Ancestral Recall and Sunk Cost

[greggg230]

Whether or not your opponent used a card-disadvantage tutor to get Recall is irrelevant.  On the margin, it is still a matter of whether or not you want to use a counter to deny them drawing three cards.  The effect of Recall is the same, regardless of how they got in position to cast it.

I agree...when it draws three cards.  If it costs you a draw to get there, I think the effect is very different.

No.  The effect is exactly the same: "Target player draws three cards."

The card that it cost to get there is irrelevant because it is a sunk cost.

If there was a card that cost 4UUU and made you discard three cards as an additional cost and it drew three cards, it would be as must-counter as Ancestral Recall.  Sunk costs are only relevant in indirect ways - for example, in this or that game situation, I might be less afraid of Ancestral Recall because he tapped his only blue source to cast it and, therefore, cannot use that blue source to do stuff I am afraid of.

Ancestral Recall is not a must-counter because of its efficiency - who cares what they paid for the spell?  those costs have been paid already and are now irrelevant - but because of its effect.

[Grand Inquisitor]

If there was a card that cost 4UUU and made you discard three cards as an additional cost and it drew three cards, it would be as must-counter as Ancestral Recall.  Sunk costs are only relevant in indirect ways - for example, in this or that game situation, I might be less afraid of Ancestral Recall because he tapped his only blue source to cast it and, therefore, cannot use that blue source to do stuff I am afraid of.

Are you serious?  We should do business you and me.

sunk cost...Ancestral Recall is not a must-counter because of its efficiency - who cares what they paid for the spell?  those costs have been paid already and are now irrelevant - but because of its effect.

Have you tested Opportunity?

[MirariKnight]

The card that it cost to get there is irrelevant because it is a sunk cost.
If there was a card that cost 4UUU and made you discard three cards as an additional cost and it drew three cards, it would be as must-counter as Ancestral Recall.  

I would gladly let that spell resolve, pretty much every time.
The difference is that Ancestral defines the early game in most matches. Resolving yours and stopping theirs is a pretty solid route to victory. The reason for this is partly because of its effect, but also largely due to its cost (aka efficiency). The point where you'd ever consider casting said a 7 mana -1 CA spell just to filter 3 cards is a point most games don't even reach. At that point I'd definitely let Recall resolve too. It is because Ancestral provides such a huge advantage at minimal cost (and instant speed) that make it the must-counter it is.

While I will admit that sometimes you don't counter Recall, I'd still be really wary of letting it resolve if they -1 tutored for it.

What I said about early game=Recall war is also the reason I believe Mystical to be critical - it finds the weapon to fight the war.

[greggg230]

If there was a card that cost 4UUU and made you discard three cards as an additional cost and it drew three cards, it would be as must-counter as Ancestral Recall.  Sunk costs are only relevant in indirect ways - for example, in this or that game situation, I might be less afraid of Ancestral Recall because he tapped his only blue source to cast it and, therefore, cannot use that blue source to do stuff I am afraid of.

Are you serious?  We should do business you and me.

sunk cost...Ancestral Recall is not a must-counter because of its efficiency - who cares what they paid for the spell?  those costs have been paid already and are now irrelevant - but because of its effect.

Have you tested Opportunity?

Opportunity is unplayable because it costs infinite mana.  If someone cast Opportunity, though, you would obviously counter it if you would counter recall (and in many situations where you would not counter recall, because Opportunity has a more powerful effect).  The benefits / disadvantages of efficiency / inefficiency are over once the spell is on the stack and being responded to.

Keep in mind, my hypothetical terrible Recall has all of those things as costs.  So, when you cast the spell, you pay a million mana and discard three cards.  When it resolves, you do exactly what you do with recall - draw three cards.  As an opponent holding a counter, you are faced with the exact same decision as when Recall is on the stack: "Do I want to use my card (or cards) to prevent my opponent from drawing three cards?"  The costs that were paid to get the spell on the stack irrelevant, except indirectly (and if they discarded their hand to get their shitty recall on the stack, they probably need the three cards a lot more than the average person casting Recall).

