

[zeus-online]

.

[Onslaught]

If we want to advance our development I'd still rather go for Mox Sapphire than Lotus.

Crucially, Sapphire allows you to have Drain available on their turn, but still enable Duress+Jace on your next turn (if either Drain resolved on something CMC 1+ or you drew any mana source).  Also, I think there's some small bonus value in still having Lotus in your deck where it can fuel a more explosive Will turn (pre- and post- Will).

DT for Sapphire, pass with UU available for Drain, untap with 4 mana available and the ability to Duress into Jace whenever you get another mana source (potentially that same turn) ? I never considered this line of play, interesting.

To throw another line of play out there, my friend's choice would be to Duress, allow Bob or whatever to resolve, untap and DT for Ancestral (or Lotus for Jace) depending on what you saw from Duress.

[Smmenen]

I thought of DT for Sapphire, but I don't think that's as strong as finding the Lotus.  You want to be able to have the option next turn Duress, Jace, Drain. 

Also, it's worth bearing in mind that having that option makes you much less concerned about an opposing Bob or Tinker (especially) resolving. 

[wiley]

(4) If your opponent has his own threat next turn, you have a pretty good hand for redressing it with both Drain and JTMS.

If you dt and don't play the lotus you don't have drain up.  Meaning you have jace to redress his threat, and no dt in hand.  This cuts you down to answering only the tinker->bsc and bob play out of the ones you mentioned.

I am of the opinion that drain should be your ritual, not dt->lotus.

[Smmenen]

WWOTD (What Would Oscar Tan Do?)

Seriously, this is a role question in its best form: spectrum of options from very aggressive to completely passive.

The tension in all role analysis is that, since role is an imprecise metaphor, it's not always clear what course of action best fits the role metaphor. 

The role is clear: control role.  Yet, the course of action that best helps the player seize that role is being contested.  Some people here say that doing nothing is the best way to serve the role, while I think there is a case to be made for doing something in order to achieve greater control later. 

The classic version of this is: It's turn one, and you a one land hand with Spell Pierce and Ponder.  Holding up Spell Pierce may help you maximize countermagic NOW, but prevent you from maximizing counter magic and control role later.  This poses a similar issue.   DT for Lotus Now helps you unfold the game in a stronger way, with maximal beneficial lines of play (i believe).  Yes, it has risks, but doing nothing also has risks for your long game.

[Grand Inquisitor]

don't play the lotus

I'd definitely play the lotus same turn.  That's the whole point, to have drain active as well as accelerate into Jace.

still enable Duress+Jace on your next turn (if...

Why settle for any risk-based topdeck when you can just set up a good third turn?

there are very few matchups where Keeper is not THE control deck. You can out counter anything except Landstill, and the longer the game goes the more inevitability you start to accrue due to the Snapcasters

Actually, I talked about this with a buddy at length.  You're right if we're talking about a generic scenario.  But you gave a lot more details.  Know what else accrues inevitability?  Brainstorming for free every turn.  Regardless of the overall matchup/deck role, in this game state you want to press on the gas.

[TheWhiteDragon]

I'd DT for Yawgmoth's Bargain so if you hit land drops in the next 3 turns, you can just go off and win.

[CHA1N5]

The first thing I do is declare my attack.

[zeus-online]

.

[Smmenen]

The first thing I do is declare my attack.

Touche

"Sharpening Your Skills: Playing With and Around Mana Drain
by Kevin Cron"
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/print.php?Article=7063

[Samoht]

You can win with imperfect lists. I just top 8'd an event without playing Ancestral Recall in Keeper (registration error). Should we use that list as the new stock one because it was the most recent finish? Of course not.

This is silly logic and I'm sure you know that. Keeper lists with x4 Snap have had multiple top 8s over a long time period in large scale events. I'd say 30-60 person tournaments with T8 lists comparable to our metagame is a good sample size. As far as trying to disparage the European meta to somehow prove they are all playing suboptimal decks, I think that is a bit of a reach (and still doesn't really give much evidence against x4 Snap lists being strong decks).

