Ultimate Masters: MMI Review
 
Magic Market Index for Dec 7th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Nov 30th, 2018
  • posted a message on [Primer] Lantern Control
    He looks too awesome not to try!!
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on [Primer] Lantern Control
    @thnkr

    If I understand correctly, your analysis looks at the correlation of having a card in your opening hand and your win percentage.
    I like this approach because it can give you an idea is your hand is a more of a keep or a mulligan, but is it really the thing to look at to evaluate whether a card is good or not?

    What I mean is that they are some good cards you might not to see in your opening hand (because you don't need them early and/or are afraid of discard), but which are very important (maybe that's why Bridge is not that well-rated). On the other hand, there might be some cards that are great in the opening hand but a terrible top deck (Leyline of Sanctity).

    On your spreadsheet, I don't see a line for Witchbane Orb (which tells me you don't play it). I would bet that it would rank lower than leyline because, in the opening hand, Leyline is basically stricly better than witchbane orb. But this can be misleading because witchbane orb is the better card if you don't have it in your opening hand (easier to cast if you draw it, Whirable if you don't).

    I don't know what data would be better at identifying which cards are good and bad for the deck, but I'm just saying that if you only look at opening hands, it might not show a correct image.

    Still, amazing job as always.
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on [Primer] Lantern Control
    Wow!!

    Congrats to Luis Salvato and to all you guys who made this deck happen as well
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on [Primer] Lantern Control
    Interesting about Mox Opal, thnkr.

    But how do you explain that Ghoulcaller's Bell seems good and not Codex Shredder?

    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on [Primer] Lantern Control
    Plays out like it normally does, as a bye pretty much.


    What's your strategy against affinity. The last few times I played it, they were just too fast for me. Felt more like a 50-50 to me.
    How do you side?
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on [Primer] Lantern Control


    You are correct, it could have been. The purpose of presenting that video was to respond to your request, which I did. What I did after that was make sure that I watched the full game to be sure that maybe that I wasn't missing a line of play that supports what I think might be your argument. It turned out to be the exact opposite case. I would have posted it either way.


    As I have said there is no argument in this video that supports your strategy instead of mine in paper magic as time is shared. Whether you blind mill or not (and then have to use Academy Ruins) will not change your opponent's behavior to make you go to time by forcing you to go through the motions. If you and your opponent still have cards in your library when the additional turns get called, it'll be a draw no matter what. Not milling does not make you go faster in any significant manner in paper magic.


    You say it yourself. You need to draw the answer. My point is that as long as you do not deck yourself, you get as many draws whether or not you blind mill yourself, and so you have the same probability of drawing every combination you can dream of. Obviously, if you don't have any answers to a card, you're might get screwed, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.


    Is it?


    Yes, if you do not have a single out for a specific card that needs to be answered, milling or not is irrelevant.
    But might point remains that as long as you do not deck yourself, you get as many draws whether or not you blind mill yourself, and so you have the same probability of drawing every combination of cards.

    Would you change anything if instead of milling, Codex shredder put the bottom-most card in your library and put it in your graveyard, as in 99% of the time you will not see these cards anyway?


    Generally, no. There is a difference in this question, though, because we can stack the bottom of our library with Ancient Stirrings and Glint-Nest Crane, but I imagine that that isn't what you're getting at here, and is generally irrelevant to the conversation.


    Stacking was indeed not what I was getting at.
    What I was getting at is the bottom part of our library is useless 99% of the games, so getting cards out of there has no drawback (with the tutor exception, I've talked about many times). On the contrary, getting cards in the graveyard is an asset because of recursion. I can understand the perception of a drawback when removing cards from the top of your library because you can feel that you should have drawn them, even though it is just an illusion. But considering you would not change here, it means you don't fall for the illusion. But as you have said it, the main reason you don't blind mill yourself is because you could wind up drawing your whole library. What I say is that it is marginal compared to the gain of the additional stuff in your graveyard you could recur (and indeed, you said you'd never lost to that).

    Do you think it would be beneficial for lantern if we could start the game with a random 5 cards in the graveyard?


    In a vacuum, if we are goldfishing, yes. That's not the case, though. Remember, I specifically state that it is highly situational on the opponent, which exists in the game. We can argue about goldfishing tactics all we want, but those will not make us better at combating actual opponents.


    And I am trying to show you that (with following a few rules we've agreed on in previous posts), it is not that situational.

