Sideboarding Ancestral Recall In Stax

[Shock Wave]

The argument becomes "less stupid" if you consider a case where you remove that lone creature knowing that the decks in the field pack lots of creature removal. That is a better analogy.

If the field has a large percentage of decks that run Misdirection, then I wouldn't hesitate to cut Recall in a deck like Stax and put it in the SB. 

The problem is that you never "know" how decks in the field are configured. You can make a metagame guess at what decks are prevalent, but you have no accurate way of knowing how many of them are running Misdirection, and the number of Misdirection these decks are running.

I personally would never relegate AR to the sideboard under realistic tournament circumstances. It is just far too game breaking.

[dicemanx]

The argument becomes "less stupid" if you consider a case where you remove that lone creature knowing that the decks in the field pack lots of creature removal. That is a better analogy.

If the field has a large percentage of decks that run Misdirection, then I wouldn't hesitate to cut Recall in a deck like Stax and put it in the SB. 

The problem is that you never "know" how decks in the field are configured. You can make a metagame guess at what decks are prevalent, but you have no accurate way of knowing how many of them are running Misdirection, and the number of Misdirection these decks are running.

I personally would never relegate AR to the sideboard under realistic tournament circumstances. It is just far too game breaking.

I'm in total agreement - realistically I wouldn't see myself ever SBing out AR because the metas typically tend to be too diverse. Locally, and at any major SCG, it would be folly to do something like that.

However, from some accounts from certain areas you'd think that all people play there is Pitchlong and MDG, in which case SBing out AR makes much more sense.

[wethepeople]

The argument becomes "less stupid" if you consider a case where you remove that lone creature knowing that the decks in the field pack lots of creature removal. That is a better analogy.

Then Gifts might as well cut Tinker/DSC in a Fish-heavy environment.

I personally would never relegate AR to the sideboard under realistic tournament circumstances. It is just far too game breaking.

That is exactly what I am saying. Ancestral Recall has been said the best card in Vintage aside from Yawgmoth's Will. There have been more times than I could count in games, even versus Gifts and Pitch Long, where I thought to myself "Man, I wish I would draw Ancestral" Not once has it been, "Oh fuck, I hope I dont topdeck AR because there is a slight chance that my opponent will Misdirect it."

EDIT due to another reply while posting: Even if the tournament was fairly small, 20-40 people for example, I still would never want to make the assumption that everyone is going to have Misdirection, because that is never the case, especially today where there is virtually all Fish decks.

[Imsomniac101]

How are those contradictory at all? First post says that he would consider putting AR in Stax board for game 1 if a large percentage of the field played MisD. Second post says that this is not the case in reality, and therefore would be unwise to do so.

[wethepeople]

How are those contradictory at all? First post says that he would consider putting AR in Stax board for game 1 if a large percentage of the field played MisD. Second post says that this is not the case in reality, and therefore would be unwise to do so.

Because in his first post, he mentioned that if a large percentage of decks run Misdirection, then he wouldn't hesitate to cut it. In his second reply, he stated that he would not see himself siding out AR at local, or SCG tournaments. So basically, he said that he would cut it if a large percentage played it, but he wouldn't play without it at a t1 event. Contradictory, yes?

[diopter]

Read his post. He specifically mentions that:

Realistically I wouldn't see myself ever SBing out AR because the metas typically tend to be too diverse. Locally, and at any major SCG, it would be folly to do something like that.

However, from some accounts from certain areas you'd think that all people play there is Pitchlong and MDG, in which case SBing out AR makes much more sense.

[AJFirst]

There's no reason to not play it. Even if they have MisDs you can just protect it with lock peices (sphere of resistance and tapped out of the few mana sources they have left), use it as a blank (pitch to bazaar), or not cast it (it's worth having the one dead card in a string of circimstances then missing out on the explosive advantage it gives you when not in that exact situatoin).

Then post-board, Gifts always boards out its MisDs since it's really the only card to hit, so you obviously keep it in and can run it out there with minimal protection.
-AJ

[pyr0ma5ta]

The argument becomes "less stupid" if you consider a case where you remove that lone creature knowing that the decks in the field pack lots of creature removal. That is a better analogy.

