I recently played a game called citadels, in which the players take turns picking their "role", such as assassin, thief, or king.
These roles had very powerful abilities if you can properly guess what your opponents will pick.
For example, the thief steals all of the gold( similar to mana ) from a role that turn. If you correctly guess what a player stockpiling gold is going to pick as their next role, you gain a massive game swinging advantage. If you guess a role that wasn't picked, you get nothing, or the role of a player who has very little gold, you don't get much.
Players also have incentives to lean certain ways, as certain roles give them more powerful turns given their board state, so that can be extra information the players add to their decision making.
It was great fun watching cheers of players who made huge plays through educated guesses.
I think magic would benefit greatly from this as a new in which you can outplay your opponent.
I think I understand what you're referring to. It's a difficult concept to explain, though. Here's my try:
You are invited to play 10 games of rock paper scissors with someone. For money. But the payoffs are unequal- if you win with scissors the other person has to pay you $10, if you win with rock you get $5, if you win with paper you get $1. So what's your strategy for play?
Magic is an asynchronous, turn based game and most of the time you're trying to solve the situation, finding the solution that gives you the greatest chance to win. What the OP is suggesting is simultaneous decision making with unequal payoffs. In the above example, you know your opponent knows that scissors gives the most money, but they know that you know that. So perhaps rock is the best move, beating scissors but also tying against the next most likely option (rock). But they have likely thought out the same train of thought, so perhaps paper is the safest move? But the payoff is so small, that maybe they'll use scissors on the off chance you'll go so far as to use paper. And so the cycle continues, where the only solution is to know your opponent and the way they think.
This is an intuitive thing to people who play fighting games, where its common for a highly skilled player to read a less skilled opponent so well they are able to anticipate and and prepare a counter for every move that opponent makes. I have been on both sides of this.
Btw, I recommend you try Yomi by David Sirlin, a self contained card game which really captures this concept (the name even refers to it).
Magic right now very rarely cares about who your opponent is. You play against the deck, not the player.
It doesn't matter if its a pro or a first time player, they can't make the cards do different things.
But if there were cards that let you outguess your opponent for greater/lesser effect, suddenly you do really have to care about your opponent's tendencies.
But... isn't this type of thing already built into the game on a fundamental level? Like... pretty much everywhere?
Pretty much any card that allows you to name cards (cabal therapy, pithing needle, meddling mage, etc) allows you to do this.
There are entire keywords in magic, such as morph or tribute, that theoretically work like this (should I try to target a face-down card that might be huge and risk that it's a willbender? Do I let the minotaur smash me or does he have somthing in his hand?)
That's not mentioning the old trap cards from zendikar and combat tricks/counters (is that mana being left open for permanents or for tricks or is it just a bluff)?
Hell, the very concept of a sideboard in competitive play seems to be EXACTLY what you are talking about, reading the local meta to know precisely which defenses you are going to need and which ones you may want to maindeck. Knowing when to mulligan likewise fits into this expert level of play.
Further, I'm not really sure that I'd believe that most players "play against decks". If you ask the aficionados of any archetype, ranging from the most obtuse of control decks to the most linear of burn decks, players will tell you that player skill is a serious concern. Even if a deck seems to have a very high floor or very low ceiling on what an archetype can do, knowing what decks have what tricks and knowing what tools in your 75 cards can be best used to dispatch these specific threats isn't simply "playing the deck".
What you seem to be asking for, however, is for specific cards that allow you to outplay opponents... except that you seem very focused on outguessing your opponent within the effects of individual cards instead of over the course of play (which several cards already allow such as wishes, tutors, and any card with multiple modes that lets you choose how the card works)
The problem is that having a single card let you outplay your opponent means that your card actively gives your opponent agency to stop you, which generally isn't a good thing. While Gifts Ungiven and Fact or Fiction are famous, they are kind of outnumbered by lesser-used cards like temporal extortion, mage's contest, and zur's weirding. The general dislike of tribute as a mechanic kind of shows how hard it is to make good cards while giving your opponent agency.
But... isn't this type of thing already built into the game on a fundamental level? Like... pretty much everywhere?
Pretty much any card that allows you to name cards (cabal therapy, pithing needle, meddling mage, etc) allows you to do this.
There are entire keywords in magic, such as morph or tribute, that theoretically work like this (should I try to target a face-down card that might be huge and risk that it's a willbender? Do I let the minotaur smash me or does he have somthing in his hand?)
That's not mentioning the old trap cards from zendikar and combat tricks/counters (is that mana being left open for permanents or for tricks or is it just a bluff)?