    Do you think it's better to use a strategy that adds 2% winning percentage 75% of the time or one that adds 90% winning percentage 1% of the time?


    Do you mind explaining what the numbers here represent and how you came up with them?


    The numbers are arbitrary. It is just to see whether you'd go with an instinct or a mathematical formula to determine which way you'd want to go.

    Now, please understand, I specifically stated that I want to remain neutral about the topic for the most part. What I wanted to do is come to a logical consensus amongst ourselves.

    fair enough. I'm clearly not neutral on this as I believe there is mathematical evidence to show that the feel-bad moments that blind milling brings are outweighed by the (much more discrete) advantages.

    I will make my stance clear, as well.

    1. The specific topic is a question of blind self-mill with no immediate access to graveyard recursion and no Surgical Extraction in hand.
    2. I do not believe it is very situational. Even less so than "Discard-or-Lantern on 1st turn discussion" of a little while ago.
    3. I do think that the subject is simple enough that we can honestly state that "blind self-mill is good", given a few general rules (don't do it if you only have one out in your library left because of infernal tutor/Inventor's fair, Don't do it if opponent has their own surgical extraction,...)
    4. I believe that given these rules, the only drawback of blind-milling yourself is the risk of decking, which is so unlikely that no one was able to show me an example of it (To be fair, there was only Thnkr in this discussion with me). The advantage though is the possibility of recursion, down the line.

    So, I'll stop here.
    Thanks to Thnkr for arguing with me with respect and an open mind, and to all of you for coming up with and tuning such a great deck.

    I will go back to lurking. Wink
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on [Primer] Lantern Control
    I did look through real quick and found this game. You'll see that I milled my opponent first, happened to mill one of their best cards for getting in quick damage, and then used Surgical to exile it and get a good look at the opponent's library. My opponent ended up having two Stony Silence in hand.

    My opponent had three Stony Silence in their library in all. If you look at this list that I posted the day before that game was played, you'll see that I had exactly three answers to Stony Silence. Now, if I'd taken your route, then I ran the risk of milling one of those Nature's Claims (and if you keep watching, you'll see that I actually had replaced one Claim with a Seal of Primordium). Of course, the chances of that happening were slim (I would have actually milled my 3rd land that I ended up using to cast Bridge). Now, you could say that I had an Ancient Stirrings in hand, and would have cast that to search for the third land I needed. But keep watching. You'll see there wasn't another land in the next 7 cards in my library. I would have died to that rather large creature my opponent had, with a Bridge in hand. So regardless if I could have eventually saved myself from milling out using Academy Ruins (recurring Mox Opal over and over), I would have lost that game due to self-mill. Sure, I didn't mill out, but the action of blindly milling myself would have cost me the game. Which is actually what brought up this whole conversation in the first place.

    i though we had settled this. All of what you're saying is circumstential. THe Llanowar Wastes that you naturally drew on your Turn 2 was as likely to be there as just one card further down. the fact of the matter is, since you didn't draw your entire deck, you drew exactly as many cards as you would have if you had milled yourself, and thus always had exactly the same probability of drawing this third land you needed. So not blind milling yourself did not save you, the way your deck was stacked did.
    Besides, there is no way you could have lost this game by decking because you still had Academy Ruins. So not blind milling did not save you, as you were in no danger anyway.

    But let's say that I had found that land. There's another problem. You'll notice the clock. Using Academy Ruins over and over takes time on the clock. Especially when the opponent can cast the Suppression Field that they had in their deck (which they will eventually draw since they are now going to draw every card in their deck). That's a lot of clicks that I'd have to do, every single turn.

    I don't know about that as I never play MTGO. My advice is for paper only.

    You can look at this video, where in game three I didn't have an answer to Stony Silence at all in the library [u]to draw[u] (I explain why in the description). That's a great example of what I mean about us having more answers in our library to match their threats.

    You say it yourself. You need to draw the answer. My point is that as long as you do not deck yourself, you get as many draws whether or not you blind mill yourself, and so you have the same probability of drawing every combination you can dream of. Obviously, if you don't have any answers to a card, you're might get screwed, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.

    And this is another match where having more cards to match their answers counts. Opponent had Stony Silence out, but I still won once I used Surgical to remove all of their other answers for Bridge. You'll notice that I misclicked and tossed my own Decay that I planned on using for Surgical. Opponent was running Ghost Quarter, taking care of Academy Ruins. We never see if they have another, because they concede once I ensure that I have more Bridges than they have answers for it. If you look at the chat, you'll see that they mention that they normally ran 3-4 Stony Silence, meaning that I would have come down to needing that Decay that I misclicked, and would have likely lost that game to Stony Silence anyways (and this isn't even considering if they had a 2nd Ghost Quarter to save for my 2nd Academy Ruins).