If the field has a large percentage of decks that run Misdirection, then I wouldn't hesitate to cut Recall in a deck like Stax and put it in the SB. I would rather not risk autolosing because I decide to risk it and cast Recall, even if that Recall wins me the odd game. Basically, if I reduce it to very simplistic scenarios, even if a card would produce 60% autowins versus 40% autolosses when cast, I would NOT play it.

I don't understand this argument.  If you know that your 5-card Lotus, Ritual, Ritual, Ritual, DT hand is a 60-40 against an unknown player who may or may not have FoW, you go for it, right?  You come out 3-2 on top.  Assuming that your opponent runs 4 Misd, we can simplistically assume they have a 40% of having it.  Since there are most decks run fewer than 4x Misd, the actual percentage of getting AR Misd'd is very low.  Not to mention everyone pitches Misd against Stax and Brainstorms it away at the first opportunity. 

If there is a 60-40 win/loss shot, I take it every single time.  This situation is far less risky than 60-40, and AR is just too stupid good to cut.  I don't understand this argument at all.

[diopter]

The argument becomes "less stupid" if you consider a case where you remove that lone creature knowing that the decks in the field pack lots of creature removal. That is a better analogy.

If the field has a large percentage of decks that run Misdirection, then I wouldn't hesitate to cut Recall in a deck like Stax and put it in the SB. I would rather not risk autolosing because I decide to risk it and cast Recall, even if that Recall wins me the odd game. Basically, if I reduce it to very simplistic scenarios, even if a card would produce 60% autowins versus 40% autolosses when cast, I would NOT play it.

I don't understand this argument. If you know that your 5-card Lotus, Ritual, Ritual, Ritual, DT hand is a 60-40 against an unknown player who may or may not have FoW, you go for it, right? You come out 3-2 on top. Assuming that your opponent runs 4 Misd, we can simplistically assume they have a 40% of having it. Since there are most decks run fewer than 4x Misd, the actual percentage of getting AR Misd'd is very low. Not to mention everyone pitches Misd against Stax and Brainstorms it away at the first opportunity.

If there is a 60-40 win/loss shot, I take it every single time. This situation is far less risky than 60-40, and AR is just too stupid good to cut. I don't understand this argument at all.

Not speaking for DicemanX, but for me, the thought of "autolosing" if my AR is Misdirected doesn't sit too well with me. I can accept the possibility in a deck like Gifts, where I can potentially protect myself with countermagic, or in a combo deck where I might win before it matters. But in Stax, the control of the outcome is entirely in the hands of your opponent, and that's not a good place to be.

[Vegeta2711]

But in Stax, the control of the outcome is entirely in the hands of your opponent, and that's not a good place to be.

...Huh? Isn't Stax almost entirely based on the opponents hands and exact deck construction? Like half the hands you can draw are amazing, but are sort of dependent on play/draw and how many mana sources/basics the opponent has. Not to mention the obvious 'how many bounce' spells or 'how many moxen' ordeals.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

The argument becomes "less stupid" if you consider a case where you remove that lone creature knowing that the decks in the field pack lots of creature removal. That is a better analogy.

If the field has a large percentage of decks that run Misdirection, then I wouldn't hesitate to cut Recall in a deck like Stax and put it in the SB. I would rather not risk autolosing because I decide to risk it and cast Recall, even if that Recall wins me the odd game. Basically, if I reduce it to very simplistic scenarios, even if a card would produce 60% autowins versus 40% autolosses when cast, I would NOT play it.

I don't understand this argument.  If you know that your 5-card Lotus, Ritual, Ritual, Ritual, DT hand is a 60-40 against an unknown player who may or may not have FoW, you go for it, right?  You come out 3-2 on top.  Assuming that your opponent runs 4 Misd, we can simplistically assume they have a 40% of having it.  Since there are most decks run fewer than 4x Misd, the actual percentage of getting AR Misd'd is very low.  Not to mention everyone pitches Misd against Stax and Brainstorms it away at the first opportunity. 

If there is a 60-40 win/loss shot, I take it every single time.  This situation is far less risky than 60-40, and AR is just too stupid good to cut.  I don't understand this argument at all.

Your 5-card hand example is pretty bad.  If you mull to 5 and get a hand like that, you're backed into a corner and of course you have to go for it.

What Peter is saying is, IF a card reads: Split Second, roll a 10-sided die, if you roll 1-6, you win the game, if you roll 7-10 you lose the game, he would not play the card (presumably because although it does give the caster a larger chance to win that his opponent it is random and he would rather win by trying to use skill than play a card like that in his deck).