Hell, the very concept of a sideboard in competitive play seems to be EXACTLY what you are talking about, reading the local meta to know precisely which defenses you are going to need and which ones you may want to maindeck. Knowing when to mulligan likewise fits into this expert level of play.
It's not really the same at all.
Naming cards is not outguessing your opponent, its a simple statistics question. You don't care who you are facing, only their decklist. Cabal therapy, pithing needle and whatnot do not fall into this category at all, there is only "the right way" to play them.
Morph would have impact if there were actually playable morph cards with similar mana costs, but they are almost universally behind the curve in every way so they aren't useful at all outside of limited.
Further, I'm not really sure that I'd believe that most players "play against decks". If you ask the aficionados of any archetype, ranging from the most obtuse of control decks to the most linear of burn decks, players will tell you that player skill is a serious concern. Even if a deck seems to have a very high floor or very low ceiling on what an archetype can do, knowing what decks have what tricks and knowing what tools in your 75 cards can be best used to dispatch these specific threats isn't simply "playing the deck".
You don't approach the game differently based on who is sitting across from you. You play differently because of what deck is sitting across from you. A better player will make fewer wrong plays, but they are constrained by the words on their cards. They might have even lost based just off the order of the top 12 cards of both players libraries before hands are even picked up.
What you seem to be asking for, however, is for specific cards that allow you to outplay opponents... except that you seem very focused on outguessing your opponent within the effects of individual cards instead of over the course of play (which several cards already allow such as wishes, tutors, and any card with multiple modes that lets you choose how the card works)
The problem is that having a single card let you outplay your opponent means that your card actively gives your opponent agency to stop you, which generally isn't a good thing. While Gifts Ungiven and Fact or Fiction are famous, they are kind of outnumbered by lesser-used cards like temporal extortion, mage's contest, and zur's weirding. The general dislike of tribute as a mechanic kind of shows how hard it is to make good cards while giving your opponent agency.
Things like tutors and wishes don't work that way. There is pretty much always the correct way to play them, and everything else is incorrect, and your opponent really has no effect on the outcome.
I am asking for a large suite of powerful spells that can compete with the non-guesswork cards, where they are slightly advantaged if you outguess your opponent, and slightly disadvantaged if you don't.
But... isn't this type of thing already built into the game on a fundamental level? Like... pretty much everywhere?
Pretty much any card that allows you to name cards (cabal therapy, pithing needle, meddling mage, etc) allows you to do this.
There are entire keywords in magic, such as morph or tribute, that theoretically work like this (should I try to target a face-down card that might be huge and risk that it's a willbender? Do I let the minotaur smash me or does he have somthing in his hand?)
That's not mentioning the old trap cards from zendikar and combat tricks/counters (is that mana being left open for permanents or for tricks or is it just a bluff)?
Hell, the very concept of a sideboard in competitive play seems to be EXACTLY what you are talking about, reading the local meta to know precisely which defenses you are going to need and which ones you may want to maindeck. Knowing when to mulligan likewise fits into this expert level of play.
It's not really the same at all.
Naming cards is not outguessing your opponent, its a simple statistics question. You don't care who you are facing, only their decklist. Cabal therapy, pithing needle and whatnot do not fall into this category at all, there is only "the right way" to play them.
"The right way" to play therapy is to make an educated guess based on all available information. That's also the "right way" to play against Master of Predicaments. What's the difference?
I think that I can understand why you like Master of Predicaments. While anyone knowing your deck might be able to predict what you would commonly use it for, you can "outmaneuver" your opponent by using that information against your opponent. Then again, if you attack when your board is empty, your opponent may guess that you would benefit more from a prognostic sphinx than a divination... an expectation that you could further capitalize on and so forth.
The problem with these types of spells, I think, is that guessing ultimately does rely on unknown game information. Unless you want to go around making mini-games like mage's contest, that means dealing with the hand or deck in some capacity (unless trying to work with morph or something similar). Even worse, the really good guessing cards all seem to rely on hidden information for both sides of their effect.
To make sure that I understand the principle, here are a couple homebrew examples
Krakenwatch Hermit 2UG
Creature- Elf
At the beginning of each of your main phases, target opponent chooses one- add 3 to your mana pool or draw a card.
2/3
Gravescrounge BB
Sorcery
Search your library for a zombie card and reveal it. Shuffle your library and place that card on to of your deck. Afterwards, any opponent may place the top 4 cards of your library into your graveyard.
Solitary Hunter GG
Creature- Human Druid
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may place a creature card from your hand into the battlefield.
