Ancestral Recall and Sunk Cost

[TheShop]

Sunk Costs are irrelevant from a decision-making standpoint.  

I think you're oversimplifying. Mystical Tutor has given the opponent information. The information can impact the decision.

Taken from Investopedia.com (for convenience):

"What Does Sunk Cost Mean?
A cost that has been incurred and cannot be reversed. Also referred to as "stranded cost."

What Does Irrelevant Cost Mean?
A managerial accounting term that represents a cost, either positive or negative, that does not relate to a situation requiring management's decision.

Investopedia explains Irrelevant Cost
As with relevant costs, irrelevant costs may be irrelevant for some situations but relevant for others. Examples of irrelevant costs are fixed overheads, notional costs, sunk costs and book values."

I understand that information is gained and that the situations may dictate different responses...that was the topic of my last post in addition to a statement saying that we cannot possibly quantify all of the situations involving Ancestral (making the discussion very subjective).  However, I have a Master's degree in Accounting and a Sunk Cost is Irrelevant for decision-making purposes by definition.  Every aspect of the line of play may not be a Sunk Cost, but parts are Sunk Costs from the standpoint of the player casting the spell.  

IE- You cannot decide to put Ancestral back into your hand after casting.  The card is gone
     The information you gave the opponent when you played Ancestral will not be forgotten if you change your mind
     The mana you used to play Ancestral is non-refundable
     The slot you dedicated to Ancestral in your deck is also non-refundable
     The mana source you played from your hand solely for the purpose of playing Ancestral cannot be exchanged for another
     The time during the match it took you to cast Ancestral is not refundable
     Anything you cannot get back once you pay for the spell is a Sunk Cost.  From the caster's standpoint, these costs are irrelevant for future decision making.

If we call it a Sunk Cost, it is irrelevant.

Situations:

I draw my 7.
Lay land.
Tap
Add U
Cast Ancestral
Opponent casts Spell Pierce

assuming I have the mana to pay for the Pierce's additional cost, I would have to weigh the relevant factors to make this decision.  These factors do not include:
The slot Ancestral takes up in my deck.
Will I put my land back in my hand
Will I cast Ancestral
Will I use the U I had floating
What will I do with the 3 seconds of my life I just used.

Those are the Sunk Costs.  All other factors that we have control over ARE VERY RELEVANT and should be considered.  This is where we get to the subjective part-

Do I counter back or not?  This is an impossible question to answer without more information.  Here is why:

1)  If my opponent has Decree of Silence in play with 3 counters on it and I have Force + Blue card in my hand....I should not counter, because it will not make a difference. (not that anyone would play Decree in Type 1)  The benefits did not outweigh the costs

2)  If my opponent has no cards in graveyard, hand, or library (he is having a bad game) and the Ancestral has him as the chosen target...I should counter if I have the ability because the benefit of winning the game outweighs the cost of countering the spell.

The only use for Sunk Costs in this discussion from the Opponent's standpoint is whether or not the costs of him countering outweigh benefit that Ancestral's caster will get. (whether the costs that he incurs, which will before irreversible will be worth the Ancestral not landing)(the only reason canceling the opponent's benefit is relevant is because his stopping a benefit for an opponent is of benefit to you) Even with a given situation, these discussions are not always clear...look at the myriad of goldfishing opening-hand analysis throughout the forums.  Gut impulse says:  The average situation would warrant countering the Ancestral, but not ALWAYS.  Do the Analysis based on the situation and make the best decision with the information you have.

Without a situation where Cost/Benefit analysis can be utilized, the idea of a Sunk Cost is not altogether helpful.  Nor is subjective discussion.  However, we can simply rattle back and forth about different situations that make the other person's assumptions incorrect 40 more times until everyone loses interest and finds another thread......