    Again, this is not about having more answers in your library than they have threats or having more bridges in the library than they have answers for it in their library. It is about [u] using [/u] more answers than they have threats (whether you naturally draw them or are able to recur them), and having more bridges in play (and possibly ways to save it) than they have answers. There is a tempo element to this, and the fact is we are much more likely to use the cards taht are in our graveyard than the cards we will never draw from our library.
    I don't know how that game would have ended if he hadn't made that abrupt decay mistake (kudos for your patience on using surgical extraction though), but I don't believe your opponent you have conceded before you had more bidges on the battlfield (not in you library) than he had answers in his library. Games are won and lost not on the numbers of threats and answers in the library but on how they line up. Also, here, I don't see how blind self milling would have changed your porbability of winning this game (at the time of the mill).

    But you never answered my previous questions:


    Would you change anything if instead of milling, Codex shredder put the bottom-most card in your library and put it in your graveyard, as in 99% of the time you will not see these cards anyway?

    Do you think it would be beneficial for lantern if we could start the game with a random 5 cards in the graveyard?

    To which, I will add:
    Do you think it's better to use a strategy that adds 2% winning percentage 75% of the time or one that adds 90% winning percentage 1% of the time?

    If I have time (which I doubt), I will look in your videos for every instance where you had the possibility of recursion but didn't have anything game-winning to recur. Unfortunately, i don't have videos of my own.
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on [Primer] Lantern Control
    Oh, I'm not denying that you're doing very well with the deck. I'm just saying I think self-milling as early as turn 1 should help getting even better winning percentage.
    Again, I don't have as many games under my belt as you, but I have much more often found myself lacking good stuff to recur than dying by decking.

    Could I suggest that maybe you could try to self mill and see how many times you died to decking and would have won if you hadn't blind milled, and how many times you survived thanks to a card you blind-milled and then wound up winning the game. I assume both would be fairly small so it might be feasable to get relevant data, but I find it hard to believe that the first case would happen more than the second case. I know the first case never happened to me.

    Anyway, I still believe it is better to blind self-mill but it might be a small enough gain that spending a lot of time on gathering data is inefficient.

    Btw, could you give me a link on the games where you went all the way to decking with a stony silence out? I'm really interested to see how you got there. And since, it's an illustration of your argument, who knows, maybe it'll convince me. Wink
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on [Primer] Lantern Control
    Ok, now that we've put hre drawing probability thing to rest, it all comes down to whether or not you believe that it's better to have a card in the graveyard or in the library.
    My argument is that since you can recur, it's better to have it in the graveyard.
    Yours is (if I'm reading correctly), since the game can go super long (all the way to decking without milling) and you might not be able to recur, you'd rather have it in your library.

    is that correct?
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on [Primer] Lantern Control


    This is true, the only card type that we really have that they don't is artifact. Of course, this is assuming that they already have instant and sorcery in their graveyard. Sorcery I can see, sure, but instants not so much. Their instants are Abrupt Decay, Fatal Push, Lightning Bolt, Kolaghan's Command, and Terminate. We give them no reason to have Push or Terminate in the graveyard, and they are likely to save their Decays and Commands for our Bridges, so that leaves Lightning Bolt. So, sure, if they've cast Lightning Bolt, then they have an instant in the graveyard and we only risk on pumping any Goyfs they have played up one power bigger.

    The reason why I say that they have ways to deal with Bridge is that when we make Goyf bigger, it's not just until we land a Bridge. It's until we land a Bridge and can keep it out. So if the Goyf only swings for two turns, that's already us shocking ourselves. If they swing more than that, we've Bolted ourselves, at least, and they can very easily get a few more swings in after dealing with a Bridge.



    Fine, I'll leave the Goyf issue as it is more complex that what I'm trying to show, and there is a risk of milling in this case.


    Against Scavenging Ooze, it appears that your argument that it's a positive is for late game use. The point of bringing up Ooze is that it alone negates that argument.

    My argument was that your worst case scenario (They have Ooze and the spare mana to use it) means that we won't be able to recur anything which is exactly as bad/good as not milling yourself. So the worst case scenario using the milling strategy is as good as any scenario not using the milling strategy. If anything, having a full graveyard will make it harder for them to control it with Ooze.