While no opponents control untapped lands, Solitary Hunter gains +2/+2 and loses all other abilities.
1/2
For the first one, the opponent has to ask whether you have giant creatures (or multiple spells in your hand) that they might help you unload early if they don't help to accelerate you (which may be what you want in the first place if your hand is actually empty). The second one, meanwhile, asks players if they think you need a zombie or if you are just looking for an easy reanimation Target (especially if played early in the game). The last card is special because both players are doing some guesswork. The opponent has to guess if you have a big fatty or not and you have to guess whether an opponent lacks instants or if it just didn't want you to get a fatty.
Given those examples, it may be hard to see my specific complaint about this type of guesswork. Put simply, I believe that it has a VERY narrow design space. Consider all of the horrible cards out there that give your opponent agency, stuff like book burning or browbeat or dash hopes. When all of the information that an opponent would need is plainly visible (such as asking if an opponent would rather take 5 damage or tap all creatures it controls), the opponent can start making the "statistically correct" guess. It's possible that you have more cards in your hand that would punish the opponent for choosing the correct answer, of course, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about. To prevent players from making "statistically correct" choices, at least one of the options (preferably the "weak option") has to be tied to unknown information, meaning your hand (and occasionally deck) in a format without proper implementation of morph/manifest-esque mechanics.
As a result, I end up with the feeling that just about every good out-guessing card would need to deal with drawing cards, scrying, searching, self-milling, producing mana, or cheating out lands or spells (or some combination of those elements). While you are personally free to disagree or to provide counter-examples, I personally believe that out-guessing foes takes up a pretty small design space and question focusing on it.
"The right way" to play therapy is to make an educated guess based on all available information. That's also the "right way" to play against Master of Predicaments. What's the difference?
Your opponent has zero control over the outcome of therapy, they have some power over the outcome of the sphinx. This makes a huge difference.
As a result, I end up with the feeling that just about every good out-guessing card would need to deal with drawing cards, scrying, searching, self-milling, producing mana, or cheating out lands or spells (or some combination of those elements). While you are personally free to disagree or to provide counter-examples, I personally believe that out-guessing foes takes up a pretty small design space and question focusing on it.
I don't think you have it quite right with the cards you posted. You are treating what I like as more punisher effects than anything.
Examples:
BB
Destroy target creature. Pick a number between one and three. Your opponent guesses that number. If they guess incorrectly, gain that much life
UU
Counter traget spell. Pick a number between 1 and 2. Your opponent guesses which number you picked. If they guess correctly, they draw that many cards. Otherwise, draw that many cards.
Effects like this, creating weighted guesses that both players have some control over the outcome.
Okay, now i see what I didn't understand. When you said outguessing, I was assuming that you wanted the guessing to be incorporated into the ongoing game and boardstate when in reality... I guess that you just wanted a number guessing game where opponents can block off maximum gains by effectively guaranteeing you a smaller gain unless you both choose to be greedy at the exact same time.
I... hmmm... I do thank you for producing solid examples of what you were talking about. On a general conceptual level, that sort of idea is pretty nifty and I certainly don't oppose it. On the other hand, I personally think that "choose a number" type effects are inelegant in design even though they make for memorable situations and that cards that effectively make little "mini-games" are ultimately doomed to obscurity. It would be nice if you could figure out a way to make the number selection more organic and integrated than just "pick a number" (such as guessing whether the converted mana cost of a spell is even or odd) but if not...
Maybe if wizards was print number cards instead of morph tokens or transform-card placeholders, producing cards that required picking a number would be more practical... I don't know. It doesn't seem likely that this will be a theme any time soon but who knows.
"The right way" to play therapy is to make an educated guess based on all available information. That's also the "right way" to play against Master of Predicaments. What's the difference?
Your opponent has zero control over the outcome of therapy, they have some power over the outcome of the sphinx. This makes a huge difference.
Both players can have lots of control over the outcome of Therapy. The formats where people play Cabal Therapy also include cards like Brainstorm and tons of other instant speed effects that can be played before you name a card.
You want a game where reading your opponent matters. Eternal formats like Legacy, where hidden information is often more meaningful than the information in play, thrive on this aspect of the game. And they do it in a way that is far more elegant than that sphinx.
Im not sure what part of Master of Predicaments you believe transcends statistics. Its a pretty straightforward effect.
"The right way" to play therapy is to make an educated guess based on all available information. That's also the "right way" to play against Master of Predicaments. What's the difference?
Your opponent has zero control over the outcome of therapy, they have some power over the outcome of the sphinx. This makes a huge difference.