For those of you who think that this is purely word-play:  Let's get away from hijacking terminology and using it for a meaning that is not its actual meaning.  Even if we are playing cards the term "apple" still refers to the fruit that grows on a tree.  We can't change definitions of loaded terms to suit our purposes.  I can understand some discussion on proactive versus reactive because the discussion serves to create a Magic-specific generally-accepted term to suit a purpose unique to the game. This word's meaning is clear and has a definite intended use: a sunk cost in Magic is the same as a sunk cost in any other decision.

[heiner]

I think people are talking past each other.

The -1 CA mystical brings is a sunk cost and should not affect your decission as many pointed out already.

However, mystical is not only a sunk cost but gives you various information (playstile, mana in hand, other cards, etc) IN ADDITION. This information of course has to be taken into account for the decision making process.

Here's another example:

Player A plays Ancestral
Player B forces (pitching a card)
Player A drains
Player B thinks about forcing again

You could argue that forcing twice is -2 cards, so its the same card CA as if you would let resolve Ancestral and do not counter at all, hence you would not counter twice. (And I have seen people that tend to do that)
But, the first force is a sunk cost. When deciding for the second FoW, you have to ignore the first FoW. In fact, countering the Ancestral the second time will lead to a +1 CA.

Of course the whole line of play gives a lot of information (Player A is obv. playing control and not combo for example) that can be taken into account for the decision making process but the -1 CA of the first FoW should not be considered. Its a sunk cost.

[Cyberpunker]

I am one of the players who do not advocate double Forcing an Ancestral Recall in the situation where your Force of Will is Mana Drained UNLESS you already have a card advantage of atleast +1 ahead of the opponent or if the Ancestral Recall was the opponent's last hope to get out of topdeck mode (1-2 more cards in hand left after casting Ancestral and countering your counter).

The reasoning is that there is a lot of gambling in Magic: The Gathering in my opinion and if you double Force of Will their Ancestral Recall with 3 or more cards in their hand, then you are gambling on the possibility that they will not have something else in their hand that-when resolved-will win them the game.

If you double Force their Ancestral Recall and they still have a hand of 3 or more cards, you are putting yourself in a more vulnerable situation where they can resolve another bomb while you have nothing. (You are also likely to be in topdeck mode because you just lost 2 Blue Cards along with your 2 Force of Will). This is of course situational and if you have a win spell in your hand (say Gifts Ungiven) after you Force of Will, then by all means Double Force their Ancestral Recall. Or if you know that they have no other bombs in hand, then by all means PLEASE Double Force their Ancestral Recall.


I prefer taking the 2nd gamble, which I think is safer. I prefer to gamble on the fact that I have a Force of Will in my hand along with another Blue card. And if the opponent draws 3, I am gambling that he will NOT find a counter to back up his oncoming threat. Because the chances of him drawing a counter in the next 3 cards are less than the chances of him having another bomb in his hand from the first 7 cards that he drew(Assuming my version of the ideal starting hand: 2 land, 2 counters, 2 threats 1 unknown[probably land]). With you having 1 more counter and 1 more threat while him having 1 more counter and 1 more threat and drawing 3 cards which may or may not be counters/threats. Next turn, you are on the offensive, so you draw your card and play your threat with counter back up. While he has to double counter while having already tapped 3 mana. And should he double counter your threat, than you guys have more or less reached equilibrium again, because now both of you guys have expended your resources and are on topdeck mode. Unfortunately with him having the first topdeck just like he had the first opportunity to cast his threat (Ancestral Recall)

This is a bad situation to be in and there is no way for you to come out unscathed. Either you will let him waste 2 of your counters and risk opening the route for him to cast a gamewinning spell, or you will let him dig 3 more cards into his library and be that much closer to topdecking the gamewinning spells that he needs.


My opinion, take it for what it is. And please remember to look at your own situation because the situation I described is VERY peculiar and I am assuming a 7 card hand with card advantage for both players being even. Information garnered from Duress/Thoughtseize/Cabal Therapy would make your decisions much more easier. Or if you already know what the opponent runs in his deck etc etc.