[FREE Article] So Many Insane Plays! -- Playing TPS

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/16298.html

Editor's Blurb:

Monday, August 25th - Last week, Stephen brought us the first part of a Vintage Perfect Storm primer. Today, he continues that fine work with a continued look at available tutors, important mana considerations, and the merits of playing a second Tendrils of Agony…

Let me know what you think.

Stephen

[Webster]

I would have gone into a bit more detail on the decision trees with hands that weren't basically spelled out. For instance, take a look at example 4:

Rebuild
Polluted Delta
Lotus Petal
Tinker
Vampiric Tutor
Yawgmoth’s Will
Mana Crypt

This hand is complicated and can be played any number of ways. Suppose that your turn 1 play is Delta into Sea, Mana Crypt, Tinker, and that your opponent counters your Tinker with Force of Will.

From here, you should be thinking about your remaining resources and what engine you can execute. You already have Yawgmoth’s Will in hand. What you are missing is the mana to play it. Assuming that your opponent has now burned through their available countermagic, I would play Vampiric Tutor on your second turn’s upkeep for Black Lotus. From there, you can play Petal, Black Lotus, and Yawgmoth’s Will. You can then replay all of the mana you’ve played in the game so far, including Polluted Delta.

Giving the reader multiple lines of play, such as:

turn 1:
delta, go.

EOT opp's t1, fetch for swamp, vamp for FOW.

turn 2:
petal, crypt, tinker--> lotus, fow opp's permission if necessary, will, delta--> fetch underground, petal, crypt, lotus, tinker for jar, vamp for tendrils, activate jar, cast tendrils.

Explaining the various nuances that each line of play has given a generic opponent and/or the (dis)advantages associated with various secondary cards the TPS pilot would be likely to encounter like mana drain, stifle, wasteland, duress, swords to plowshares, sphere of resistance, chalice of the void would have impressed me more simply because it adds a depth that someone who knows the basics could appreciate.

The article felt a bit too superficial to me. That being said, it is easier to look at a painting and critique it than paint it in the first place.

[Tempus]

Next week I will discuss matchups and sideboarding.

I missed this 

The article felt a bit too superficial to me. That being said, it is easier to look at a painting and critique it than paint it in the first place.

Same here

[andrewpate]

Frankly, Webster, I think that the line of play you outline is flat-out superior to turn 1 Tinker.  Note that an opponent with both Force of Will and Duress will beat Steve's play for sure, even on the draw, by taking Yawgmoth's Will on turn 1.  With the latter play, however, a Duress will leave you with either Tinker or Will, plus a Force of Will to protect it (or anything else you decide to get with Vampiric Tutor after seeing the Duress).  The only thing turn 1 Tinker has going for it is a slight speed advantage if the opponent does not have Force of Will, which is something I don't like to go around assuming.

[Smmenen]

My objective with this article was pedagogical.  If I spent too much time talking about the tactical threats one might face, I think it may have detracted from the illustrations of my three prong-tutor rubric (notice how each example correlates to each of those prongs). 

Normally, I would spend alot of time talking about some of the other nuances, but with an article like this I felt that focus and economy, above all, was paramount.    I intentionally dampened my normal verbiage to achieve that goal.   I think the effect may be to make the article seem superficial because it is not my usual writing style, but I assure you that I put just as much work into it as I normally do.   

I agree with the general observation that describing those lines of play could have been useful for the more experienced player. b

[Webster]

Frankly, Webster, I think that the line of play you outline is flat-out superior to turn 1 Tinker.  Note that an opponent with both Force of Will and Duress will beat Steve's play for sure, even on the draw, by taking Yawgmoth's Will on turn 1.  With the latter play, however, a Duress will leave you with either Tinker or Will, plus a Force of Will to protect it (or anything else you decide to get with Vampiric Tutor after seeing the Duress).  The only thing turn 1 Tinker has going for it is a slight speed advantage if the opponent does not have Force of Will, which is something I don't like to go around assuming.