    We have X number of those cards in our deck. Each one that we mill is one gone, permanently. While this might not seem important, it is, and I'll explain why. When an opponent casts Stony Silence, that reduces relevant cards in our deck to removal for Stony Silence. The fewer we have, the less likely we will win. Hell, even if it's the bottom card of our deck, so long as they don't have a clock, we win, giving us all the time in the world. Chances of us drawing the card if we just wait? 100%


    We reduce the number of outs in our deck, but we do not change the probability of drawing them, as you've agreed.
    Also, if we can go all the way to our last card in the deck without dying to find an answer to Stony Silence, it seems to me we don't need to find an answer to stony silence because it didn't do anything relevant anyway.

    On a side note, I did agree that if you only have one out left in your library you shouldn't mill (because you have infernal tutor and probably already have a lot of stuff in your graveyard)




    Your argument to mill here is based on the idea that you're setting up to use the graveyard in the late game, isn't it? If so, then a Rest in Peace is quite an argument to not mill :p


    No, it just means that sometimes it will not work out. Once again here, the worst case scenario using the milling strategy is as good as the "not milling" strategy.



    Also, you blind mill Tron. We run Surgicals, and they run a total of four threats that can't be Needled or outright stopped by Bridge. If we even get one of those threats in the graveyard, we've reduced the number of threats in their deck by 25%. The sooner we start milling them, the more likely we are to hit one. And that's not even considering that it allows us to prepare to Surgical one of their lands (or threats even!).


    We do run Surgical extraction which is always an argument to milling them, even though they can also run world Breaker. Here too, I will drop the argument as there is value of doing something other than blind milling them as they run Sanctum of Ugin which can get a threat out of their library, so it’s not as clear cut.



    Affinity - I'd rather mill them and look to Surgical their Signal Pests, or at least reduce the number that they have in their library.



    [joke]I've never been killed by a signal pest in the library [/joke]. And since you've agreed that the probability of drawing a specific card is not affected by milling, milling them will not change the number of signal pest you will face in the game (unless you have surgical extraction).
    Also, post side, they usually have ancient grudge.


    Grixis Control - Not sure about this one. I've had plenty of smart Grixis Control players save their Thought Scours on me to control my top.

    Even with no lantern in play (which is the only case we're discussing)?

    Valakut - Mill them! The fewer mountains they have in their deck, the fewer triggers they get to kill us! Even if we don't hit a Valakut to Extract. I have videos of me winning this way.

    I can agree to that



    All in all, I feel that the whole disagreement comes down to:
    Do you agree that milling does not change your probability of drawing a specific card?


    Assuming that we don't draw through our entire deck, yes Smile If we do draw through our entire deck, and a copy of a card has been milled, then ya, we're not drawing that copy of the card (of course).


    OK.
    I agree and said it before that decking yourself is a downside of blind self-milling. That being said, I never died to that (arguably, I have less games under my belt than you).

    I'm curious, have you played the mirror at all? If so, do you mill yourself or your opponent before a Lantern is out?

    Yes, do not want to blind mill yourself in the mirror because they/we run surgical extraction (which I have agreed is a card that hurt blind self-mill, although I can’t think of another one apart from extirpate).



    Would you change anything if instead of milling, Codex shredder put the bottom-most card in your library and put it in your graveyard, as in 99% of the time you will not see these cards anyway?

    Do you think it would be beneficial for lantern if we could start the game with a random 5 cards in the graveyard?


    Anyway, since we've started the discussion/argument, I have found myself much more likely to remember to blind mill myself than I used to, so that's one benefit. Wink
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on [Primer] Lantern Control
    That is incorrect hypgometric distribution shows that milling dead cards to increase the probability of drawing the desired card by about %1. But if you hit your desired card it decreases your chance of drawing your desired card by about %3 but will get worse the more "hit" cards you mill. (This is assuming you are looking for 4 cards)

    The gain you get when you mill a dead card exactly outweighs the loss you get when you mill a card you want (considering the probability of milling a card you need or not), as I have shown in my first post.



    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on [Primer] Lantern Control
    I can agree that blind milling can be a matter of personal choice, if for exemple you prefer not doing it because it feels too bad to blind mill a card you need, even though you lose some winning percentage points by doing so. It's just a game after all, which point is to have fun.