Both players can have lots of control over the outcome of Therapy. The formats where people play Cabal Therapy also include cards like Brainstorm and tons of other instant speed effects that can be played before you name a card.
You want a game where reading your opponent matters. Eternal formats like Legacy, where hidden information is often more meaningful than the information in play, thrive on this aspect of the game. And they do it in a way that is far more elegant than that sphinx.
Im not sure what part of Master of Predicaments you believe transcends statistics. Its a pretty straightforward effect.
If you run 4 cabal therapy and your opponent runs 4 brainstorm, the two will only interact about 25% of the time I think. ( both players getting them and the game flow allowing one to respond to the other )
Even then, it'll usually boil down to one exactly correct line of play for both players, rather than two players actually trying to outplay eachother.
Magic right now is more about trying not to miss those correct lines of play and hoping variance works out for you, I think it would be greatly improved by making players guess against one another.
How long was it since someone posted a complaint against control counter spell deck while this provides what your seeking for, which spell are you gonna counter and which one will you let pass through... anyway...
This type of thing already happens when someone attacks their 2/2 into your 3/3. No need to force it with "mini-game" cards, it exist naturally in the structure of the game.
BB
Destroy target creature. Pick a number between one and three. Your opponent guesses that number. If they guess incorrectly, gain that much life
UU
Counter traget spell. Pick a number between 1 and 2. Your opponent guesses which number you picked. If they guess correctly, they draw that many cards. Otherwise, draw that many cards.
You say that naming cards isn't outguessing but rather statistics. The thing is that the proposed cards where you make an active choice and the opponent guesses which choice you made also comes down to statistics and game-theory. Just like how you say the other cards have a correct way to play hem so would these have a correct way to play them.
And regarding these example cards you've posted. Those are very clear examples of ismple statistics and game theory where there is a very correct way to play them. It's not about outguessing anyone but rather to hoose the route that on average gives the opponent the least resources.
The UU one for example. All you can do is choose how big you want the swing to be and then it's 50/50 wether you or the opponent gets the card(s).
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
This type of thing already happens when someone attacks their 2/2 into your 3/3. No need to force it with "mini-game" cards, it exist naturally in the structure of the game.
Two good challenging things should be better than one good challenging thing, right ?
This type of thing already happens when someone attacks their 2/2 into your 3/3. No need to force it with "mini-game" cards, it exist naturally in the structure of the game.
Two good challenging things should be better than one good challenging thing, right ?
But if the system already is in place in the game, why put in a coinflip system into the game to add randomness?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
I wish magic was like poker where you play the player. Right now magic is all about meta gaming and hoping your opponent doesn't know the rules as wee as you do.
BB
Destroy target creature. Pick a number between one and three. Your opponent guesses that number. If they guess incorrectly, gain that much life
UU
Counter traget spell. Pick a number between 1 and 2. Your opponent guesses which number you picked. If they guess correctly, they draw that many cards. Otherwise, draw that many cards.
You say that naming cards isn't outguessing but rather statistics. The thing is that the proposed cards where you make an active choice and the opponent guesses which choice you made also comes down to statistics and game-theory. Just like how you say the other cards have a correct way to play hem so would these have a correct way to play them.
And regarding these example cards you've posted. Those are very clear examples of ismple statistics and game theory where there is a very correct way to play them. It's not about outguessing anyone but rather to hoose the route that on average gives the opponent the least resources.
The UU one for example. All you can do is choose how big you want the swing to be and then it's 50/50 wether you or the opponent gets the card(s).
Yes, and figuring out you and your opponent's risk aversion, determining how a large swing or small swing would affect both player's gameplan, determining how far your opponent will work this out, and determining other factors are all skills you can bring to the game to outplay the opponent. I am of the opinion that more skill is better, and that magic currently doesn't include these skills nearly enough.
Compared to cabal therapy, which is usually "My opponent is playing deck X, and card Y is their biggest foil to my gameplan. Name card Y"
Compared to cabal therapy, which is usually "My opponent is playing deck X, and card Y is their biggest foil to my gameplan. Name card Y"
The entire premise of your argument here is based on you knowing the list of your opponent. Yet the very example of you started this thread off with is far more vulnerable to the exact same argument.
If I know what cards you use and what lines of play you are likely seeking to exploit in a given situation, obviously you will never get any meaningful benefit from Master of Predicaments.
And while ignoring this obvious fact, you are simultaneously oversimplifying the example of Cabal Therapy and the ways instant speed effects can interact with it. And heck, even either of us focusing on that example is ignoring the general importance of hidden information in eternal formats, and to a lesser extent even newer ones.
