[Free Article] You, but Better

[voltron00x]

This week, since I took the previous week off, I wrote a double-length article with tips on becoming a better Magic player and a better Magic writer.  There is considerable overlap between the two, but this is still the longest single-shot article I’ve submitted, at over 7,000 words.  Hope you enjoy it.

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/20408_The_Long_Winding_Road_You_But_Better.html

[Stormanimagus]

Your first example doesn't work unless you already had a land in play. You use the petal to cast Rite of flame. How are you casting both the first and second ritual? do you really have 2 land in play when playing (I'm assuming) Belcher? Cause if he dazes your ritual and you have a single land in play then you are finished right then and there. Please explain?

-Storm

[voltron00x]

I think if you read the relevant sections again a little more closely, you'll catch a few details:  

"You're in the Top 8 of a small local Legacy tournament and are playing TES (The Epic Storm), a storm combo deck, and are paired against the only Merfolk player in the room. It's game 2, and you're down a game. Your hand:

Dark Ritual, Dark Ritual, Lion's Eye Diamond, Rite of Flame, Chrome Mox, Lotus Petal, Tendrils of Agony"

The number of lands isn't stated, but I think you only need two, although I believe I had three in play.  The walkthrough on the turn is later in the article.  Hope this helps a bit.

[Delha]

Your first example doesn't work unless you already had a land in play. You use the petal to cast Rite of flame. How are you casting both the first and second ritual? do you really have 2 land in play when playing (I'm assuming) Belcher? Cause if he dazes your ritual and you have a single land in play then you are finished right then and there. Please explain?

-Storm

Even ignoring what Matt replied with, if your Merfolk opponent has lethal on the table, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that you've got two lands down.

[Lemnear]

I'm sorry but this szenario lacks in certain points you try to prove, Matt. If you have already two or three lands on the board and your obviously playing a storm based deck, why would any player make such strange plays like forcing LED?

You have a Full grip but that still means you have to cast Ad Nauseum or IGG to go leathal by yourself. So why not wait for the critical cards instead of slinging useless dazes and help my opponent? With daze and force he can cause a mana shortage once you play the critical spell if you are unprepared. This is very Bad Play of folk and nothing more

[voltron00x]

B/c my opponent wasn't particularly familiar with Storm combo, and snap-Forced an LED in game one.  The point is sort of that the Merfolk player didn't play optimally, which let me win what looks like an unwinnable game on the face of things.  That's kind of the point of the example... article seems to have played better with the Legacy crowd.

[Cyberpunker]

Your first example doesn't work unless you already had a land in play. You use the petal to cast Rite of flame. How are you casting both the first and second ritual? do you really have 2 land in play when playing (I'm assuming) Belcher? Cause if he dazes your ritual and you have a single land in play then you are finished right then and there. Please explain?

-Storm

Even ignoring what Matt replied with, if your Merfolk opponent has lethal on the table, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that you've got two lands down.

Agree!

But I don't think relying on your opponent to misplay is a good strategy going into the tournament. So basically the message is when your opponent misplays, take full advantage and pound him/her.

I agree with that message.

[Bibendum]

I think the message is don't count yourself out and play out things like you should...

[Lemnear]

B/c my opponent wasn't particularly familiar with Storm combo, and snap-Forced an LED in game one.  The point is sort of that the Merfolk player didn't play optimally, which let me win what looks like an unwinnable game on the face of things.  That's kind of the point of the example... article seems to have played better with the Legacy crowd.

Consider all your options, especially those you don't have.

I guess, that's the message, but the delivery didn't nail it on the head. But Matt, I'm Not a vintage exklusive; I am your crowd, dood! I'd love to read more about Legacy from you

[voltron00x]

I think there are a lot of lessons you can get from this example.  A common error I see people make is in assuming their opponent will make correct or optimal plays.  A lot of people concede games or check out because they know they shouldn’t be able to win, but often we give our opponents too much credit.  They may not be familiar with our deck, or their own deck, and are certainly prone to making mistakes and strategic errors just as we are.  In an elimination scenario you have little to lose by trying a long-shot play, like hoping you can bait your opponent into countering the wrong cards, yet most people won’t bother.  They’ll just look at their hand and say, “I can’t win this game.”  They’ll then literally concede, or concede with their body language or by checking out mentally. 

While this doesn’t mean you should assume your opponents are bad, it is an example of how you can win a game that appears unwinnable.  In the example of the Zoo game from the article, failing to cast Tarmogoyf and Knight of the Reliquary after my opponent played Natural Order, to set myself up in the event that I did draw one of my outs, would have caused me to lose the game as I wouldn’t have had enough damage on-board.

It is easy to miss the little things in the face of what appears to be an insurmountable disadvantage, but if you know you have outs, it is critical that you play to them, regardless of the odds – except in those situations where it is clearly advantageous to concede, which is why I wrote about that also.

[TheBrassMan]

That example made perfect sense to me.  It's an illustration of the classic magic adage "If you're losing, play like you're going to win, if you're winning, play like you're going to lose."

A little more exposition might have helped.  I assumed there was a second Tendrils in the list, making "mini tendrils, topdeck Infernal Tutor" a kill, which felt like better odds than "my opponent has never played magic before."  That said, by the time I finished the article you had explained everything well enough, and I think your point was well made.

But then, I'm a Matt Elias barn, so your mileage may vary

[Marske]

Matt, Awesome article, as always, you never fail to impress.

[Prospero]

Another great read Matt.  Thanks.

As for people being jerks on the internet, I have no idea what you're talking about.  

Edit: I want you to know that while I am a part of the 'rabid horde', I do have my rabies under control.  Don't discriminate...