I also totally agree with JD and Peter about how people are exaggerating the prevalence of Misdirection in the meta.   In addition, even if a lot of decks are running it, it also comes down to what decks you are paired against.

The other point is that I'm not really sure it makes that much a difference over the course of a tournament whether you run Ancestral Recall or not in Stacks.  Over a large number of games it will matter, but with a small sample size you might not even draw the card in your games.  (As another example, look at the kind of crap Travis Laplante runs in some of his Workshop lists, yet sometimes he still does relatively well with them; the decks obviously aren't "optimal" but that doesn't necessarily matter)

[dicemanx]

To clarify:

If the majority of decks played Misdirection (for example, if the field is MDG/PL heavy), I wouldn't maindeck Ancestral Recall.

However, given that just about every single T1 event that I have played in my life was fairly diverse, there is not a chance that I would play without an AR main deck.

The first statement deals with a hypothetical, the second statement reflects reality, at least as far as the events I've played in are concerned.

As to why I wouldn't play a card that was "60-40" in my favor: if a player feels he has a significantly greater advantage playskill-wise, that 40% is an unnecessary concession. That its in your favor doesn't matter if you don't need to be gambling to win in the first place.

[wethepeople]

The first statement deals with a hypothetical, the second statement reflects reality, at least as far as the events I've played in are concerned.

Well that does make a little more sense. But it seems to me like you are saying you would SB it if the meta is Misdirection heavy, but in reality, that has never happened to you because T1 events are so diverse, therefore you still probably wouldn't do it.

I highly doubt you will ever go to a tournament where there are just that many Gifts/PL players that would cause you to worry about Ancestral, and there really is no way of knowing before the tournament.

[dicemanx]

The first statement deals with a hypothetical, the second statement reflects reality, at least as far as the events I've played in are concerned.

Well that does make a little more sense. But it seems to me like you are saying you would SB it if the meta is Misdirection heavy, but in reality, that has never happened to you because T1 events are so diverse, therefore you still probably wouldn't do it.

I highly doubt you will ever go to a tournament where there are just that many Gifts/PL players that would cause you to worry about Ancestral, and there really is no way of knowing before the tournament.

There might not be a way of knowing for sure, but it's possible to make a sound prediction based on an observed pattern. The question to discuss here is whether AR should be removed in the event that your local meta shifts towards being Misdirection-heavy, rather than discuss whether it is likely to do so.

[Razvan]

Sorry, I didn't know anyone still ran ubastax with only one color...

Vroman? Everyone that runs it? Uba is a very tight deck, really, especially at the land-level.

Also, I don't get it where you guys say:

Resolved Ancestral: Win
Mis-Ded Ancestral: Loss

Anyhow.

As for AR in stax... well, yes, stax, especially uba stax, has problems actually protecting stuff, by virtue of only running permanents. Besides welders, generally the best way for it to get anything in is to just bait, or play other components, and finally play AR when you are sure they are exhausted.

As someone said, they KNOW Mis-D is the worst card against Stax, especially game 1, they will pitch it to FoW quickly, over BS, Drain, or anything else really.

Furthermore, AR in stax isn't as strong as in other decks, lack of tutors, lack of a lot of direct card-draw (it achieves CA by other means), lack of Y-Will to reoccur it. In fact, where a lot of decks just get AR to advance in game state (which is a reasonable goal in control vs. control, but anything vs. anything, really), in stax it's more of an incidental really-good card that comes as it will. As Stax evolves into a more consistent rather than broken deck (Uba, for example), it will find less of a need for broken cards, anyhow.

So it's not like they will gamble upon you actually have it, and have a dead card sit in their hand for 12 turns until you might actually draw it. if they do, bonus, imagine what that Thirst that they pitched would have done instead.

That being said, it's an interesting idea. I still think it should be played, just be careful about it. You cannot protect it. It's not really that different than in any other situation.

Worse comes to worst.

Step 1: Chalice for 5
Step 2: Ancestral Recall
Step 3: Profit

Yes, it's a joke.

[forests failed you]

IMO:

The thought of not running Ancestral Recall in a deck that can support it is absurd.  If I were playing a Chains of Mephostophles deck that played Blue, I would maindeck Recall in Vintage.