You don't want Snap until the late game? I love having Land, Land, Artifact on t2 and passing with Snap + Snare or Misstep or something nutty like Ancestral. T1 Duress, T2 Snap Duress is going to clear the way for Jace and also put a body out there to block for him. I often -1 Jace on my own Snapcaster to get another use out of Time Walk or DT or something, so sometimes 4 isn't even enough and I want more. Postboard vs another blue deck, I want a billion Snapcasters as quickly as possible. Again, Land/Land/Mox by turn 2 with Snap in hand gets even better when your REBs and Flusterstorms are live postboard.

I'm not denying that 4 copies can be cloggy sometimes. Like an opening 7 of 4 mana sources, 2 Snap, and Echoing Truth or something. Would that hand be keepable anyway even if Snap was taken out and you spent that slot on another Spell Snare or something? I think that's the real question, as you touched upon: What would you rather fit in the deck than have the 4th (or even 3rd) copy of Snapcaster in your 75? As you already noted, it starts getting into subtleties of deck construction and becomes very difficult to quantify. Personally, I find that the flexibility of Snapcaster is so powerful in a Keeper style list that I want to run the 4th copy. I can see arguments against it, but for me the upside is overwhelming and the downsides are negligible.

I was clearly pointing out that Recall is right and that my result should be thrown out. I just checked BoM, and the Snap control decks had already moved to 3 because 4 is too clunky. I'm sure if I did more research we would find splintered results of 3 and 4 Snaps. That sort of devalues the 4 does well argument, because 3 is doing equally well. The discussion to have is whether or not the 4th Snap is better than a first or second utility card. I am pretty sure that it is *better to have the utility*.

There are plenty of scenario's that make early Snapcaster's powerful. There are also scenario's that make them terrible as you point out. I would contend that %'s dictate 4 Snapcaster will clog up your hand early and force to more all in type of plays early, which you don't want to do in a control oriented deck. Even the BUG Fish decks are down to 3 Snapcasters now, because they need other things to turn them on. It's just inefficient early. Sure if you have things like Ancestral and a Mox and two lands you can leverage things. How much do you need the Snapcaster to leverage that position though?

However, if it works for you, continue doing it. Playstyle is significantly more important than most people credit and it affects the value of any one card slot more than anything else.

*edit for clarity

[Smmenen]

Playstyle is significantly more important than most people credit and it affects the value of any one card slot more than anything else.

Does play style affect the value of a card or is it more accurate to say that a pilot's playstyle affects how *they* value that card?   I think it's the latter.  

I also think play style is just another way of describing role assessment in Magic.  Different players assess the proper role and how to implement or play that role in different situations differently.  Even when people have correctly identified the proper role, they may disagree about how to best play/operationalize that role.  I don't think that's reducible to playstyle so much as it is assessing the value of a line of play within a particular role paradigm.  

[Samoht]

Playstyle is significantly more important than most people credit and it affects the value of any one card slot more than anything else.

Does play style affect the value of a card or is it more accurate to say that a pilot's playstyle affects how *they* value that card?   I think it's the latter.  

I also think play style is just another way of describing role assessment in Magic.  Different players assess the proper role and how to implement or play that role in different situations differently.  Even when people have correctly identified the proper role, they may disagree about how to best play/operationalize that role.  I don't think that's reducible to playstyle so much as it is assessing the value of a line of play within a particular role paradigm.  

I think it's the former. People get different value from cards based on how they use them. If you just Fire someone for 2 damage it's minimally powerful. This is obviously an extreme case of poor use, but it's used to illustrate that there are spectrums of use that people choose. It's why some people prefer the built in filtering on Preordain over Ponder despite being able to see one card less.

[Smmenen]

 People get different value from cards based on how they use them.

But how you use a card is based on how you conceptualize/perceive a situation.  The value derived from a card is based on how that card serves a game plan in that situation.

[Samoht]

 People get different value from cards based on how they use them.

But how you use a card is based on how you conceptualize/perceive a situation.  The value derived from a card is based on how that card serves a game plan in that situation.

Thank you for highlighting my point and agreeing with me, I too think it how you use a card is based on how the player conceptualizes/perceives a situation - thus the determining factor is the players style and not the card. It's refreshing to see you actually agree with someone.