If you honestly dont think your opponent matters in a game of Magic, youre probably not as good at reading your opponent as you think you are. You probably just got lucky with a sphinx one time and thought it was cool.
I think that I can understand why you like Master of Predicaments. While anyone knowing your deck might be able to predict what you would commonly use it for, you can "outmaneuver" your opponent by using that information against your opponent. Then again, if you attack when your board is empty, your opponent may guess that you would benefit more from a prognostic sphinx than a divination... an expectation that you could further capitalize on and so forth.
The problem with these types of spells, I think, is that guessing ultimately does rely on unknown game information. Unless you want to go around making mini-games like mage's contest, that means dealing with the hand or deck in some capacity (unless trying to work with morph or something similar). Even worse, the really good guessing cards all seem to rely on hidden information for both sides of their effect.
To make sure that I understand the principle, here are a couple homebrew examples
Krakenwatch Hermit 2UG
Creature- Elf
At the beginning of each of your main phases, target opponent chooses one- add 3 to your mana pool or draw a card.
2/3
Gravescrounge BB
Sorcery
Search your library for a zombie card and reveal it. Shuffle your library and place that card on to of your deck. Afterwards, any opponent may place the top 4 cards of your library into your graveyard.
Solitary Hunter GG
Creature- Human Druid
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may place a creature card from your hand into the battlefield.
While no opponents control untapped lands, Solitary Hunter gains +2/+2 and loses all other abilities.
1/2
This would be a fun way for Wizards to design a second Conspiracy-type supplement. Wouldn't mind adding a few packs of those cards into a draft to mix things up. Also, fun for EDH.
One more thing that I wanted to bring up. While you keep talking about the skill of the players mattering... it doesn't seem like you're about being skilled at playing the card game. Cards that let you outguess your opponent are interesting curiosities but when you get right down to it, they are about as "skillful" as chaos orb. You can use the cards better if you understand psychology and game theory, maybe, but it seems like you are talking about incorporating a new (or at least peripheral) skill set into the game instead of utilizing the core skills that the game already demands of professionals to let them outplay each other. Otherwise, you might as well ask players to play chess or arm wrestle in order to determine card effects (extreme example but you can hopefully see what I'm trying to communicate).
One more thing that I wanted to bring up. While you keep talking about the skill of the players mattering... it doesn't seem like you're about being skilled at playing the card game. Cards that let you outguess your opponent are interesting curiosities but when you get right down to it, they are about as "skillful" as chaos orb. You can use the cards better if you understand psychology and game theory, maybe, but it seems like you are talking about incorporating a new (or at least peripheral) skill set into the game instead of utilizing the core skills that the game already demands of professionals to let them outplay each other. Otherwise, you might as well ask players to play chess or arm wrestle in order to determine card effects (extreme example but you can hopefully see what I'm trying to communicate).
Yes, I do want a new skill set brought in to the game.
Right now I think skill plays a pathetically minimal role deciding the victor.
The entire premise of your argument here is based on you knowing the list of your opponent. Yet the very example of you started this thread off with is far more vulnerable to the exact same argument.
If I know what cards you use and what lines of play you are likely seeking to exploit in a given situation, obviously you will never get any meaningful benefit from Master of Predicaments.
And while ignoring this obvious fact, you are simultaneously oversimplifying the example of Cabal Therapy and the ways instant speed effects can interact with it. And heck, even either of us focusing on that example is ignoring the general importance of hidden information in eternal formats, and to a lesser extent even newer ones.
If you honestly dont think your opponent matters in a game of Magic, youre probably not as good at reading your opponent as you think you are. You probably just got lucky with a sphinx one time and thought it was cool.
I've never actually played with the sphinx, I am just using it as an example to clarify what kind of effects I would like brought into the game. I do not know why you keep focusing on it, it would be one of preferably hundreds of cards with that type of effect if I could have it my way.
Instant speed effects, in almost all cases, are simply getting them out of your hand before they can get rid of them with therapy. Only in a tiny few examples like brainstorm can you actually hide cards away, otherwise it doesn't change the "name the card most disruptive to my strategy".
And I am confident in my claim that the opponent does not matter. It could be a bot, a weak player, or a strong player, and it won't change how you approach the game. The optimal play is still the optimal play.
Yes, Magic is very much about statistics and probability. And metagaming and card knowledge, rules knowledge, and of course luck.
