So this is the follow up to Thursday’s post about what to do on turn three. If you haven’t read it, check this out first: You Make the Play
I was actually quite proud of myself that I broke patterned thought and “slowed down” with the “turn two” play of Rampant Growth on turn three… I went for Swamp like most of you said you would.
But what is our strategy here? By what tactics will we accomplish our goals?
In this matchup we want to minimize creature damage. We want to keep him contained so that even if he rips the combo, it won’t immediately kill us. Our resources are limited… but so are his, so the short term objective is to get a two-for-one on your Firespout or Jund Charm. How do we ensure a two-for-one? How do we preserve card advantage?
I feel there is no point in playing the Civic Wayfinder at all at this stage.
However, there might be an even better play hiding in our options… an no one suggested it.
Josh Ravitz says to say “Go.”
That’s right, do nothing. But sulk.
Play possum. I’m stuck on two Forests. Do your worst. Give him a bad beat story for later.
The plan is to play Firespout next turn regardless. We are likely to pull off the two-for-one. But what if we play dead? Will he over-commit? We have the maximum chance of a three-for-one if we sit. Think about it.
What do we get from a Rampant Growth? Very little. In this game we are not on a harsh time limit. We are not going to play Chameleon Colossus next turn (probably). We are going to play Firespout. We can play Firespout with the resources at hand, in hand, and already on the board. The difference is that we can put the ball in the opponent’s court for additional card advantage extraction.
Why commit Civic Wayfinder if we are just going to blow everyone up?
Don’t we want more opposition coming to the party?
I think Josh makes a very compelling suggestion, and not obvious at all.
I don’t know if there is a right answer, but if I had the same situation again, I think I would pretend to be manascrewed. This one is not a resource race. If you kill their guys, you are likely to succeed.
I’m sure most of you find that “solution” thought-provoking, at least.
Did you like this type of problem?
Thanks for reading,
LOVE
MIKE
11 comments ↓
Man…Ravitz is a master! That never even occurred to me. It’s great too because nobody is going to put you on faking manascrew. Now this is something to make you a better player. Thanks Mike [+ Josh].
PS Now I just have to make sure I don’t go for that sort of chicanery when it isn’t necessary or safe.
Hi. First of all, congratulations Mike for having this nice page.
Ravitz play seem to be a ‘next level’ intelligence. That’s how we explore all options we have. You play ‘blue’ without actually playing islands. Pretty cool indeed.
The problem with this is that in my learnings on how do we play control is I feel like I must land drop every turn. My play would be rampant growth for a mountain. Grabbing a Swamp seem too much like “I am going to Jund Charm you out next turn”, and a THIRD turn Rampant Growth seem so innocent… so “frown, I dont have nothing more to do, so i’ll grow mana to keep going”.
Any more videos? nham nham nham ^^’
Wow. That was out of the box for sure. That might be the right play, but I still like Wayfinder over Rampant Growth in that fight for the reasons I described in the last post.
A sidenote, I think I could imagine myself to do that play, i.e. fake I’m mana screwed to let my opponent get blown out by a sweeper in a States tournament or something along those lines. However, I don’t think I would dare to try to pull that off in a Pro Tour or something along those lines. Basicly, your representing that you kept a 7 card hand with 2x Forest as lands in a tri-color deck. I would be very suspiscous if someone I know is a good player would try that on me.
And I really enjoyed the puzzle by the way.
I am going to follow up on this follow-up to make Josh’s position more explicit.
To kenseiden – Patterend thought is the enemy of correct play. I’m going to be following up on this, actually. And yes, I actually have two new videos done and will probably release about three this week, starting later today. Tell all your friends!
To bzander – Why does the opponent necessarily know that we are a three color deck? Does it actually help us if he knows we are a three color deck and we are stuck with double Forest? (By the way most Pros will keep most two land hands).