[Smmenen]

I think there is a critical difference based on a subtle distinction.  You are ascribing the value of a card, in part, to a player's play style, which undoubtedly, in your conception, informs their usage of said card.  I am saying that it is not play style that defines value, but usage.  I'm further arguing that usage isn't primarily a function of play style -- it's a function of how that players perceives a situation and conceptualizes the meaning of that situation.  

Let me put it in other terms that may clarify this distinction.

You ascribe card value to play style.  I am contesting that there is such a thing as play style in the way that you are using that term.  What you are calling "play style" I am saying is nothing more than a player's individual assessment as to 1) what role they should be playing and 2) how best to operationalize that role at any moment.   I don't deny that players have specific styles in terms how they physically manipulate cards, behavioral mannerisms, etc.  But I am arguing that a play style is not really a style so much as it is a judgment within a paradigm or context.  

To the extent that I am contesting such a thing as play style, I am also ipso facto contesting the claim that such a thing matters.  

You are emphasizing the value a card offers based upon play style.  What I am saying is that usage depends upon an assessment as to proper role and how to further/operationalize that role.  Your example of using Fire to hit a player is not just poor usage, but is probably the wrong role.  The only reason to do that is if you are going to win the game as a result of that play by reducing their life to 0.    In a control, you would never, ever use Fire that way unless you could achieve that specific result.  

Most disagreements as to what play to make arise from disagreements over, again, 1) what the proper role is, and 2) how best to operationalize that role.  The latter is especially evident in the scenario in the OP.

Consider this example, which I think simplifies some of the key features of both my disagreement and the OP's query.

Suppose it is Turn 1, and you are playing Grixis Control, and your opening hand is:

Fetchland,
Island,
Lotus
Jace,
Mana Drain,
Force
Lightning Bolt

Let's assume that all players agree that the proper role for this deck in this match (whatever it is) is a control role, as the original poster assumes it is for his deck.   The issue with this hand and with choosing a line of play is not deciding which role to adopt, but how best to operationalize it.

I think we can all agree that a "Control role" is primarily defined by a strategy of making plays designed to thwart an opponent's game plan -- that is, denying their attempts to achieve their strategic objectives.  In this case, playing Island, Lotus is the line of play that maximizes your ability to do this right now .   You have Drain + Force up for countermagic and a Bolt for Bob/Pyromancer/whatever here.

But, it is arguable that by playing Jace now , you actually maximize your ability to play the control role for the remainder or most of the game, or the moments of the game that are most important.  

To summarize, we agree that we should play the control role, but there may be disagreement as to how to operationalize it.   We can either maximize our countermagic, or make a temporarily aggressive play to maximize your ability to deploy countermagic/answers later in the game.  

I dont think this disagreement is merely a result of 'play style,' or personal preference, but of believe about which line of play best serves an overall control role now and in the future.  To not play Jace is to imply that you need to maximize your countermagic now and that not playing Jace won't significantly cost, impair or impede your ability to do that later.  

[zeus-online]

.

[Smmenen]

I don't think role assignment is really an issue here. I think everyone wants to play this hand as the "Control role"

To summarize, we agree that we should play the control role, but there may be disagreement as to how to operationalize it.   

some of you are just arguing that fetching Black lotus (With the intend to cast Jace) leads to a stronger control position.

No, that just DTing for Lotus and waiting until next turn will lead to a stronger control position.

To wit:

I'd Demonic Tutor and get Black Lotus if it resolved and pass without playing it. If you draw a mana source, it allows you to Duress, play Lotus, play Jace, and have Drain backup.

[zeus-online]

.

[Smmenen]

Just because you tutor for Lotus doesn't mean you have to use it immediately.

As was suggested, you play it, and then pass the turn.

If they play something that matters, you sacrifice it to play Mana Drain.

If they don't, you untap, draw, move to second main phase, cast Duress (if you draw a mana source), then cast Jace with Drain back up.  

This conditional sequencing maximizes your counterspell capacity while also fueling Jace.  

