Unusual but correct plays

[Wagner]

Do share some of the very odd plays you had to do that where actually the correct call.


Side out Lotus
I was playing Bomberman vs Slaver back in the days Slaver was the deck to beat. After being slaved a good 8 times, I won game 1 after 45 minutes. I actually sided out Black Lotus because the only way my opponent would be able to kill me in 5 minutes was if he was able to Mindslaver me and make me draw my deck. That was the only time I ever sided out Lotus.

Vampiric into Demonic
Again, a lot time ago, my cousin was playing a Storm deck and was facing a discard deck with Hypnotic Spectre threatening to make him discard his only card, Vampiric Tutor. With plenty of mana and a grave with rituals but no draw spells, his play was to Vampiric tutor into Demonic Tutor, thus not discarding to Hippie. On his turn he could Demonic into Will, replay all the mana and Demonic into Tendrils.

[Smmenen]

Interesting topic.

In testing a few years ago, one of my opponent's Vamped for Mental Misstep just on intuition/gut feeling, and it turned out to be the correct play.  Analyzing the play later on, I think it was probably the correct call a priori.

Although a huge grain of salt should be taken with any claim that a particular play is 'correct.' 

[Varal]

This year at Vintage Champs I was playing RUG Delver against MUD and I'd to skip a land drop to discard Ancient Grudge so that I could cast it the next turn through sphere effects. My opponent had a Wasteland so I couldn't chain lands and he had a fast clock with his Lodestone Golem.

[vaughnbros]

Although a huge grain of salt should be taken with any claim that a particular play is 'correct.'  

By correct play we are usually talking about the play that increases your expected probability of winning by the greatest amount.

Unusual for one player could be a usual play for another.  So I'm not sure either of these counts as unusual...  As dredge against oath I regularly use the may clause on my bloodghast and narcomoeba triggers.  I'll alo sacrifice my Sun Titan to a cabal therapy so that I can dredge return it again getting another bazaar.  These aren't plays I've seen other people make, but I do them fairly often.

[Nefarias]

Vampiric into Demonic
Again, a lot time ago, my cousin was playing a Storm deck and was facing a discard deck with Hypnotic Spectre threatening to make him discard his only card, Vampiric Tutor. With plenty of mana and a grave with rituals but no draw spells, his play was to Vampiric tutor into Demonic Tutor, thus not discarding to Hippie. On his turn he could Demonic into Will, replay all the mana and Demonic into Tendrils.

Even more unusual would be to do it the other way around, again to play around discard. In this case if you have less than 5 mana available to DT and Will in the same turn, you can DT for VT, then VT for Will so it's on top of your library and can't be discarded.

[mueller]

On his turn he could Demonic into Will, replay all the mana and Demonic into Tendrils.

This last sentence implies that he made that play on his opponent's turn, meaning DT wouldn't work. If it was his turn and the scenario you describe, he could just DT into Will and win.

[Smmenen]

Although a huge grain of salt should be taken with any claim that a particular play is 'correct.'  

By correct play we are usually talking about the play that increases your expected probability of winning by the greatest amount.

Obviously.  That's not what I was getting at.  While a conceptually clear notion, my point was that, in practice, it is nearly impossible to actually prove which play does that in any interesting situation.  Therefore, any claims that a play is 'correct' should be viewed as tentative at best, and hubristically indefensible at worst.  

In evaluating plays, I try to avoid making claims about which play was 'correct,' but rather frame the matter in terms of pros and cons, relative merits, and emphasize the role of judgment and the weight folks give to various factors.

I also offered that quote as a caveat so as not to derail this thread.  If you want to have a side discussion about how easy or not it is to calculate a the optimal play, I recommend starting a new thread for that purpose.

[sirgog]

With FoW, Mental Misstep and no other blue cards in hand, and less than five mana, I know I have definitely allowed my opponent to resolve Ancestral Recall on a few occasions.

Usually it comes from a read that the A-call is bait.

[xouman]

Usually I don't do that kind of plays, but better players do to me. Some months ago I was on doomsday, couldn't win on the spot and passed the turn. So my opponent went for his clear path to win: mystical for ancestral,  ancestral me and then snapcaster to ancestral me again. Most of you would say it's the clear play, but ancestral your opponent twice is a very bad play on a vacuum.

[Wagner]

Vampiric into Demonic
Again, a lot time ago, my cousin was playing a Storm deck and was facing a discard deck with Hypnotic Spectre threatening to make him discard his only card, Vampiric Tutor. With plenty of mana and a grave with rituals but no draw spells, his play was to Vampiric tutor into Demonic Tutor, thus not discarding to Hippie. On his turn he could Demonic into Will, replay all the mana and Demonic into Tendrils.