@ Flores: Okay, I assumed that the imaginary opponent knew what we were playing since we know what he/her is playing. So yes, that plays seems even stronger if your opponent doesn’t what your playing. With 2x Forest we could easily represent that we are playing Elves or something like that, which doesn’t threaten a furthcoming sweeper.
The question is it worth it thou’, since if the opponent doesn’t call the bluff and he/her just goes with land, attack, go, or doesn’t even have a potensial drop in hand, suddenly you missed your land drop for no gain at all. Going with Wayfinder or Rampant is cleaner in that sence that if your opponent doesn’t do anything threating on his/her turn, you can just play colossus instead, forceing them to act.
In the end, I mean, your (or Ravitz’s) play has a very high potensial and might be the optimal play, I’m just saying there are loopholes in that plan. If our hand would be so strong (backup sweeper, Kitchen Finks and a Colossus), the bluff play makes more sence.
That’s just evil. Ravitz wrecks me every time we play, and stuff like this is why. Faking the mana screw is not even really high-level strategy. Even early players learn to keep a few extra lands in hand when they’re flooded to at least bluff options – it just rarely goes in the other direction.
The basic point here is that it’s not going to take many lands to put away White Weenie, especially if you’re going to reset the board next turn, so developing your mana, something you would do in essentially EVERY OTHER MATCH-UP, isn’t the priority.
The real problem is that this play is so cool, and it’s correct so rarely. I’m still not convinced this is the absolute best play, so I look forward to more follow-up. One variable is still who am I playing and how good is he, really? A significant number of States players, even “good” ones are going to commit more regardless of how nuanced my play is.
So here is my analysis.
First of all Mike, I think you are leaving us without certain key pieces of information that would help us evaluate the idea of just saying “go” on turn 3. What were his first 2 land drops. This is vital because the lands that kithikin decks play tell us a lot about the contents of their hand. If his turn 1 play was a heights it should change the thought process, and similarly if the second drop was a clachan.
Overall I think that just saying go is a pretty abysmal play because it only works if the opponent is terrible. If I am playing kithikin against someone and they miss their third land drop and are playing some G/x deck I would certainly not play 2 creatures on my turn 3. This is because the opponent has not mulliganed a lot and so you should respect their hand. I find it highly unlikely that a player would keep a hand with 2 forests as the only lands against kithikin unless they had multiple sweepers are were waiting for their mana to come online.
Putting the above aside, the lands the opponent has played tells you a lot about whether or not to sandbag the lands. If their turn 1 land was a heights sandbagging the land becomes more appealing because it increases the chance that on turn 3 they will play a 2 drop AND a 1 drop (which they held on turn 1 to allow them to play heights). If the land was a clachan on turn 2 it indicates that the kithikin player probably has no other lands in hand and is thus less likely to lay 2 creatures which means that sandbagging the land is definitely wrong.
If I were in your position Mike I would most likely not have held the land because it only works if the opponent is a complete buffoon. However, if the opponent does look pretty sketchy and played a heights on his turn 1 I think the play becomes more defendable.
I hope this is at least somewhat coherent.
Asher
Nice going Asher.
How terrible the opponent is entirely a relative measure. If you have ultimate respect for your opponent and assume he knows the right play all the time, you’re going to miss out on a lot of opportunities. What if the opponent just thinks you’re Elves and you’re terrible for keeping such a hand? That doesn’t necessarily mean you want to skip the land drop here, but I think Mike makes a reasonable case for it, as playing one of his cards doesn’t really advance his strategy and gives his opponent critical information. Getting ahead and winning games is often about giving the opponent enough opportunities to make a mistake and hoping they do. This seems like a good enough trap. If it works, it’s genius, but if it doesn’t, there’s no real loss. And if you’re a reasonable actor you can occasionally fake the mana screw (“Man, I knew I shoulda mulliganed” etc.) as long as you don’t overdo it.
[…] I immediately rip Chameleon Colossus [remind me to bring this up when I do the response-to-the-responses for the first You Make the […]
You must log in to post a comment.