Given this, I'm inclined to agree with Smennen

Just to clarify since there has been some misrepresentation or confusion, I don't have a developed view as to which line of play I feel is best, nor have I asserted otherwise.  I never described this as the "clearly correct play" or even "the correct/optimal play," but simply felt that it was well-reasoned when presented (hence my "sounds like a good plan to me" comment).  The person who suggested that line was A-1/d8dk32, not me.  (In fact, I misread the originally post -- because I thought A-1 was suggesting that you DT for Lotus and play it, when he said you just DT for Lotus and not play it).  So I'm not sure why I am getting all of the credit/blame for that line

[Onslaught]

WWOTD (What Would Oscar Tan Do?)

Off topic, but does anyone know what became of him?

The classic version of this is: It's turn one, and you a one land hand with Spell Pierce and Ponder.  Holding up Spell Pierce may help you maximize countermagic NOW, but prevent you from maximizing counter magic and control role later.  This poses a similar issue.   DT for Lotus Now helps you unfold the game in a stronger way, with maximal beneficial lines of play (i believe).  Yes, it has risks, but doing nothing also has risks for your long game.

In a game 3 situation with a slow control deck vs. Grixis, I'm looking at the early game from a perspective of "how can I not lose" instead of "what can I do to win faster." The longer the game goes, the better chances Keeper has of winning. If DT is countered, you are in a terrible position and if he has Bob it is going to resolve. If it isn't countered, you're in an amazing position to resolve Jace and take control of the game. Obviously this discussion is about determining if that risk of a near guaranteed T3 Jace is worth the downside of getting DT countered and letting Bob resolve. The wildcard is the fact that Mana Drain (on anything, even a 1 mana spell) puts you in a strong position to still play and resolve Jace on T3 or do something interesting with the DT. If they simply pass to not play into your Drain, you are in an equally strong position as before and the option to DT for Lotus at some point is still available to you. When your deck is filled to the brim with answers, it just seems safer to sit back and see what happens instead of forcing some action that can lead to you getting blown out. I normally play very, very aggressively. But this is the one deck where I would not try to stick a T1 Jace, Ancestral, etc.

As said a few posts down,

b) He casts a threat, we drain, he counters (Most likely FoW) - on our turn we attempt to tutor for a solution (The threat would most likely have to be either Confidant or ancestral i think?)

This is likely the most realistic "bad" thing that can happen to you, and you are still very well equipped to proceed from there.

I just checked BoM, and the Snap control decks had already moved to 3 because 4 is too clunky.

Earlier your contention was that we shouldn't evaluate something as a correct deck choice simply based on the success of a given list (as in, the high placement of Keeper lists with x4 Snap is not validated by their consistently high results). But then you follow that up by saying that three is the correct number because some people changed to x3 Snap at BoM. These statements are at odds with each other.

I'm sure if I did more research we would find splintered results of 3 and 4 Snaps. That sort of devalues the 4 does well argument, because 3 is doing equally well. The discussion to have is whether or not the 4th Snap is better than a first or second utility card. I am pretty sure that it is *better to have the utility*.

Ultimately, the best metric we have for evaluating decks is their results. Here are some Keeper results with x4 Snapcaster:

http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1648&highlight=Snapcaster_Mage - First place, 194 players

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=10778&iddeck=78716 - First place, 47 players

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=11235&iddeck=82035 - First place, 19 players

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=10754&iddeck=78545 - First place, 18 players

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=11170&iddeck=81595 - Second place, 27 players

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=10006&iddeck=72925 - Second place, 16 players

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=10007&iddeck=72930 - Third place, 13 players

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=9901&iddeck=72171 - Fourth place, 61 players

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=9755&iddeck=71225 - Fourth place, 47 players

http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1650&highlight=Snapcaster_Mage - Fourth place, 20 players

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=9557&iddeck=69739 - Fourth place, 17 players

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=10379&iddeck=75696 - Fifth place, 23 players

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=11235&iddeck=82039 - FIfth place, 19 players

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=11136&iddeck=81372 - Sixth place, 28 players

http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1675&highlight=Snapcaster_Mage - Sixth place, 31 players

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=10993&iddeck=80312 - Seventh place, 36 players

There's probably more than the links I listed, that's just a quick and lazy search from the last few months on Morphling.de and the last 9 months on TheCouncil.es. There are significantly less Keeper lists with x3 Snap that have done nearly as well. People are more willing to cut the second Clique or Ooze to fit in Notion Thief than they are willing to cut the fourth Snap, and those lists have had success. If you think the 4 Snapcaster lists are doing well in spite of the 4th copy (instead of BECAUSE of it, which is what I believe) then there should be some results to back up your theory. I don't think a deck wins a 194 person tournament and then has the same list go on to t8 repeatedly all around the world without it being fairly optimized. Snap x4 is the crux of the deck. I'm not trying to turn this into an argumentum ad populum, but results matter, especially when they are from a large, worldwide sample size like these.   