Even more unusual would be to do it the other way around, again to play around discard. In this case if you have less than 5 mana available to DT and Will in the same turn, you can DT for VT, then VT for Will so it's on top of your library and can't be discarded.

That actually might have been the play, my memory is a bit fuzzy on that one since I wasn't the one making it.

On his turn he could Demonic into Will, replay all the mana and Demonic into Tendrils.

This last sentence implies that he made that play on his opponent's turn, meaning DT wouldn't work. If it was his turn and the scenario you describe, he could just DT into Will and win.

See above. In the scenario I mentioned, I'm not sure what is not clear. He had 1 card in hand, Vampiric, he used it to hide Demonic on top and go off on his next turn. He could not just DT into Will as he could not draw DT right away.

[Varal]

I remember reading about a player casting VT for VT in an old Extended Pro Tour. The opponent was really surprised when he saw this. I'm not sure it was a great play though even if there was Cabal Therapy in the format.

[Meddling Mike]

I was playing Bomberman vs Slaver back in the days Slaver was the deck to beat. After being slaved a good 8 times, I won game 1 after 45 minutes.

You're telling me somebody activated Mindslaver on you 8 times and didn't win the game?

the only way my opponent would be able to kill me in 5 minutes was if he was able to Mindslaver me and make me draw my deck.

Was this the only Slaver deck ever to not include some sort of gigantic robot to be welded in/tinkered for?

[Wagner]

I was playing Bomberman vs Slaver back in the days Slaver was the deck to beat. After being slaved a good 8 times, I won game 1 after 45 minutes.

You're telling me somebody activated Mindslaver on you 8 times and didn't win the game?

the only way my opponent would be able to kill me in 5 minutes was if he was able to Mindslaver me and make me draw my deck.

Was this the only Slaver deck ever to not include some sort of gigantic robot to be welded in/tinkered for?

I never said the opponent was good. He had a chance to combo me out at some point and didn't see it, instead he exiled my grave with Lotus and all. I won the game with 0 cards in my deck.

The only robot he played was most likely Triskelion or Pentavus, which CAN win in 5 minutes, but even with 5 extra turns it's pretty unlikely to go all the way.

[The Atog Lord]

I remember reading about a player casting VT for VT in an old Extended Pro Tour. The opponent was really surprised when he saw this. I'm not sure it was a great play though even if there was Cabal Therapy in the format.

That was Darwin. And it was a very clever play that kept his options open for another turn while dodging a discard spell.

I actually sided out Black Lotus because the only way my opponent would be able to kill me in 5 minutes was if he was able to Mindslaver me and make me draw my deck.

Your opponent has probably done something horribly wrong at this point, if he can take a half-dozen turns of yours in a row and still not manage to win.

I never said the opponent was good. He had a chance to combo me out at some point and didn't see it, instead he exiled my grave with Lotus and all.

Did you side out Black Lotus or did your opponent exile it for you? It seems like, given his propensity for mistakes here, you could have just sideboarded out your win conditions and waited for your opponent to deck himself here.

[MaximumCDawg]

Obviously.  That's not what I was getting at.  While a conceptually clear notion, my point was that, in practice, it is nearly impossible to actually prove which play does that in any interesting situation.  Therefore, any claims that a play is 'correct' should be viewed as tentative at best, and hubristically indefensible at worst.  

In evaluating plays, I try to avoid making claims about which play was 'correct,' but rather frame the matter in terms of pros and cons, relative merits, and emphasize the role of judgment and the weight folks give to various factors.

I also offered that quote as a caveat so as not to derail this thread.  If you want to have a side discussion about how easy or not it is to calculate a the optimal play, I recommend starting a new thread for that purpose.

Yeah, not having perfect information about the top of the deck or the cards in the opponent's hand means it's not possible to always maximize your chances of winning on every play.  But, you can make good estimates of probabilities based on what you do know and play around them.

I actually see this alot in the VSL, and often from you, Steve.  You realize how you can lose and plan your play to avoid it.  A good recent example is Chris Pikula versus Delver in the most recent round of the VSL.  He had gas galore in his opening hand, but very wisely kept it all back and never showed his moxen until he was ready to make his move.  He played around the risk that Dack Fayden existed; and since it did, his play looked masterful.  This is the kind of thing that looks amazing when you're right and is easy to miss when you're wrong, but it leads to good play and winning records.