So far as I know there are primarily two decks that run misdirection in the maindeck.  Gifts and Pitch Long.  Both are fairly good match ups for Stax, not great, but not terrible.  The first card that is going to be pitched to FOW, Brainstormed and fetched away, or somehow gotten rid of in these decks is most certainly Misdirection.  As long as you don't raw dog a Recall on turn one, you should be fine and it will most likely resolve later on.  I know for a fact that I rarely counter Stax's Recalls when I am playing Slaver, and I am always very annoyed when they play it against me.

I disagree with this entire strain of logic;  Recall is busted.  Play as many busted cards in your deck as possible.  Having Recall in the maindeck improves every single match up, because it is an extremely powerful bomb.  Even against Gifts or Pitch, it is only bad under specific situations that require them to be able to play Misdirection.  Otherwise it is great.

[Dxfiler]

Well I did a very long session of testing of ancestral recall-less 5c stax vs. gifts tonight against Rich Shay.  The first game games I played against were with his own build, which is very close to meandeck gifts.  I won 8 out of 10.

I then did another 8 against Brassman's build of 4x repeal gifts, with Rich as the pilot.  I won 7 out of 8.

Not having Anectral was absolutely gigantic in these games... I cannot possibly stress this enough.  There were at least 5-6 games where he had Misdirection very early and it just sat there dead for the rest of the game.  Rich's version of gifts plays more than one misdirection, while the brassman build only plays one... but the results against both were overwhelming.  Every single time Misdirection was drawn early I won.  It caused card disadvantage by effectively being a mulligan against me.  Rich actively avoided drawing misdirection whenever possible against me, including mulliganing a few times if it appeared opening hand... this did not change the fact that when he drew it, it did nothing.

I'm still VERY happy with my choice to not include Ancestral Recall maindeck and don't plan on changing it anytime soon.  Misdirection is very prevalent at the moment and I'm just not going to walk into game losses based on that assessment.

Whether you agree with me or not, please realize why I'm advocating this strategy... it's strictly a metagame decision that I feel is very strong right now.  This could change, but at the moment not playing Ancestral maindeck has made me very happy.  I've been using pretty much the same list as posted above, card for card.  There are one to two cards I'm not happy with, like mana vault, but overall I feel not maindecking the best card draw spell of all time is a viable strategy given the right environment. 

Right now is that time.

- Dave Feinstein

[EnialisLiadon]

Shouldn't you have tested an equal number of games with Ancestral, though?  I'm wondering if the results would be different from the games tested without Ancestral.

[The Atog Lord]

Dave and I tested Gifts against Stax, and Dave did very well in the testing. Gifts wins by either making a Colossus or casting nine spells and then Tendrils. Chalice, Welder, Shaman, and Duplicant stop Plan A, and Trinisphere and Sphere of Resist stop Plan B. While Slaver is able to use Welder to actually play a game against Stax, Gifts seems like it often finds itself needing to find a giant bounce spell and then go off. Once again, Slaver is much better at winning small.

As for Ancestral Recall. As much as I might tease Dave about cutting it, I can understand his logic. In a metagame filled with Misdirection – and only in such a metagame – a deck which can’t defend Ancestral might consider moving it to the board. Note that I’m not saying that this aproach is optimal; I’m just sayig it isn’t a crazy idea.

In our games, Misdirection was a dead card of course, though not exactly a game-loser. That was Sphere of Resist’s job. I mulliganned one hand with double Misdirection and Colossus, which I would likely do against any Stax build. Otherwise, Misdirection found itself able to pitch to Force or hide to Brainstorm. Yes, it is often a dead card; but remember, Gifts was also usually dead in this match. It got pitched to Force far more often than cast itself.

[Smmenen]

Let me see if I can provide some analytical assistance.  No promises   I'm coming at this unbiased.  At the outset, I have no particular view or inclincation one way or the other. My hope is that my analysis will suggest the correct answer.

We can all agree that rational decisionmaking begins with the premise that a particular course of action should be pursued if the benefits outweigh the costs.   So, we are in the realm of cost/benefit analysis and not making decisions here on the basis of fun or card preference. 