And, sure, nothing is an absolute "must-counter" - that is shorthand for "almost always counter".  There are definitely times when Recall should be allowed to resolve, just as there are times when Yawg Will should be allowed to Resolve, but I think it's definitely wrong to say that it's only in the early game.  In general, I would think drawing cards is more valuable when you have fewer cards in hand, and frequently in late game your hand is quite small.

[greggg230]

Keep in mind, my hypothetical terrible Recall has all of those things as costs.  So, when you cast the spell, you pay a million mana and discard three cards.  When it resolves, you do exactly what you do with recall - draw three cards.  As an opponent holding a counter, you are faced with the exact same decision as when Recall is on the stack: "Do I want to use my card (or cards) to prevent my opponent from drawing three cards?"  The costs that were paid to get the spell on the stack irrelevant, except indirectly (and if they discarded their hand to get their shitty recall on the stack, they probably need the three cards a lot more than the average person casting Recall).

This is wrong.

The question is:
"do I want my opponent to draw 3 cards while fully tapped out"
or
"do I want my opponent to draw 3 cards with tons of mana available"

I do not care if my opponent taps out to cast anything if they don't win as a direct result.  The window of opportunity is huge in Vintage and your opponent will most likely just win while you are tapped out and defenseless.

The cost of a spell is *always* relevant because it is the difference between being able to use them now or not until next turn. 

I acknowledged that already.  The choice to counter a spell is always context dependent and I pointed out myself that the cost of a spell can change the context in relevant ways.  However, this is only related to the cost of the spell indirectly.  If they were tapped out for other reasons (say, a Tangle Wire) then the choice is exactly the same.  Whether or not the proposed extreme cards would always change the circumstances such that they would rarely be worth countering (I doubt it--I can imagine frequently wanting to counter Opportunity, if for some reason my opponent was playing it and survived long enough to cast it) is not really all that relevant; the point is the theory behind it.  At the end of the day, two things influence your decision to counter a spell: 1) the effect of the spell and 2) the game situation.  Cost is relevant only inasmuch as it effects 2.  If we return to the original situation that started this discussion - whether to counter an Ancestral Recall retrieved with Mystical Tutor - what are we looking at?  Assuming they Mystical Tutored on end step, they have one fewer card in their hand.  I assume it's generally the case that draw spells are more useful when you have fewer cards (marginal utility of cards decreases with hand size) and so, if anything, the cases where you would want to counter a MTutored Recall will be more frequent than the ones where you would counter one naturally drawn.

To take a less silly example: Cruel Ultimatum.  A UUBBBRR sorcery is obviously unplayable in Vintage (maybe marginally in some Dream Halls abomination) because it is way below the curve.  A 5 mana sorcery (Tezzeret) basically needs to win the game, and even then there's debate.  A seven mana sorcery might be unplayable with any text box; Cruel's definitely does not come close.  So, does that mean that if you're playing against some scrub who threw some moxen into his Lorwyn/Shards 5 color control deck and he, somehow, manages to cast Cruel Ultimatum, that you let it resolve?  Of course not.

[Shean]

To take a less silly example: Cruel Ultimatum.  A UUBBBRR sorcery is obviously unplayable in Vintage (maybe marginally in some Dream Halls abomination) because it is way below the curve.  A 5 mana sorcery (Tezzeret) basically needs to win the game, and even then there's debate.  A seven mana sorcery might be unplayable with any text box; Cruel's definitely does not come close.  So, does that mean that if you're playing against some scrub who threw some moxen into his Lorwyn/Shards 5 color control deck and he, somehow, manages to cast Cruel Ultimatum, that you let it resolve?  Of course not.