This thread is probably more appropriately titled: "ways of doing things in Vintage that, while probably bad ideas most of the time, end up being very powerful in a specific corner case."  It's a great way to illustrate thinking deeply about what's going on and how to maximize your resources to deal with it.

[Wagner]

I remember reading about a player casting VT for VT in an old Extended Pro Tour. The opponent was really surprised when he saw this. I'm not sure it was a great play though even if there was Cabal Therapy in the format.

That was Darwin. And it was a very clever play that kept his options open for another turn while dodging a discard spell.

I actually sided out Black Lotus because the only way my opponent would be able to kill me in 5 minutes was if he was able to Mindslaver me and make me draw my deck.

Your opponent has probably done something horribly wrong at this point, if he can take a half-dozen turns of yours in a row and still not manage to win.

I never said the opponent was good. He had a chance to combo me out at some point and didn't see it, instead he exiled my grave with Lotus and all.

Did you side out Black Lotus or did your opponent exile it for you? It seems like, given his propensity for mistakes here, you could have just sideboarded out your win conditions and waited for your opponent to deck himself here.

They weren't even turns in a row. He slaved me every few turns when he had enough artifacts or when I had counters in hand to get rid of. At some point I landed a Trinket Mage and attacked for 8-9 turns. It was a really weird game. He exiled Lotus in game 1 after slaving me. I sided Lotus out for game 2.

This thread is probably more appropriately titled: "ways of doing things in Vintage that, while probably bad ideas most of the time, end up being very powerful in a specific corner case." 

Catchy But yes, this is more about plays that are weird but correct with absolute information, not about maximizing probabilities of a certain line of play being better as the game goes on. If you're playing against a deck with no relevant instants, or an opponent with no card in hand and your play makes you win the game right away, I have no qualms about using the word "correct" here.


I remember another one in a big standard tournament back in Odyssey days with a player having 4 Compost and a Wild Mongrel facing a tapped lethal Nantuko Shade. The play was to cast Quiet Speculation targeting his opponent, put 3 Chainer's Edict in the grave and draw 12 cards with Compost, discarding to Mongrel for lethal.

[Varal]

I remember reading about a player casting VT for VT in an old Extended Pro Tour. The opponent was really surprised when he saw this. I'm not sure it was a great play though even if there was Cabal Therapy in the format.

That was Darwin. And it was a very clever play that kept his options open for another turn while dodging a discard spell.

Do you rembember which tournament it was?

[The Atog Lord]

I wish I remembered.

[Space_Stormy]

I remember reading about a player casting VT for VT in an old Extended Pro Tour. The opponent was really surprised when he saw this. I'm not sure it was a great play though even if there was Cabal Therapy in the format.

That was Darwin. And it was a very clever play that kept his options open for another turn while dodging a discard spell.

Do you rembember which tournament it was?

Actually, not to sound rude but it was John Larkin that made this play against Darwin Kastle.  John actually thought that he had a card in his deck that he didn't so he just got another Vampiric Tutor against the discard of Darwin's Rock and his Millions deck.  The reason why the story was so memorable was he didn't respond to Darwin's Cabal Therapy with it so he throws down the Vamp and winks at the crowd as he was in the feature match pit playing for Top 8.

The pro tour was Houston 2002, won by Justin Gary: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=sideboard/events/pthou02

They didn't do a write up of the feature match but you can read a blurb here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=sideboard/pthou02/cool

Also if you would like the story told in a much better way by Randy Beuhler check out this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbSHlQ6lQbo I am at work currently but when I get a moment I can see at what point they tell the story so you don't have to slog through an hour and 15 minutes of Duress and Cabal Therapy.

[The Atog Lord]

I remember reading about a player casting VT for VT in an old Extended Pro Tour. The opponent was really surprised when he saw this. I'm not sure it was a great play though even if there was Cabal Therapy in the format.

That was Darwin. And it was a very clever play that kept his options open for another turn while dodging a discard spell.

Do you rembember which tournament it was?

Actually, not to sound rude but it was John Larkin that made this play against Darwin Kastle.  John actually thought that he had a card in his deck that he didn't so he just got another Vampiric Tutor against the discard of Darwin's Rock and his Millions deck.  The reason why the story was so memorable was he didn't respond to Darwin's Cabal Therapy with it so he throws down the Vamp and winks at the crowd as he was in the feature match pit playing for Top 8.