I disagree though about opponent not mattering, you can definitely get reads on opponents, and affect how you play your cards. Because the game has so much unknown information and randomness in it, the 'optimal' play isn't always clear. Going for it with a combo deck for example, is something that reading your opponent can really help out. (Going for the win vs. waiting for protection) Another example is when piloting Storm you can bait out counters from your opponent to increase storm count; there's times where you can only win if your opponent plays a spell. Of course, your opponent doesn't know that (the optimal play) because of the hidden information. These are just small and rare examples, I'll admit many games can be rather methodical and mechanical.
And, I do wish there were more cards were you could out-guess or bluff your opponents. I actually made a card with that idea in mind.
ATTACHMENTS
third-eye
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I have seen the true path. I will not warm myself by the fire—I will become the flame."
—Lim-Dûl, the Necromancer
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I recently played a game called citadels, in which the players take turns picking their "role", such as assassin, thief, or king.
These roles had very powerful abilities if you can properly guess what your opponents will pick.
For example, the thief steals all of the gold( similar to mana ) from a role that turn. If you correctly guess what a player stockpiling gold is going to pick as their next role, you gain a massive game swinging advantage. If you guess a role that wasn't picked, you get nothing, or the role of a player who has very little gold, you don't get much.
Players also have incentives to lean certain ways, as certain roles give them more powerful turns given their board state, so that can be extra information the players add to their decision making.
It was great fun watching cheers of players who made huge plays through educated guesses.
I think magic would benefit greatly from this as a new in which you can outplay your opponent.
You are invited to play 10 games of rock paper scissors with someone. For money. But the payoffs are unequal- if you win with scissors the other person has to pay you $10, if you win with rock you get $5, if you win with paper you get $1. So what's your strategy for play?
Magic is an asynchronous, turn based game and most of the time you're trying to solve the situation, finding the solution that gives you the greatest chance to win. What the OP is suggesting is simultaneous decision making with unequal payoffs. In the above example, you know your opponent knows that scissors gives the most money, but they know that you know that. So perhaps rock is the best move, beating scissors but also tying against the next most likely option (rock). But they have likely thought out the same train of thought, so perhaps paper is the safest move? But the payoff is so small, that maybe they'll use scissors on the off chance you'll go so far as to use paper. And so the cycle continues, where the only solution is to know your opponent and the way they think.
This is an intuitive thing to people who play fighting games, where its common for a highly skilled player to read a less skilled opponent so well they are able to anticipate and and prepare a counter for every move that opponent makes. I have been on both sides of this.
Btw, I recommend you try Yomi by David Sirlin, a self contained card game which really captures this concept (the name even refers to it).
Magic right now very rarely cares about who your opponent is. You play against the deck, not the player.
It doesn't matter if its a pro or a first time player, they can't make the cards do different things.
But if there were cards that let you outguess your opponent for greater/lesser effect, suddenly you do really have to care about your opponent's tendencies.
Pretty much any card that allows you to name cards (cabal therapy, pithing needle, meddling mage, etc) allows you to do this.
There are entire keywords in magic, such as morph or tribute, that theoretically work like this (should I try to target a face-down card that might be huge and risk that it's a willbender? Do I let the minotaur smash me or does he have somthing in his hand?)
That's not mentioning the old trap cards from zendikar and combat tricks/counters (is that mana being left open for permanents or for tricks or is it just a bluff)?
Hell, the very concept of a sideboard in competitive play seems to be EXACTLY what you are talking about, reading the local meta to know precisely which defenses you are going to need and which ones you may want to maindeck. Knowing when to mulligan likewise fits into this expert level of play.
Further, I'm not really sure that I'd believe that most players "play against decks". If you ask the aficionados of any archetype, ranging from the most obtuse of control decks to the most linear of burn decks, players will tell you that player skill is a serious concern. Even if a deck seems to have a very high floor or very low ceiling on what an archetype can do, knowing what decks have what tricks and knowing what tools in your 75 cards can be best used to dispatch these specific threats isn't simply "playing the deck".
What you seem to be asking for, however, is for specific cards that allow you to outplay opponents... except that you seem very focused on outguessing your opponent within the effects of individual cards instead of over the course of play (which several cards already allow such as wishes, tutors, and any card with multiple modes that lets you choose how the card works)
The problem is that having a single card let you outplay your opponent means that your card actively gives your opponent agency to stop you, which generally isn't a good thing. While Gifts Ungiven and Fact or Fiction are famous, they are kind of outnumbered by lesser-used cards like temporal extortion, mage's contest, and zur's weirding. The general dislike of tribute as a mechanic kind of shows how hard it is to make good cards while giving your opponent agency.
It's not really the same at all.