    But that blind milling does not chance the probability to draw a specific card is a mathematical fact.
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on [Primer] Lantern Control
    I feel that you still don't agree with the fact that whether you blind mill or not, you do not change your probability of drawing a specific card. Because while you give a lot of good exemples that milling might not always give you what you want, there is still no argument that not miling helps you at all. And between something that might help me down the line and something that will never help me, I'll choose to do what helps me, in this case milling with the hope that I can get to recur something at some point.

    I absolutely do not mill either my opponent nor myself if my opponent is playing with Goyfs :p Especially ourselves, as that only increases their clock. It does usually matter, because decks decks that run Goyf also tend to be decks that have answers for Bridge. They also tend to run some number of Scavenging Ooze, so even if we hit something we want and we somehow get Shredder with five mana and/or Ruins, we're not guaranteed to get it back.


    All of what you say is true. There is a risk of decreasing their clock, but only if we mill a card type that is not already in the yard. Jund usually runs instants and sorceries and fetchs so the only type we have a lot more than them is artifact. So the only time where it would decrease their clock is if we don't already have an artifact in the yard and we mill one and if we don't already have a bridge to stop the Goyfs, which is not looking good anyway. You say that they have ways to deal with bridge, which is absolutely true, but if they do deal with it, it puts an artifact in the graveyard and cancels the effect of having blind milled an artifact ourselves.
    As for the scavenging ooze argument, it is true that we might not be able to recur what we want, so it might not always work out. But what's the risk of milling? Again, you do not change your probability of drawing a specific card.

    The most common reason we would need Abrupt Decay/Seal of Primordium/Quiet Disrepair/Nature's Claim is that we need an answer for Stony Silence. Thus, having Shredder and five mana is probably not going to help there. If we've milled early on against a deck that runs Stony and then Stony hits, and we've milled one of our few precious answers, then we might just be screwed.


    That is just not true. Blind milling does not change your probability of drawing a Abrupt Decay/Seal of Primordium/Quiet Disrepair/Nature's Claim. So there is no risk of milling. If you did mill, you're more likely to be able to recur something useful with stony silence on the stack. It is a corner case, but it's better than nothing. Again, if you only have one of Abrupt Decay/Seal of Primordium/Quiet Disrepair/Nature's Claim left in your deck and you run Infernal Tutor, stop milling, but otherwise, I don't see a single reason to stop.

    Against decks that can/might bring in Rest in Peace, it doesn't matter if we have Shredder online unless we have five mana open when Rest in Peace is on the stack.

    Again, there is no argument to not milling.

    If the opponent has Ghost Quarters, Blood Moon, Magus of the Moon, Fulminator Mage, or Molten Rain, then we have two things to worry about. For the Moons, if we need Abrupt Decay/enchantment removal, then we have to have Opal online in order to cast it (and depending on the removal, a basic land). In the case of Ghost Quarter, we usually see those in Death and Taxes, Tron, and the mirror match, and as singletons in other random decks. Against Death and Taxes, if they are using Ghost Quarter, then we may not see the five land if we don't get a Bridge quick enough or we kill their taxing creatures quick enough.

    Against decks with land destruction, we have no guarantee we're going to live to five lands, as those are usually Jund, Burn, etc.


    Again, I don't see a single argument against blind milling. I agree that milling might not give you the answer, but not milling definetly will not help.

    Against Tron we need to mill their threats as quickly as possible, and look for drawing into Surgical.

    Against decks that Surgical is great against, two come to mind specifically - Valakut and Ad Nauseum. For Valakut, we want to mill them as soon and often as possible, not just for Surgical targets, but we want to reduce the number of possible Valakut triggers in their deck.

    So the question is: What do you do with your codex shredder then (if you don't have lantern)? You have 3 options:
    - Blind Mill them
    - Blind Mill yourself
    - Do nothing
    I hope I have made my point clear that blind milling yourslef is better than doing nothing. So the question is: Is it better to blind mill ourselves or blind mill Tron? That, I don't know. On the one hand we can get recursion, but on the other we can draw Surgical Extraction (milling them does not change their probability of drawing a threat either). Recursion on Surgical extraction seems great though and that is more likely to happen if we mill ourselves. but that might be wishful thinking.
    Your Valakut argument seems more agreeable to me as getting rid of Valakut through surgical extraction is usually game over. Tron, however has a lot more threats.