However, if it works for you, continue doing it. Playstyle is significantly more important than most people credit and it affects the value of any one card slot more than anything else.

This is a great point, and something I think about a lot for Vintage. Other Magic formats don't have that subtlety, nor do most games in general.

I also think play style is just another way of describing role assessment in Magic.  Different players assess the proper role and how to implement or play that role in different situations differently.  Even when people have correctly identified the proper role, they may disagree about how to best play/operationalize that role.  I don't think that's reducible to playstyle so much as it is assessing the value of a line of play within a particular role paradigm.  

Interesting. Theoretically speaking, does this mean that there is an objectively correct play decision in any given scenario based on the amount of information available (regardless of the outcome with hindsight)?

[zeus-online]

.

[Smmenen]

The classic version of this is: It's turn one, and you a one land hand with Spell Pierce and Ponder.  Holding up Spell Pierce may help you maximize countermagic NOW, but prevent you from maximizing counter magic and control role later.  This poses a similar issue.   DT for Lotus Now helps you unfold the game in a stronger way, with maximal beneficial lines of play (i believe).  Yes, it has risks, but doing nothing also has risks for your long game.

In a game 3 situation with a slow control deck vs. Grixis, I'm looking at the early game from a perspective of "how can I not lose" instead of "what can I do to win faster."

Exactly.  I talk about this more in my Gush book (again, I know -- I'm not hawking it, just as a reference point), but there are two basic modes in Magic.  Mike Flores called them Control and Beatdown.  Beatdown does not refer to actually attacking, as you probably may know.

In my Gush book I completely redefine those roles:

Beatdown = Pursuit of Strategic Objectives

Control = Attempt to thwart opponent's pursuit of strategic objectives.

Playing a control role is nothing more than using your resources to thwart the opponent's attempt to achieve their strategic objectives.  When you say " I am trying to not lose," that's exactly what a control role does: prevent the opponent from satisfying rule 104 conditions for winning the game by thwarting their strategic objectives.

Mike Flores' famous formula is Misassignment of Role = Game Loss.

What I'm saying is that even when people have properly assigned the correct role, there can be disagreement as to how to operationalize that role.   Samoht mistakenly conflates this for playstyle.  It's not a style of play -- it's a belief about how best to operationalize a role.  That's why the Fire example is absurd: that's not disagreement about how to operationalize a role, that's disagreement as to role.  That's a subtle, but critical distinction.   That's a level down.  

The longer the game goes, the better chances Keeper has of winning.

I wouldn't say that Keeper has inevitability (another key technical term), but I would say that this is probably true simply because Keeper has a slower clock.  So, by making the game go longer, Keeper has likely successfully thwarted the opponent's pursuit of strategic objectives.  This is especially subtle, but you may be confusing the idea of inevitability with the idea that proper role maximizes chances for winning for control decks.

I also think play style is just another way of describing role assessment in Magic.  Different players assess the proper role and how to implement or play that role in different situations differently.  Even when people have correctly identified the proper role, they may disagree about how to best play/operationalize that role.  I don't think that's reducible to playstyle so much as it is assessing the value of a line of play within a particular role paradigm.  

Interesting. Theoretically speaking, does this mean that there is an objectively correct play decision in any given scenario based on the amount of information available (regardless of the outcome with hindsight)?

I think that's a philosophical question as much as an empirical question.   Is there an objectively correct play or line of play?  See Chess. I'm not sure.  

I'm more confident that, within a paradigm, there is a correct line of play or objectively correct play.   That is, once you've decided to play a control role, there is a line of play that maximizes your chances for achieving that role (and thereby winning) from a statistical perspective.  

The key point for this thread is that sometimes a short term decision that seems inconsistent with correct role assignment is necessary to maximize longer-term lines of play consistent with that role.