Well, whether it is supoerior depends on a lot of factors including the following:
- Do you know what your opponent is playing. Chalice/sphere/thorn stops any play other than tinker-->DSC. Goblin welder effectively stops tinker-->DSC. Tormod's crypt stops yawgmoth's will in this play. The list goes on.

- Assuming you're playing against a drain deck without goblin welder, consider whether it has: duress, multiple bounce spells, swords to plowshares, null rod, chalice and play accordingly. Whether they have force or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is everything else. Aether spellbomb is a lot better against DSC than a lethal tendrils.

I left out another line of play from my post with that same starting hand. Consider what happens when you change vamp-->force to vamp-->duress. That changes your play to:

duress, petal, crypt, tinker--> lotus, will, delta--> fetch underground, petal, crypt, lotus, vamp for tendrils, cycle rebuild, cast tendrils.

There are pros and cons to each of the lines of play that I suggested with regards to each other; they are very subtle, but they are there.

My objective with this article was pedagogical.  If I spent too much time talking about the tactical threats one might face, I think it may have detracted from the illustrations of my three prong-tutor rubric (notice how each example correlates to each of those prongs). 

Normally, I would spend alot of time talking about some of the other nuances, but with an article like this I felt that focus and economy, above all, was paramount.    I intentionally dampened my normal verbiage to achieve that goal.   I think the effect may be to make the article seem superficial because it is not my usual writing style, but I assure you that I put just as much work into it as I normally do.

The examples that you showed seemed like a bit of a cop-out, especially with regards to mystical/vampiric. "Look, I have yawgmoth's bargain, (A) mana to cast it, (B) protection, and a topdeck tutor. However, I am missing part of (A) or (B) so I'm going to tutor for it." See spot run. Run spot run. If you had made the starting hand into something a bit more complex as well as differentiated the tutor target of vampiric to show how it can be played differently in comparison than the more restrictive mystical tutor, then you would have still been able to accomplish your goal without being overly pedantic.

[Smmenen]

In these forums and elsewhere, I've observed that people who play TPS struggle most in two areas: 1) deciding whether to keep a hand, but even moreso: 2) knowing what to tutor for.

You can't teach arithmetic unless you teach numbers first.   It may seem pedantic to you, but using somewhat simple examples to illustrate my framework is the best way of reinforcing the framework.  If I chose complicated examples, the framework may have gotten buried in there.   Research on learning shows that people learn best when a lesson is captured and reinforced in different ways.Thus, I chose examples that precisely illustrated the framework I provided.   

My hope is that it will really help players who are struggling to pilot TPS.   Obviously, experienced TPS players already know what to do when they draw Demonic Tutor, Vamp Tutor, Mystical Tutor, and Imperial Seal.   This section was not written for them, but it may reinforce what they already know and help clarify their thinking on this matter, if they had even consciously set it out in the way that I did. 

The first step is getting people organized in their thinking about what to tutor for.   Actually selecting among a line of play requires higher level skills of cost/benefit, playing through answers, etc.  My goal was not to teach how to select among possible lines of play in complex situations, but how to see a line of play in the first place. 

I appreciate the feedback, and I agree with what you say.   There are multiple objectives when writing, and I prioritized simplicity for explanatory purposes over the nuances we both appreciate. 

[IthilanorStPete]

Bumping because this is now free.

This was a really helpful article for someone that doesn't know how to play TPS.

[bluemage55]

This was a really helpful article for someone that doesn't know how to play TPS.

Or, with some deduction, for someone who doesn't know how to play against TPS.

[hauntedechos]

I will have to concurr here.  I am a player who has never known how to play TPS and the article being geared towards the lay was very very benificial and practicle.  I certainly see the case that Webster makes and it is valid, however I am certainly gratefull that the articles have been digestable for myself and others.  I can already atest that my ability to make things happen more consistently has increased.  That is to say a greatly reduced percentage of fizzles.

Webster, I have PM'd you about other matters considering TPS, I would greatly enjoy the time to talk to you about things that matter to the more adept TPS player.

thanks again Steve.

Mike
AKA
Haunted.