I have to apologize for lack of content here, but I find it extremely hilarious that TK played a Dream Halls/Cruel Ultimatum deck over the weekend.   

[Rico Suave]

I acknowledged that already.  The choice to counter a spell is always context dependent and I pointed out myself that the cost of a spell can change the context in relevant ways.

This isn't anything like what you said before, where the cost was irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant at all.  The cost is always directly relevant in every case.

[greggg230]

I acknowledged that already.  The choice to counter a spell is always context dependent and I pointed out myself that the cost of a spell can change the context in relevant ways.

This isn't anything like what you said before, where the cost was irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant at all.  The cost is always directly relevant in every case.

To quote myself:

Sunk costs are only relevant in indirect ways - for example, in this or that game situation, I might be less afraid of Ancestral Recall because he tapped his only blue source to cast it and, therefore, cannot use that blue source to do stuff I am afraid of.

The cost is never DIRECTLY relevant unless you're playing a spell like Nix.  It's never relevant that his board/hand/graveyard/library is in such and such position BECAUSE he had to put it that way to cast his spell.
Consider the following two cases: 
1) Player A has 4 Islands and Recall in hand.  His opponent, Player B, has Tanglewire with three counters on it.  Player A taps three of his islands and then in his main phase casts Recall.
2) Player B has 4 Island and Concentrate in hand.  His opponent has no relevant permanents.  Player A casts Concentrate.

In both cases, the marginal position is exactly the same: Player A has 4 tapped Islands and has a spell on that stack which will allow him to draw three cards if it resolves.  It is completely irrelevant that in case 2 that the islands are tapped as part of the cost and that in case 1 they are tapped because of some extrinsic effect.

  Perhaps the distinction is too subtle to be worth dwelling on, but my point is that there's a fundamental fallacy in saying that a less efficient spell is less worth countering.  Even granting that cost can indirectly influence one's decision to counter a spell, there's no reason to think that because a spell is more costly it is less worth countering - in many cases, including the one that initiated this discussion, the opposite is true.  Mystical Tutor is card disadvantage which means, all things being equal, you will have fewer cards in your hand after casting MTutor for Recall and then casting Recall than just casting a naturally drawn Recall.  In almost every situation, drawing cards is more valuable if you have fewer in your hand.  Therefore, if someone used Mystical Tutor to get Recall, it is more likely that the play is to counter Recall, and not less likely.

[BruiZar]

If there was a card that cost 4UUU and made you discard three cards as an additional cost and it drew three cards, it would be as must-counter as Ancestral Recall.  Sunk costs are only relevant in indirect ways - for example, in this or that game situation, I might be less afraid of Ancestral Recall because he tapped his only blue source to cast it and, therefore, cannot use that blue source to do stuff I am afraid of.

Are you serious?  We should do business you and me.

sunk cost...Ancestral Recall is not a must-counter because of its efficiency - who cares what they paid for the spell?  those costs have been paid already and are now irrelevant - but because of its effect.

Have you tested Opportunity?

The guy is completely right. Cost paid is irrelevant because it belongs to the past. It has already occurred. This is one of the big misconceptions in business where organizations ditch projects because they wrongly scheduled production plans. Lets say project X costs $10 million and takes 4 years of development and will earn an estimated $30 million once completed.

The projectmanager forecasted that it would only take $7.5 million and 3 years of development. The options are now:
a) Ditch the project losing $7.5 million
b) Invest $2.5 million and earn $30 million (Making you $20million instead of losing $7.5 million)

Investing 2.5 million to get 20 million is a fantastic opportunity that every investor will do. What has been invested in the past is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if your opponent has paid 0 mana or 1000 mana for a card that says 'I win', as long as your opponent has paid for it.