Assuming, as the opening posts suggest that a significant proportion of swiss and top 8 matches will have Misdirections (let's assume 40%), then the question becomes fairly narrow: knowing that game one your opponent will have Misdirection in their deck about 40% of the time, and further:
a) they probably have 2-3 Misdirections, so the chances of them having it in their opening hand are much less than 40% - probably around 15% (someone can back up this math)
b) that Misdirections will build up over the course of the game since nothing in Stax is Misdirectable.

That focuses our analysis to two situations:

1) Turn One

2) Mid-Late Game

Let's take a look at both.

Supposing that you open with Ancestral Recall, should you open with Ancestral even if your opponent has something of a 10-15% chance of having Misd. in their opening hand?   The answer, of course, depends upon the shape of your hand.   But there are several layers of complexity.   Let's take a look at the four possibilities

a) You have no turn one play Aside from Ancestral.   
b) You have other turn one plays, some of which may significantly delay ancestral
In either A or B, you may or may not have mulliganed.  Obviously, if you mulligan, it will increase the need to play Ancestral - particularly under (a). 

Thus, we have essentially 4 possible sets, (a) and (b) modified by mulligan or no mulligan. 

Now, let's take a look at all four sets.

1) You have no turn one play aside from ancestral and you haven't mulliganed.    I think we can all agree that this is the riskiest scenario in which to play the Ancestral.    Even with a 15% chance of them having Misd, if they DO have it, the resolution of your Ancestral in their favor will likely create a huge swing and likely cost you the game.    In other words, even if the chance of them having it is very low, the risk if they do is very great.   Thus, it may be rational for you, in this position, to not have Ancestral in your maindeck or to not play it.

2) You ahve no turn one play aside from Ancestral, but you''ve mulliganed.   This is a variant of situation one, but the difference is that having mulliganed, you are in a worse position.    Ideally, Stax wants a strong turn one play and two turn two bombs.   That's the best way to beat Gifts.   If you start with 5 cards, turn one Ancestral will put you right back in the game, even if they have to Force.   Your chances of winning are slimmer anyway, so it seems to me that the costs outweigh the risks most of the time (unless your mulligan to 6 is so strong that it resembles a hand of 7).

3) You have strong turn one plays aside from Ancestral.   Examples include turn one Trinisphere, 2Sphere, Chalice 2, etc.    These plays will delay your Ancestral.   You could play turn one Ancestral, but because you have other plays, it is not necessary.   The upsides to not playing Ancestral is that there will probably be a position in the mid-late game where you can resolve it in your favor.  The downside is that their Misds may build in there hand.   The upside to that is that they will be pitching Misds to Force of Wills - and when they do, you can take note of it and then play your Ancestral.    Some turn one plays in this position may preclude Ancestral for a very long time.   Chalice 1 is such an example.   Assuming that your turn one play gets counterd pithcing Misd, your Ancestral has a very low chance of getting Misded the following turn.

4) Same as 3 except you mulliganed.   Identical analysis applies. 

Now, let's take a look at the second possibility - which is that you draw Ancestral in the late game against a Misd deck.

It seems to me there are three possibilities, broadly speaking and generalizing:

1) You are in control and going to win.   The stax v. Gifts match's midgame doesn't really have alot of variation.   One deck or the other is generally clearly ahead.   That's by definition.   A state of parity generally means that Gifts is ahead because it has permanents.    If Stax is in control, then your ancestral is unnecesary to play.   Thus, the fact tha tit takes a slot in your hand and deck means nothing more than an additional lock compoentn that has no value at the moment.

2) Gifts is ahead and going to win.   It has conterspells in hand, plenty of mana, and has staved off all your threats but it hasn't found the gifts or the tinker/will to win yet.  IN this position, Ancestral has no risk.  If it resolves, it could pull you back intot he game.  If it doesn't, you were very likely to lose anyway. 

3) You are in a parity position.   In this position, Ancestral does become a liability.   However, it can a be carefully measured risk, particularly if you have observed them pitching Misd to FoW.   A good Gifts player will also Brainstorm away Misds because they are so bad against Stax.

Most of hte above analysis also applies to Pitch Long.

Having gone through that exhaustive examination, it seems to me that the situations in which Ancestral being Misdirected is a real risk is very narrow, particularly in light of the chances of them actually having the MIsdirection in thier opening hand.  I think the contention would have more support if the decks that ran Misdirection ran 4.  But no deck that runs Misdirection actualy runs 4.   At most they run 3 and more likely they have 2 or 1.   It seems to me that in most situations in which it would present a risk, it can be mitigated in the usual way: by not playing it, just as you wouldn't play a Smokestack into a Mana Drain.   