Naming cards is not outguessing your opponent, its a simple statistics question. You don't care who you are facing, only their decklist. Cabal therapy, pithing needle and whatnot do not fall into this category at all, there is only "the right way" to play them.
Morph would have impact if there were actually playable morph cards with similar mana costs, but they are almost universally behind the curve in every way so they aren't useful at all outside of limited.
You don't approach the game differently based on who is sitting across from you. You play differently because of what deck is sitting across from you. A better player will make fewer wrong plays, but they are constrained by the words on their cards. They might have even lost based just off the order of the top 12 cards of both players libraries before hands are even picked up.
Things like tutors and wishes don't work that way. There is pretty much always the correct way to play them, and everything else is incorrect, and your opponent really has no effect on the outcome.
I am asking for a large suite of powerful spells that can compete with the non-guesswork cards, where they are slightly advantaged if you outguess your opponent, and slightly disadvantaged if you don't.
"The right way" to play therapy is to make an educated guess based on all available information. That's also the "right way" to play against Master of Predicaments. What's the difference?
The problem with these types of spells, I think, is that guessing ultimately does rely on unknown game information. Unless you want to go around making mini-games like mage's contest, that means dealing with the hand or deck in some capacity (unless trying to work with morph or something similar). Even worse, the really good guessing cards all seem to rely on hidden information for both sides of their effect.
To make sure that I understand the principle, here are a couple homebrew examples
Krakenwatch Hermit 2UG
Creature- Elf
At the beginning of each of your main phases, target opponent chooses one- add 3 to your mana pool or draw a card.
2/3
Gravescrounge BB
Sorcery
Search your library for a zombie card and reveal it. Shuffle your library and place that card on to of your deck. Afterwards, any opponent may place the top 4 cards of your library into your graveyard.
Solitary Hunter GG
Creature- Human Druid
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may place a creature card from your hand into the battlefield.
While no opponents control untapped lands, Solitary Hunter gains +2/+2 and loses all other abilities.
1/2
For the first one, the opponent has to ask whether you have giant creatures (or multiple spells in your hand) that they might help you unload early if they don't help to accelerate you (which may be what you want in the first place if your hand is actually empty). The second one, meanwhile, asks players if they think you need a zombie or if you are just looking for an easy reanimation Target (especially if played early in the game). The last card is special because both players are doing some guesswork. The opponent has to guess if you have a big fatty or not and you have to guess whether an opponent lacks instants or if it just didn't want you to get a fatty.
Given those examples, it may be hard to see my specific complaint about this type of guesswork. Put simply, I believe that it has a VERY narrow design space. Consider all of the horrible cards out there that give your opponent agency, stuff like book burning or browbeat or dash hopes. When all of the information that an opponent would need is plainly visible (such as asking if an opponent would rather take 5 damage or tap all creatures it controls), the opponent can start making the "statistically correct" guess. It's possible that you have more cards in your hand that would punish the opponent for choosing the correct answer, of course, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about. To prevent players from making "statistically correct" choices, at least one of the options (preferably the "weak option") has to be tied to unknown information, meaning your hand (and occasionally deck) in a format without proper implementation of morph/manifest-esque mechanics.
As a result, I end up with the feeling that just about every good out-guessing card would need to deal with drawing cards, scrying, searching, self-milling, producing mana, or cheating out lands or spells (or some combination of those elements). While you are personally free to disagree or to provide counter-examples, I personally believe that out-guessing foes takes up a pretty small design space and question focusing on it.
Your opponent has zero control over the outcome of therapy, they have some power over the outcome of the sphinx. This makes a huge difference.
I don't think you have it quite right with the cards you posted. You are treating what I like as more punisher effects than anything.
Examples:
BB
Destroy target creature. Pick a number between one and three. Your opponent guesses that number. If they guess incorrectly, gain that much life
UU
Counter traget spell. Pick a number between 1 and 2. Your opponent guesses which number you picked. If they guess correctly, they draw that many cards. Otherwise, draw that many cards.
Effects like this, creating weighted guesses that both players have some control over the outcome.
I... hmmm... I do thank you for producing solid examples of what you were talking about. On a general conceptual level, that sort of idea is pretty nifty and I certainly don't oppose it. On the other hand, I personally think that "choose a number" type effects are inelegant in design even though they make for memorable situations and that cards that effectively make little "mini-games" are ultimately doomed to obscurity. It would be nice if you could figure out a way to make the number selection more organic and integrated than just "pick a number" (such as guessing whether the converted mana cost of a spell is even or odd) but if not...