[Demonic Attorney]

Keep in mind, my hypothetical terrible Recall has all of those things as costs.  So, when you cast the spell, you pay a million mana and discard three cards.  When it resolves, you do exactly what you do with recall - draw three cards.  As an opponent holding a counter, you are faced with the exact same decision as when Recall is on the stack: "Do I want to use my card (or cards) to prevent my opponent from drawing three cards?"  The costs that were paid to get the spell on the stack irrelevant, except indirectly (and if they discarded their hand to get their shitty recall on the stack, they probably need the three cards a lot more than the average person casting Recall).

This is wrong.

The question is:
"do I want my opponent to draw 3 cards while fully tapped out"
or
"do I want my opponent to draw 3 cards with tons of mana available"

I do not care if my opponent taps out to cast anything if they don't win as a direct result.  The window of opportunity is huge in Vintage and your opponent will most likely just win while you are tapped out and defenseless.

The cost of a spell is *always* relevant because it is the difference between being able to use them now or not until next turn. 

[Anusien]

greggg230 is completely right.  His point is that at the point Ancestral Recall (or any spell) is on the stack, you look at this known information:
*) Cards they have in hand
*) Mana they have available
*) Mana they have untapped
*) What you know about their deck
*) Cards you have in hand
*) Knowledge you have about cards in their hand/top of their library
*) etc

It's irrelevant whether they cast Mystical Tutor to get the Ancestral Recall or just mulliganed to get to the same number of cards in hand, except in that it might tell you something about their hand/playstyle.  If they have the same mana open (maybe they had Drain mana + Lotus into Opportunity versus a mainphase Ancestral Recall) in the same board state as the Ancestral, it's stupid to say "I'll counter Ancestral Recall but not Opportunity".  The efficiency of a card is only somewhat important once they manage to cast it.  If an opponent managed to hardcast Colossus, it's not any less counter-worthy than Tinker would be.

Here's a hypothetical situation:
Situation A:
I mulligan to 6.  I play land, Ponder.  I untap, miss a land drop and play Mystical Tutor.  Turn 3, I miss a land drop, and cast Ancestral Recall on your upkeep.

Situation B:
I keep at 7.  I play land, Ponder.  I untap, play a land, and play Mystical Tutor.  Turn 3, I miss a land drop, and cast a fake version of Ancestral Recall that costs UU on your upkeep.

Is one really more counter-worthy than the other?

[TheBrassMan]

Have to agree with Gregg and Brui and Anu on this one completely.  Strangely enough, I think Rico's post sums up quite perfectly why they are right, despite the fact that he seems to be arguing with them.  When "Draw three cards" is on the stack, when deciding the value of countering it, you need to evaluate the state of the game now, which spells were played before then is irrelevant.  What could matter does include how many cards are in players' hands, how *many* spells were played this turn if storm is relevant, or which cards are in the graveyard, all of which Mystical affects, but it does not matter how the game state got that way.

It's ludicrous to say that countering an Ancestral after a Mystical is inherently wrong because of that Mystical (It could definitely be wrong for other reasons).  What if a player had Paris'd to 6?  They have one less card in their hand, exactly as if they had cast a topdeck tutor.  Would you never counter an Ancestral from a player who mulliganed, just because they have one less card?

Yes the play of Mystical for Ancestral is not as good as just getting lucky and drawing Ancestral, we get it.  That doesn't affect the decision making process of countering it.

This reminds me greatly of a kind of mistake I see better than average players make all the time, undervaluing bad cards.  For instance, the card Spiritmonger is awful in legacy, it costs way to much mana to play consistently when it will matter against most decks.  Despite this, a player in my weekly legacy event in Atlanta would play Spiritmonger in his decks, and when he resolved it, it was a huge problem.  It's easy to look at a card like that and ignore it, because it *is* bad.  But in play it doesn't have a casting cost (yes it has a converted mana cost, smart asses, but keep up ).  It doesn't matter that it's really unlikely that he got the mana to play it in time.  He did. It's out. It blocks your goyf and regenerates, and it's a problem that needs to be dealt with.  I would never be afraid to play against a deck that ran a lot of Spiritmongers, or for that matter, a deck based on hard-casting Progenitus.  But if my opponent got to 10 mana and slammed it on the table, I wouldn't let it resolve just because it's a terrible card.  It's a sunk cost, it's already been paid.  Now I have to worry about the 10/10.