Stephen Menendian

[Shock Wave]

Well I did a very long session of testing of ancestral recall-less 5c stax vs. gifts tonight against Rich Shay.  The first game games I played against were with his own build, which is very close to meandeck gifts.  I won 8 out of 10.

I then did another 8 against Brassman's build of 4x repeal gifts, with Rich as the pilot.  I won 7 out of 8.

Not having Anectral was absolutely gigantic in these games... I cannot possibly stress this enough.  There were at least 5-6 games where he had Misdirection very early and it just sat there dead for the rest of the game.  Rich's version of gifts plays more than one misdirection, while the brassman build only plays one... but the results against both were overwhelming.  Every single time Misdirection was drawn early I won.  It caused card disadvantage by effectively being a mulligan against me.  Rich actively avoided drawing misdirection whenever possible against me, including mulliganing a few times if it appeared opening hand... this did not change the fact that when he drew it, it did nothing.

I'm still VERY happy with my choice to not include Ancestral Recall maindeck and don't plan on changing it anytime soon.  Misdirection is very prevalent at the moment and I'm just not going to walk into game losses based on that assessment.

Whether you agree with me or not, please realize why I'm advocating this strategy... it's strictly a metagame decision that I feel is very strong right now.  This could change, but at the moment not playing Ancestral maindeck has made me very happy.  I've been using pretty much the same list as posted above, card for card.  There are one to two cards I'm not happy with, like mana vault, but overall I feel not maindecking the best card draw spell of all time is a viable strategy given the right environment. 

Right now is that time.

- Dave Feinstein

You're drawing a conclusion based on an experiment where you've chosen conditions that will support your initial inference. Your testing sample size is extremely small, and extremely narrow.

If you're testing this theory for a small metagame which you are certain will be infested with Misdirection, then I can see where this conclusion has some merit. However, for a large event, even given the current metagame, to cut Ancestral based on very isolated and narrow testing is certainly not reasonable.

[Dxfiler]

You're drawing a conclusion based on an experiment where you've chosen conditions that will support your initial inference. Your testing sample size is extremely small, and extremely narrow.

I'm drawing this conclusion from playing hundreds of games vs. many different players, with the overwhelming majority having access to Misdirection in their maindeck.  The session I posted was but one example.  There have been many sessions versus a vast array of players, some of whom I did pick-up games with. 

If you're testing this theory for a small metagame which you are certain will be infested with Misdirection, then I can see where this conclusion has some merit. However, for a large event, even given the current metagame, to cut Ancestral based on very isolated and narrow testing is certainly not reasonable.

I adapted to the sideboard recall strategy off very simple principles that I found from viewing every major tournament I could get my hands on-

1) I consider gifts to be the best deck in the format... the overwhelming majority run Misdirection main.   

2) Pitch Long often runs Misdirection.  If Gifts isn't the best deck in the format, Pitch Long probably is.

3) Fish runs Misdirection.  Fish is pretty popular.

4)  5c Stax simply cannot win games where its ancestral is hijacked.  I watched it happen at more than one tournament, often in top 8's.  If the above three decks all run misdirection, it does not seem unreasonable to deduct that a large percentage of a given field in a major tourney will be running the card. 

I reached my sideboard strategy mainly from those above principles that were then applied to my testing.  Misdirection is not some narrow card seen in only one part of a region... Misdirection is all over the place.  Yes, it's more prevalent in my area of New England, but  I've seen it do well in plenty of other regions both from posted results and first hand viewing.  There was a good amount of it as the last Star City, in Virginia. 

It seems the main counter-argument I'm getting is 'I would never ever cut Ancestral because it's just too good.  Regardless of how much its best answer is floating around, the card just wins games.'  That line of thought just doesn't cut it for me right now.  If you haven't actually played Stax, it's hard for you to realize just how devastating losing Ancestral Recall is.  To me, the deck just doesn't need that risk.  Stax might be the only deck in the format that is better off without playing Ancestral Recall main.  Sure, it's a great card to run if you have the ability to do so, but Stax simply does not need the card to win. 

