Hi all
the report some lines above here and the familiar metagame exposed, could let me say some things about what I read.
I want to comment some plays, read in the report, because I think that they are insightful.
I'm not judging anyone plays of course.
Talking is really much easier than playing, but I saw too many times plays like these ones in my tourneys, so I could backup my words with some real life experience
Vs. Brent Peterson [T1T]
This deck, both pre and post side, can deal with threats through:
1) Wishes for answers
2) Merchant for answers
3) Massive cards advantage
It usually didn't side out all the tools from a single category to bring in answers because it is a tight and flexible deck.
Expecially against Control decks.
Oath chained back.
[my memory also remembers me Wasting his Underground Sea instead of his Library [he had Underground Sea, Library and a Mox Sapphire] after I resolved Oath.
My reasoning at that time was preventing him from DT'ing or playing any broken black spells.
In hindsight, I believe that was not the correct play because he drew 3 cards off the library.]
IMHO, this misplay deserve some comments.
You are in a bad position both Wasting Underground or LoA.
Playing Wasteland on Undeground in the first turns of the game, let me think about you fearing quick killing, that isexactly what usually don't happen with T1T
Playing Wasteland on LoA would have been better not only because of the inherent denial on his stalled draw engine but because it have different a different winning plan with LoA in play:
-You gave him tokens. He is beating you down with them and bought tempo Chaining back the Oath.
-He could have topdecked Wish for Gush or other Counters or other bouncers far more frequently than black crucial spells.
-He was going TO WIN with you tokens, so dening him from overdrawingyou would have been a safer choice.
Game 2: We go back and forth. No real action. Then I draw a Null Rod with FOW back up. I play the Null Rod, it gets Forced, I Force back which gets Forced in return. We are basically now in top deck mode. A lot of turns of Draw, Go. Finally I get a Tinker. Then I get a Duress. I Duress him and see Mana Crypt and Recoup. I take the Recoup and cast Tinker. Now I have a choice. He has 1 Island and 4 artifact mana.[b+ I could Tinker up a Null Rod and set him back and wait to draw a threat. Or I could put him on a 2 turn clock. [/b]I really think hard for a long time. I then went ahead and made the assumption he sided out his bounce spell to bring in Oath hate. So I decided to Tinker in DSC. So now he needed to draw a Cunning Wish or a bounce spell [if any were left in his deck]. Next card…was Cunning Wish. He wishes for Rebuild, and casts it.
With Rod in play he would have been completely stalled.
Both Crypt and Recoup would ahve been useless for a lot of turns and you would have probably won the match, because while both the decks can recover fast, the ones with the worst mana development would have probably lost.
With Rod in play, his C. Wish would have been useless for two lands' drops and you would have bought really a lot of time, eventualyl winning.
You have to play spells with a lower total cost compared to his own spells, so playing the denial in that specific gamesituation would have been golden.
Putting a "two-turns-clock" againt T1T is usually useless if you have not won theDraw-war, yet.
SB: Out goes Akroma, VT, IS, Impulse,3 Duress. In comes Tinker, 2 Trikes, 4 Oxidize.
With him on the draw, you would have thought to fear CotV for 1 or Rod really more than anythign else.
Even if you think that he was going to play a quick cotv for two beacuse it can stop counters and oath, I'm usually going to dislike such a play. From your perspective, you should have feared more and more and more HIS CORRECT play: CotV for 1 or Rod.
Post side, Oathed creatures can be Duplicated or Wired.
Playing Cotv for1 or Rod or both of them, you would have been totally destroyed because of the lack of almost all your resources tools ( Oxidize, Brainstorms, Tutors, Furnaces ).
Triskelion and Moxen would have been useless and you would have only be sustained by counterspells against a deck that usually can laugh at counters while it fears bouncers.
Have you thought about him playing those cards in the "correct" way/order?