[Grand Inquisitor]

you look at this known information:
*) Cards they have in hand
*) Mana they have available
*) Mana they have untapped
*) What you know about their deck
*) Cards you have in hand
*) Knowledge you have about cards in their hand/top of their library
*) etc

This I can get behind.  This isn't exactly what was said before.  I wasn't saying stopping someone from drawing three cards was wrong, I was saying the context was important.

To frame it, would people use a Force + blue card to counter Night's Whisper?  Because that would be comparable to the Mystical>Ancestral play in terms of the quoted above.

[Anusien]

To frame it, would people use a Force + blue card to counter Night's Whisper?  Because that would be comparable to the Mystical>Ancestral play in terms of the quoted above.

Mystical->Ancestral is only +1 card, sure.  But you're missing the point by framing things that way.  It's not a question of "Would you stop Mystical->Ancestral?".  It's a question of "Would you stop Ancestral once they've Mysticaled for it."  Ancestral Recall on the stack versus Night's Whisper on the stack are not equivalent, no matter what the setup spells were.

[Grand Inquisitor]

You posted this:

*) Cards they have in hand
*) Mana they have available
*) Mana they have untapped
*) What you know about their deck
*) Cards you have in hand
*) Knowledge you have about cards in their hand/top of their library
*) etc

Mystical Tutor obviously affects their number of cards in hand when Ancestral Recall is on the stack.  We're either looking at this contextually or not.  I know what Ancestral Recall does.

It's not a question of "Would you stop Mystical->Ancestral?".  It's a question of "Would you stop Ancestral once they've Mysticaled for it."  Ancestral Recall on the stack versus Night's Whisper on the stack are not equivalent, no matter what the setup spells were.

The setup spells, what deck they're playing (like the Belcher example), board, life, your hand, are all very relevant.

I've studied economics guys.  I get it.  I know what sunk costs are, but waving that word around and trying to argue that mystical>ancestral is a good play is unproductive.

Or maybe we all agree and we just don't know it yet.

[greggg230]

You posted this:

*) Cards they have in hand
*) Mana they have available
*) Mana they have untapped
*) What you know about their deck
*) Cards you have in hand
*) Knowledge you have about cards in their hand/top of their library
*) etc

Mystical Tutor obviously affects their number of cards in hand when Ancestral Recall is on the stack.  We're either looking at this contextually or not.  I know what Ancestral Recall does.

It's not a question of "Would you stop Mystical->Ancestral?".  It's a question of "Would you stop Ancestral once they've Mysticaled for it."  Ancestral Recall on the stack versus Night's Whisper on the stack are not equivalent, no matter what the setup spells were.

The setup spells, what deck they're playing (like the Belcher example), board, life, your hand, are all very relevant.

I've studied economics guys.  I get it.  I know what sunk costs are, but waving that word around and trying to argue that mystical>ancestral is a good play is unproductive.

Or maybe we all agree and we just don't know it yet.

Mystical->Ancestral may not be good (in fact, I don't think anyone has been talking about that at all), but when Mystical has been cast, that really has no impact on what you want to do to their Ancestral.  Mystical -> Ancestral is a +1 CA play, much like Night's Whisper.  However, the difference is that Mystical->Ancestral's net card advantage is a composite of -1 (When you resolve Mystical Tutor) and +2 (When you resolve Ancestral Recall).  Night's Whisper is just straight up +1.  If someone does the MT->Recall play, I can counter their recall and put them at -2.  If I counter their Night's Whisper, they are just at -1.

[Anusien]

I've studied economics guys.  I get it.  I know what sunk costs are, but waving that word around and trying to argue that mystical>ancestral is a good play is unproductive.