The threat of Misdirection is enough to convince me that maindecking Ancestral Recall will actually lead to more losses than wins in this particular deck.  It's a hard conclusion to swallow for many people, but I get the feeling that the majority of people who are against the strategy in this thread simply haven't tried it and are posting on general feelings towards Ancestral Recall. 

It's good to think out of the box sometimes.

- Dave Feinstein     

 

[Smmenen]

It seems the main counter-argument I'm getting is 'I would never ever cut Ancestral because it's just too good.  Regardless of how much its best answer is floating around, the card just wins games.' 
 

I would not consider that a fair characterization of the analysis I conducted.    My conclusion does come out that you shouldn't cut Ancestral, but it is based upon a close cost/benefit analysis that acknowledges the risks you cite and validates them.   However, when examined closely, those risks, while significant, do not seem to lead to the conclusion that you should cut Ancestral. 

[Dxfiler]

Steve, I mean this respectfully...

My conclusions were reached from playing and watching actual games, it seems yours were not.

Actual results mean more to me than any mathematical scenarios or stastistical theroies, although I did find your information helpful and enlightening.

  Happy Holidays,
  Dave Feinstein

[Komatteru]

My conclusions were reached from playing and watching actual games, it seems yours were not.

Actual results mean more to me than any mathematical scenarios or stastistical theroies, although I did find your information helpful and enlightening.

So if I play 8 games and win none of them with Yawgmoth's Will, I can conclude that I don't need Will in my deck and can take it out?

In order to use real games, you need to play a lot of them, given the high amount of variation present in Magic.  It's like playing 8 matches with a deck, losing 7 of them, and then deciding that the deck is garbage.  Do you consider that to be reasonable a reasonable assessment too?

[wraith985]

You also need to ask yourself how many of those game you actually would have drawn Ancestral Recall in, and how many of those games you would have been able to cast it. It doesn't matter if AR is in your maindeck if you never draw it, and short of 'marking' one of your cards (say, with a different edition or something), you can't really tell whether or not it's the change you've made or the deck having a winning streak despite your change.

[Smmenen]

Steve, I mean this respectfully...

My conclusions were reached from playing and watching actual games, it seems yours were not.

Actual results mean more to me than any mathematical scenarios or stastistical theroies, although I did find your information helpful and enlightening.

  Happy Holidays,
  Dave Feinstein

I agree.  Actual results mean more to me as well.   

But here's the thing: results draw our attention to things that we missed.  They help us understand.   

Results are never the end of the discussion, they are the beginning.

As a nonsensical example, what if theory and math suggested that the Dragon v. Stompy match is heavily in favor of Stompy.   But we sit down and play 50 games and it turns out to be in favor of Dragon, then the results beg us to re-evaluate our theory. 

I'm not saying your results are wrong, but the inference may be.  I mean, look at the logic (and I'm oversimplifying, but hopefully not straw manning):

Premise 1: Huge proportions of the field Run Misdirection
Premise 2: A misdirected Ancestral is game over for you
Premise 3: My (your) results show that my deck is destroying the field
Conclusion: Ancestral should be sbed.

Now, I'm not saying that your premises aren't true.  They are!   But they dont, in and of themselves, compel your conclusion.  More importantly, there are other reasons, not in your logic, that I've articulated that explain that although your premises are true, your conclusion still may be false. 

If you are right, then it should be relatively simple to apply the results you have reached to explain exactly why the relationships you see hold true, even in the face of the analysis I conducted.  Correct?  I mean, you posted this idea on these boards so that they would be subject to scrutiny beyond simply posting results.   Otherwise every single post in this thread would mean nothing beyond other people saying: Gifts 2, Stax 8 or something along those lines.   

My analysis begins with the assumption with the claim that you make: that Misdirection resolving Ancestral in Gifts or Pitch Longs favor results in a loss.   I acknowledge that.   But, what I am asking is - since you have subjected your position to analysis and criticism on a message board, simply engage in the discussion you have started.   
In sum, results help us figure out where our theory is wrong.  But they do that by helping us see connections we didn't see.    I have a great deal of experience with Stax (got 9th at an SCG, have played it since the decks inception in our format) so, I undersatnd exactly what you are talking about.   But, we can't just stop by saying: my results trump your theory.   Respectfually, I think you should explain why I'm wrong, if my conclusion is incorrect.   And your wealth of recent experience should easily be up to the task.