Vs. Dan Messineo [TPS]
Game 1: He opens with Fetch/Lotus go. I play an Orchard use it to Duress him. I see Gifts, Mana Crypt, Wheel Of Fortune, Fetch, Underground Sea. I take the Wheel of Fortune. I then play Lotus and break it for green with Mana Leak back up. I play my Oath and then realized the Mox Sapphire was still in my hand [stupid mistake]. He then casts Gifts in response and I give him Cunning Wish and Brainstorm. I burn for 1 and still have Leak in hand. I pass the turn and he wishes or brainstorms an answer. I Oath up an Angel and Mana Leak his answer. Go to game 2.
Why, on earth, after Duressing him and wih you trying to resolve a Lotus, he didn't break his one in order to resolve his own Gifts, without having to face counters or other spells? He could have played tricky Gifts that could have forced you play in a different way, even if your hand was so strong.
Land, Lotus, Gifts is usually a weak play, but not when you have to avoid a pletora of counterspells and it is you only business spell. On the other hand, another land and Crypt, would have fueled other good plays on his next turn.
SB: In comes 3 Null Rod. Out goes 2 Furnaces, IS.
this choices are almost correct but, retrospectively thinking, I could argue that they are too simple to hate out.
he play with additional counters for sure and with bouncers for your oath or creatures.
you should think about rods such as a tool that can be bounced backwith ease such as oath.
In order to free some space for the additional cards, he usually would bring out winning conditions or cluncky bombs.
From this perspective, extracting key pieces, would have played a better role.
I draw Oath, Oath, Mana Leak, Orchard, Lotus, Wasteland, X. I see that and think if he doesn't kill me on turn 1 or makes me discard my hand I am going to be 3-1. I sit there and take my time and look at it like it's a bad hand. I then think of mulliganing it and then proceed and comment "Ok let's give this a shot." My main question is: Is that considered bad sportsmanship in the Magic Community? If so, I apologize.
He plays land go. I play Orchard Lotus pop for green and tap Orchard for blue representing a misplay by representing a Mana Leak, I cast my first Oath and he Forces the Oath and then I play my second Oath. I use the Leak next turn and its game. He then tells me "I am sick" and asks how did I even think about mulliganing that hand. I respond by telling him I was worried, as I did not have a Force of Will. Am I obligated to provide the truth? Am I at fault in this situation? Is that situation considered cheating in any way?
Heheh... this comment let me think about the game.
You are really kind at thinking about "cheating" or be "unafair" for perfectly miming a bad hand, in a game where people cheats in FAR MORE BAD WAYS.
While I think that you have done the right think, I realized that you hand was REALLY risky too.
You are playing ON THE DRAW against TPS.
A common play is Land, Duress, Go.
If he would have took out the Lotus, you would have had not one turn play and only a turn two oath or turn three oath.
He could have played broken spells on his own turn and won the entire game for the lackof efficient plays available against him in the early game.
Luck and strategy aren't really the same thing.
Statistically speaking you would be threated in the early game by TPS far more than against other deck. Even your own best threat ( turn 1 Oath ) is really slow for TPS.
I would have considered the hand you drew really stronger if you would have had a Mox too.
Vs. Brent Peterson [T1T]
Game 2: I play a turn 1 Extract. I take out the Tendrils Of Agony.
Game 2: I play turn 2 or 3 Extract. I take out the Colossus. I Extract a couple of turns later and see nothing of an immediate threat ( C. Wish and Y Will ).
Game 3: I play turn 1 Extract.
I would have taken out Y. Will.
Without it, it could have not played the entire game buying the needed tempo to build up a good hand and win with his own entire deck into the grave.
DSC is not a real threat for you, especially because of Oath.
Without Y. WIll he SHOULD HAVE optimized his own global bouncers too, in order to make a larger number of spells.
The second Extract target would have been ToA.
Brainfreezing you without Y. WIll would have been really difficult AND he should have played 2!! WIshes to accomplish this goal: one for Rebuild, one for Brainfreeze. In ALL the time he his going to survive or play in such a "forced" way, you would have found a single efficient way to disturb it or ruin his own plans.
Any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated. Any situations in which I made a huge mistake, I would be more than happy to have it pointed out to me so it can be avoided in the future. Thanks and goodnight.
I'll hope it can help
Props to you for the good results
MaxxMatt