I don't have the context for the discussion.  But we're not arguing about whether Mystical->Ancestral is a good play or not.  As I see it, the discussion is "Does the fact that Mystical->Ancestral cost you a card change whether or not Ancestral is a good card to counter?"  And the answer is "No".

[Grand Inquisitor]

As I see it, the discussion is "Does the fact that Mystical->Ancestral cost you a card change the fact that Ancestral is a good card to counter?"  And the answer is "No""Depends".

Fixed.  Although, that explanation should help for some people.  This is where my argument started in the other thread, btw.

[Anusien]

As I see it, the discussion is "Does the fact that Mystical->Ancestral cost you a card change the fact that Ancestral is a good card to counter?"  And the answer is "No""Depends".

Fixed.  Although, that explanation should help for some people.  This is where my argument started in the other thread, btw.

I had changed my post already before you responded.  Let's not get offtopic.

[Rico Suave]

Have to agree with Gregg and Brui and Anu on this one completely.  Strangely enough, I think Rico's post sums up quite perfectly why they are right, despite the fact that he seems to be arguing with them.  When "Draw three cards" is on the stack, when deciding the value of countering it, you need to evaluate the state of the game now, which spells were played before then is irrelevant.  What could matter does include how many cards are in players' hands, how *many* spells were played this turn if storm is relevant, or which cards are in the graveyard, all of which Mystical affects, but it does not matter how the game state got that way.

I'd say that evaluating the game state is precisely what I was arguing. 

Sure the costs are payed after it is put on the stack, but the cost determines the game state once that spell is put on the stack.

I was merely trying to point out that this quote:
"The costs that were paid to get the spell on the stack irrelevant, except indirectly"

was at best poorly worded and at worst just straight up wrong.  The costs that were paid are not irrelevant at all - in fact they may be the sole reason that will determine your next course of action.

As a sidenote, I almost always counter Ancestral, regardless of whether it was naturally drawn or found with Mystical.

[geckoskin]

Mystical Tutor obviously affects their number of cards in hand when Ancestral Recall is on the stack.  We're either looking at this contextually or not.  I know what Ancestral Recall does.

the point is, mystical has ALREADY affected the number of cards in their hand. it is done. over. unchangable. doesn't matter now. it is (almost) EXACTLY the same as if they had mulliganed. if they mulliganed and then cast ancestral, would you be less likely to counter it? how is that any different?

It's not a question of "Would you stop Mystical->Ancestral?".  It's a question of "Would you stop Ancestral once they've Mysticaled for it."  Ancestral Recall on the stack versus Night's Whisper on the stack are not equivalent, no matter what the setup spells were.

The setup spells, what deck they're playing (like the Belcher example), board, life, your hand, are all very relevant.

only incidentally so. the only thing that REALLY matters is, there is a spell on the stack that is going to draw your opponent three cards. do you want your opponent to draw three cards? you can counter it, in which case he is +0, or you can let it resolve, in which case he is +3. whether he was ALREADY at -1 due to mystical is essentially irrelevant. his two outcomes then would be -1 if you counter, +2 if you let it resolve, but it is still a 3 card swing.

I've studied economics guys.  I get it.  I know what sunk costs are, but waving that word around and trying to argue that mystical>ancestral is a good play is unproductive.

Or maybe we all agree and we just don't know it yet.

nobody is arguing it's a good play. if mystical + ancestrall were combined into one card, that cost UU and drew you two cards, then you would be right - it would not be as important to counter it. but they are seperate entities. you can let the mystical be cast, let your opponent be down a card, then when he tries to recover by casting ancestral, you counter that and crush his dreams. if anything, countering ancestral after a mystic is BETTER, because your opponent has wasted all that tempo and a card and gained nothing, AND put one of the best cards in his deck into his graveyard.