Maybe if wizards was print number cards instead of morph tokens or transform-card placeholders, producing cards that required picking a number would be more practical... I don't know. It doesn't seem likely that this will be a theme any time soon but who knows.
Both players can have lots of control over the outcome of Therapy. The formats where people play Cabal Therapy also include cards like Brainstorm and tons of other instant speed effects that can be played before you name a card.
You want a game where reading your opponent matters. Eternal formats like Legacy, where hidden information is often more meaningful than the information in play, thrive on this aspect of the game. And they do it in a way that is far more elegant than that sphinx.
Im not sure what part of Master of Predicaments you believe transcends statistics. Its a pretty straightforward effect.
If you run 4 cabal therapy and your opponent runs 4 brainstorm, the two will only interact about 25% of the time I think. ( both players getting them and the game flow allowing one to respond to the other )
Even then, it'll usually boil down to one exactly correct line of play for both players, rather than two players actually trying to outplay eachother.
Magic right now is more about trying not to miss those correct lines of play and hoping variance works out for you, I think it would be greatly improved by making players guess against one another.
You say that naming cards isn't outguessing but rather statistics. The thing is that the proposed cards where you make an active choice and the opponent guesses which choice you made also comes down to statistics and game-theory. Just like how you say the other cards have a correct way to play hem so would these have a correct way to play them.
And regarding these example cards you've posted. Those are very clear examples of ismple statistics and game theory where there is a very correct way to play them. It's not about outguessing anyone but rather to hoose the route that on average gives the opponent the least resources.
The UU one for example. All you can do is choose how big you want the swing to be and then it's 50/50 wether you or the opponent gets the card(s).
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
But if the system already is in place in the game, why put in a coinflip system into the game to add randomness?
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Yes, and figuring out you and your opponent's risk aversion, determining how a large swing or small swing would affect both player's gameplan, determining how far your opponent will work this out, and determining other factors are all skills you can bring to the game to outplay the opponent. I am of the opinion that more skill is better, and that magic currently doesn't include these skills nearly enough.
Compared to cabal therapy, which is usually "My opponent is playing deck X, and card Y is their biggest foil to my gameplan. Name card Y"
The entire premise of your argument here is based on you knowing the list of your opponent. Yet the very example of you started this thread off with is far more vulnerable to the exact same argument.
If I know what cards you use and what lines of play you are likely seeking to exploit in a given situation, obviously you will never get any meaningful benefit from Master of Predicaments.
And while ignoring this obvious fact, you are simultaneously oversimplifying the example of Cabal Therapy and the ways instant speed effects can interact with it. And heck, even either of us focusing on that example is ignoring the general importance of hidden information in eternal formats, and to a lesser extent even newer ones.
If you honestly dont think your opponent matters in a game of Magic, youre probably not as good at reading your opponent as you think you are. You probably just got lucky with a sphinx one time and thought it was cool.
This would be a fun way for Wizards to design a second Conspiracy-type supplement. Wouldn't mind adding a few packs of those cards into a draft to mix things up. Also, fun for EDH.
GWUBRDraft my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! and/or The Little Pauper Cube That Could!RBUWG
Modern:WDeath & TaxesW | RUGRUG DelverRUG
Yes, I do want a new skill set brought in to the game.
Right now I think skill plays a pathetically minimal role deciding the victor.
I've never actually played with the sphinx, I am just using it as an example to clarify what kind of effects I would like brought into the game. I do not know why you keep focusing on it, it would be one of preferably hundreds of cards with that type of effect if I could have it my way.
Instant speed effects, in almost all cases, are simply getting them out of your hand before they can get rid of them with therapy. Only in a tiny few examples like brainstorm can you actually hide cards away, otherwise it doesn't change the "name the card most disruptive to my strategy".
And I am confident in my claim that the opponent does not matter. It could be a bot, a weak player, or a strong player, and it won't change how you approach the game. The optimal play is still the optimal play.
I disagree though about opponent not mattering, you can definitely get reads on opponents, and affect how you play your cards. Because the game has so much unknown information and randomness in it, the 'optimal' play isn't always clear. Going for it with a combo deck for example, is something that reading your opponent can really help out. (Going for the win vs. waiting for protection) Another example is when piloting Storm you can bait out counters from your opponent to increase storm count; there's times where you can only win if your opponent plays a spell. Of course, your opponent doesn't know that (the optimal play) because of the hidden information. These are just small and rare examples, I'll admit many games can be rather methodical and mechanical.
And, I do wish there were more cards were you could out-guess or bluff your opponents. I actually made a card with that idea in mind.
—Lim-Dûl, the Necromancer