I think if you want to draw out two points that were most critical of your position in my very lengthly post above, I think they would come down to these:

1) Ancestral Recall is only one card in the deck.    Stax, as a consequence of design, has many cards that can't do anything at particular points in time, although not in the long run.   Redundant Crucibles, Smokestacks, Welders, etc all have dramatically diminishing marginal value on turn one.    However, these cards become better and even useful as the game proceeds.   I can think of no reason why Ancestral can be played similarly.    When played with restraint and with careful attentiveness to the potential risks (such as if they have pitched Misd), whether they've mulliganed, etc, I don't see why the risk has to be as severe.    It is one thing to say that Ancestral is very risky, but it is another thing to cut it.  Not because its so powerful, but because you can dramatically minimize the risk by not playing it.

Let me ask you a pointed question: If Ancestral Recall said, you may not play this on turn one 40% of the time of your choosing, would you still play it?  In Stax, I probably would.    That percentage was chosen not simply to mitigate the risk you fear, but to eliminate it.  If the answer is no, then I think there is a substantial basis to your claim - even though this gross hypothetical doesn't fully reflect the reality we are talking about.   There are risks attendant with every spell in Stax.   Just like you don't play Smokestack into Mana Drain, why can't you hold back Ancestral if you think they have Misd?

2) Those decks that play misdirection dont run 4, they run 2 and sometimes 3.   That makes the probability of them having Misd very low on average in the opening hand, esp. when discounted by the probability that you are running into a deck that has one.    Even assuming that you have a huge proportion of Misds in the metagame, the odds are very low that they'll face them. 

The low probability combined with the possibility of restraint (points 2 and 1 respectively) present a powerful counter-argument the other way. 

As I always say to my playtest partners and to my team: justify.  Explain.  I know they can do it.  Sometimes we feel things so strongly we know they are right, and they are, but we can't simply just assert that.  We have to deal with legitimate points that others raise.  Dont you agree?


Stephen Menendian

[Jacob Orlove]

A quick mathematical interlude.

Given a 60 card deck, and a 7 card opening hand with no mulligans, a player has the following chances of drawing Misdirection.

If they run one: 11.67%
If they run two: 22.15%
If they run three: 31.54%
If they run four: 39.95%

[Smmenen]

Exactly, so the chances are somewhere between 22 and 30%.  So you are talking 22-30% of X% of the field that runs Misd.  That's pretty low odds that you will face Misd in any given game.

There are two key points I left out that need to be addressed.

First, the question of opportunity cost and alternatives.   

We already established that rational decision making is cost benefit decision making.    Taking that as a given, the question of whether Ancestral belongs cannot be divorced from the question of what you would be playing in that slot.     The presumption is that every card chosen in a sixty card deck is there because it provides the highest utility.   Other cards are omitted because the opportunity cost of running them is too high.    We cannot evaluate the logic behind cutting Ancestral from the maindeck without an analysis of the card that is replacing it.    

Secondly, what is the threshold number of Misdirections in the field that would make Ancestral suboptimal?   That is, assming that the no deck in the field ran MIsdirection then Ancestral would be included and that if every deck in the format ran 4 Misdirections, then we would not run Ancestral, where is the threshold in which we cross from one to the other?   I'm curious as to what Dave's specific answer is to this question.   I think the answer will greatly clarify his reasoning.  For example, is it 60% of the field running an average of 3 Misd?   Is it 33% of the field running 2 misd?   What is the thresold that makes Ancestral optimal to suboptimal?   If we can pinpoint that place, then we'll have some greater insight into the reasonability of the decision.

Stephen Menendian

[diopter]

I see the reasoning to SB Ancestral Recall in Stax as being similar to the reasoning some of the GWS/ICBM players used to include 2 Tendrils of Agony in Pitch Long. It might not necessarily be statistically "optimal", but it reduces the chances of getting screwed in a situation where you shouldn't be getting screwed. Stax doesn't want to lose to its opponent's otherwise dead Misdirections, just like Pitch Long doesn't want to lose to losing its only win condition after resolving an otherwise game-ending bomb.

Personally I disagree with SBing Recall, and the reason why is a reason that Steve articulates: the risk of running into Misdirection can be mitigated by waiting to play Recall. If you are waiting to play Ancestral Recall because you are afraid of your opponent's Misdirection in hand, then both you and your opponent have a dead card in hand, maintaining parity.