[Grand Inquisitor]

if they mulliganed and then cast ancestral, would you be less likely to counter it? how is that any different?

That is absolutely relevant to my decision.  It's also a factor if I mulligan, etc.  The point is, every factor helps inform the decision, even stuff like how many fow's are in the grave, have they burned their merchant scroll, etc.  Yes, I use this information to make decisions just like whether to counter AR or not.

As a sidenote, I almost always counter Ancestral, regardless of whether it was naturally drawn or found with Mystical.

Me too.  My argumentative stance is to help illustrate how opportunities to 'not blink' as others have said allows you to win tight games.  My point is just that when my opponent is behind, I'm slightly less likely to counter AR and being behind certainly includes mulliganing or if they use a draw step to get the AR.

[BruiZar]

I've studied economics guys.  I get it.  I know what sunk costs are, but waving that word around and trying to argue that mystical>ancestral is a good play is unproductive.

Or maybe we all agree and we just don't know it yet.

nobody is arguing it's a good play. if mystical + ancestrall were combined into one card, that cost UU and drew you two cards, then you would be right - it would not be as important to counter it. but they are seperate entities. you can let the mystical be cast, let your opponent be down a card, then when he tries to recover by casting ancestral, you counter that and crush his dreams. if anything, countering ancestral after a mystic is BETTER, because your opponent has wasted all that tempo and a card and gained nothing, AND put one of the best cards in his deck into his graveyard.

Not entirely, your opponent may already have a recall in his hand and tutored for a Force of Will, but thats another discussion concerning mystical tutor

[BruiZar]

if they mulliganed and then cast ancestral, would you be less likely to counter it? how is that any different?

That is absolutely relevant to my decision.  It's also a factor if I mulligan, etc.  The point is, every factor helps inform the decision, even stuff like how many fow's are in the grave, have they burned their merchant scroll, etc.  Yes, I use this information to make decisions just like whether to counter AR or not.

As a sidenote, I almost always counter Ancestral, regardless of whether it was naturally drawn or found with Mystical.

Me too.  My argumentative stance is to help illustrate how opportunities to 'not blink' as others have said allows you to win tight games.  My point is just that when my opponent is behind, I'm slightly less likely to counter AR and being behind certainly includes mulliganing or if they use a draw step to get the AR.

Why would you allow a player that is behind to recover with ancestral recall? I would think countering AR is especially good in those situations because you can seal the game by keeping a losing player from his card draw like stax does with board position.

I'm a player that frequently counters Brainstorm, Ponder, Impulse and Top because I don't like players stacking their draws, not missing land drops and curving out the way they like. A lot of decks rely on tutoring and digging for their bombs, disruption and solutions. Matter of fact, if you add mana those are basically all the properties of a vintage deck. If you've ever countered brainstorms in the past, you know that you can severely screw/time walk because of your opponents lack of business or land drops.

[bluemage55]

That is absolutely relevant to my decision.  It's also a factor if I mulligan, etc.  The point is, every factor helps inform the decision, even stuff like how many fow's are in the grave, have they burned their merchant scroll, etc.  Yes, I use this information to make decisions just like whether to counter AR or not.

Yes, the indirect factors do matter somewhat.  However, I believe the point being made by Anusien and others is that they are not major factors.  The key thing they are trying to point out is that at the point that Ancestral is on the stack, it represents a swing of +2 CA, whatever the cost paid to get there.  Countering it with Drain is still effectively a +2 CA trade, while countering it with FoW (and a pitch) is still effectively a +1 CA trade.

The other factors of the game state determine how relevant that CA actually is, but the main idea I think is being alluded to is that the CA of a spell is the same whatever the sunk costs.

[TheShop]

Sunk Costs are irrelevant from a decision-making standpoint.  However, since we are not currently playing a game currently...the costs will not become sunk costs until the spell is on the stack.  Therefore, the real question is about what to do with an ancestral on the stack.  While in many instances, the answer would be to counter it, there is no way to quantify the possible situations where ancestral would be on the stack (making this an extremely subjective discussion).