The pro tour was Houston 2002, won by Justin Gary: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=sideboard/events/pthou02

They didn't do a write up of the feature match but you can read a blurb here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=sideboard/pthou02/cool

Also if you would like the story told in a much better way by Randy Beuhler check out this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbSHlQ6lQbo I am at work currently but when I get a moment I can see at what point they tell the story so you don't have to slog through an hour and 15 minutes of Duress and Cabal Therapy.

Thank you!

[Space_Stormy]

Anytime! I used to read a ton of coverage when I was new to the competitive scene and I really liked old extended so I probbably know of a lot of decks/situations that many probbably don't.  

Also, Rich, great job on VSL this week! Your commentary is spot on and you had really great chemistry with David and LSV!

[psyburat]

I've countered my own spells for a larger Tarmogoyf a handful of times.

[nedleeds]

I have had opponents Lava Spike themselves repeatedly when I had Leyline out in order to trigger Prowess, then once a Swiftspear had sufficient toughness actually Bolt it making it a 4/5 with 3 damage on it to attack for lethal.

[Choke]

Not Vintage, but Legacy, hope it still counts.

MU is UWr Punishing Fire Homebrew (Me) vs Elves. I'm at one life with nothing in play and him attacking with 2 creatures. I play Punishing Fire targeting the first creature, counterspell my punishing fire, then swan song my counterspell. So I get a Swan token, the fire resolves and grills his first critter, the Swan eats his second critter. Ragequit incoming.

[thecrav]

I've countered my own spells for a larger Tarmogoyf a handful of times.

I almost always cast a spell or two, especially sorceries, into Chalice when I'm playing Goyfs. A shocking number of people I've encountered forget that Chalice says that the card will be countered, not that I can't cast it.

Usually the play goes like this:
Me: Ponder?
Them: Uh... Challice.
Me: Okay. Attack with 'Goyf.
Them: Block with whatever
Me: Goyf is a 4/5 . Your dude dies.
Them: Oh...

[Shock Wave]

... it is nearly impossible to actually prove which play does that in any interesting situation.  Therefore, any claims that a play is 'correct' should be viewed as tentative at best, and hubristically indefensible at worst.  

In evaluating plays, I try to avoid making claims about which play was 'correct,' but rather frame the matter in terms of pros and cons, relative merits, and emphasize the role of judgment and the weight folks give to various factors.

Great post. I've held this opinion for a long time. The idea of a "correct" play is often foggy at best.

[Necrologia]

Vampiric into Demonic
Again, a lot time ago, my cousin was playing a Storm deck and was facing a discard deck with Hypnotic Spectre threatening to make him discard his only card, Vampiric Tutor. With plenty of mana and a grave with rituals but no draw spells, his play was to Vampiric tutor into Demonic Tutor, thus not discarding to Hippie. On his turn he could Demonic into Will, replay all the mana and Demonic into Tendrils.

Even more unusual would be to do it the other way around, again to play around discard. In this case if you have less than 5 mana available to DT and Will in the same turn, you can DT for VT, then VT for Will so it's on top of your library and can't be discarded.

I've used a Demonic to grab a Vampiric before, but I wasn't dodging discard. I had a Jar out against Stax. He had a bunch of lock pieces and my only out was to have a Rebuild and some mana in the jar hand. Demonic -> Rebuild wouldn't get me there since it'd bounce my own Jar. Hence the Demonic -> Vamp -> Rebuild on top, pop Jar play.

[Space_Stormy]

This is from forever ago but I remeber playing MWS against someone from the Starcity message boards (back when they still existed) where I just cast two of my Virulent Slivers from my Flash deck I had drawn and won the game 5 turns later.  I think I have the screenshot in my photobucket somewhere if I can find it.

[sirgog]

The most absurd sounding (out of context) play I recall hearing of at high level play was a 5-0 split on Fact or Fiction in an Invasion Block Constructed game.

Not only was it a gamewinner, it was the only possible play that would have won the game.

[DaveKap]

Playing an aggro-control deck like Delver presents a lot of unusual plays, as I will switch from one mode to another after a single spell from my opponent. Picking up on opponent's sequencing is also very helpful.

One play was allowing a Yawgmoth's Will to resolve against my Flusterstorm and saving it for their Will'd Tinker. The reason was the only outs I saw were if they drew a Snapcaster next turn to flashback the Tinker. I wanted the Tinker exiled. Not exactly mind-blowing, but a step ahead of the current turn.

More unusual was facing down a next turn lethal Griselbrand. I Nature's Claimed my Mox main phase to push my life above 7 while they were on 3. This was bait for their FoW, which they used. I followed it up with Pyromancer, Time Walk for the win.