However, I do believe that there is a serious advantage to tutoring for Ancestral early in the game:  Card Quality.  This is the same reason people run cantrips, sac-lands in multi-colored decks, and draw in general.  We have a limited number of busted cards in Vintage (mana sources, kill conditions, tutors...)  We could water down our deck by adding enough Copies of Stone Kavu to round out the deck...but this would not be helpful.  Instead, we run cards that either condense the number of cards that we actually want to see in the deck (sac land- island, street wraith(although rare)...) or we run cards that draw.  When we tutor and loose cards in hand to draw, we are still condensing the number of cards we want to see, and then replacing cards in our hands with the newly condensed cards from the top of the deck in hopes to find what we want.  If tutor + ancestral soaks up resources, the real question is if the opportunity cost of playing this spell was higher than its return:  What would you have played instead?  I submit that ancestral + tutor early my be the best play you can get.  Also, you will not always draw something better to play.  What would you play instead?

From the opponents standpoint- This should nearly always be countered from a cost/return standpoint alone because you will lose 1-2 cards from hand to stop them from drawing 3 cards (3, not 3-ancestral=2 because the ancestral is already gone from their hand despite the choice the opponent makes).  Again, this is extremely simplistic and the real assessment is so reliant on the situation in game that the question is too subjective for real analysis.

[ErkBek]

Playing Mystical for a card and mulliganning is definitely not the same thing, even when the card is on the stack. I haven't played T1 in a while, but back in the day, starts involving a Mystical Tutor for Ancestral often signal a weak hand that may be bottlenecked on mana. I'd be much more inclined to counter Ancestral when my opponent signaled this with a Mystical Tutor into Ancestral. If the happen to be bottlenecked on mana, countering the Ancestral will be crippling. If they FoW back, the opponent will also have fewer choices on which card to pitch.

Knowing what an opponent drew for the turn is kind of important too. Given a series of plays leading up to the casting of Ancestral, you may be able to deduce other things about their hand. If I Mystical for Ancestral with 3 mana available, I've signaled that I probably don't have Thirst for Knowledge or Intuition in hand, because I'd rather cast those with my mana with less cards invested (maybe after drawing some more cards I'll be able to Mystical into a winner instead of 3 random cards).

Why would you allow a player that is behind to recover with ancestral recall? I would think countering AR is especially good in those situations because you can seal the game by keeping a losing player from his card draw like stax does with board position.

I'm a player that frequently counters Brainstorm, Ponder, Impulse and Top because I don't like players stacking their draws, not missing land drops and curving out the way they like. A lot of decks rely on tutoring and digging for their bombs, disruption and solutions. Matter of fact, if you add mana those are basically all the properties of a vintage deck. If you've ever countered brainstorms in the past, you know that you can severely screw/time walk because of your opponents lack of business or land drops.

Let's say the only card that beats you is Yawg Will and you've got lethal next turn. Your opponent untaps, draws for turn and casts Ancestral, holding mystery card and 3+ mana. You don't want to counter that Ancestral and lose to a sandbagged Yawg Will. Sometimes countering the Ancestral is the play though, you've got to examine all the information you've been given. If your opponent has already cast 3 FOW's the odds of your opponent assembling FoW, Blue Card, and Yawg Will between mystery card and 3 new ones isn't very high. By holding back on the FoW you don't lose to a mystery card of Mana Drain and a topdecked Yawg Will.

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.

[WhyNotMeThen]

Suppose in situation 1, the opponent sacrifices a Lotus and taps an Island to cast Concentrate.

In situation 2, the opponent just taps an Island to cast Ancestral.

All other circumstances are the same.

What should I do?

[vassago]

I am curious as to where this started...can I get a link?

[Yare]

I am curious as to where this started...can I get a link?

In this thread.