    But what should you do on turn 1, when your play was Codex Shredder for the turn (and you don't have surgical extraction in hand), your opponent plays a deck with little to no graveyard hate and has kept his 7 (no mulligan with scry on top? Just do nothing with the Shredder?
    I argue that you should mill yourself as you are much more likely down the line to be able to recur something than to deck yourself, in which case having the graveyard full of options can be very important.


    Depends on the deck. Do you have an example deck?


    Most decks game 1 (Eldrazi Tron, Affinity, Death's Shadow, Burn, Jund, Hatebear, Merfolk, Grixis Control, UW Control, Valakut, Dredge).
    Actually, now that I think about it more, the only graveyard hate cards that we should really be wary about when blind milling is Surgical Extraction (and the surgical extraction for B with split second). Because even though rest in peace, relic of progenitus, and so on take away our ability to recur, it just makes "blind milling" even with "doing nothing" and doesn't make it worse.
    So, most decks that don't pack Surgical Extraction are good exemples.


    All in all, I feel that the whole disagreement comes down to:
    Do you agree that milling does not change your probability of drawing a specific card?
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on [Primer] Lantern Control
    Quote from thnkr »
    I do think that the topic of blind mill is very unique, especially when we consider the complexity of it compared to how other decks operate. What other deck has decisions as complex as that?

    But here's what I've come to think so far:

    - Probably not a good idea to blind mill an unknown opponent (we don't know if they can use the graveyard). There are exceptions, like if they mulligan and scry to the top - That may or may not be good.I can agree to that

    - Never blind mill an opponent who can make use of the graveyard.I can agree to that

    - Never blind mill ourselves if an opponent has graveyard interaction (Surgical Extraction, Extirpate, Rest in Peace, Relic of Progenitus, Scavenging Ooze, etc.) or Goyfs.Not sure about Goyfs as it is unlikely our mill will change the clock but yes for the rest

    - Probably not a good idea to blind mill ourselves if we are likely to want/need Abrupt Decay/Seal of Primordium/Quiet Disrepair/Nature's Claim/Ghost Quarter (unless we have Crucible of Worlds online), or any other card that we can't get back with Academy Ruins.I disagree. We still have codex Shredder to recur this stuff and the probability of naturally drawing these cards remains the same whether we mill or not.

    - Probably not a good idea to blind mill ourselves if an opponent has Ghost Quarter readily available, multiple Ghost Quarters in their deck, Tectonic Edge and we have enough lands to make it live, Blood Moon, Pithing Needle, Magus of the Moon, Crumble to Dust, Fulminator Mage, Molten Rain, etc. Same thing. We still have Codex Shredder. Without Academy Ruins we won't able to get it back, but even as a 1-time graveyard tutor, Shredder means we want our graveyard as full of options as possible.

    - Blind mill ourselves, if opponent has no graveyard interaction or Goyf, and we have Shredder and/or Academy Ruins online is probably good (except in the above situations).Yes. The argument being that it is still a net positive to blind mill even when we don't have recursion online yet, as the only downside is decking.

    - If an opponent has no graveyard interaction, it's probably better to blind mill them if we have Surgical in hand and/or have 3+ Surgical in our library - Especially if a single Surgical will win us the game outright.If we don't have SE in hand, I would still consider milling ourselves as we have more ways to get recursion than SE in the deck. Even with SE in hand,I guess it depends on the opponent's deck and whether it matters more that we get a specific card (Bridge, Needle, etc..) or they do (artifact destruction,...). If it is more important that we get a bridge than we deal with one of their threatening cards, it might be better to mill ourselves, especially if we can get recursion fast. Obviously, using surgical extraction is a bit more complex because we also have discard which can increase its value.

    - Probably not a good idea if we are down to a single copy of a card that we are looking for left in the deck.Yes, especially since most cards we usually actively look for are not singleton so if we only have one left in the library, we should already have some in the graveyard.

    That sound about right so far?


    But what should you do on turn 1, when your play was Codex Shredder for the turn (and you don't have surgical extraction in hand), your opponent plays a deck with little to no graveyard hate and has kept his 7 (no mulligan with scry on top? Just do nothing with the Shredder?
    I argue that you should mill yourself as you are much more likely down the line to be able to recur something than to deck yourself, in which case having the graveyard full of options can be very important.
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on [Primer] Lantern Control
    Quote from crexalbo »


    I can say that current models used in the debate on blind milling are woefully inadequate. Lantern isn't just a deck with X successes out of Y cards; there are a plethora of other factors that come into play when in an actual game. This is why I don't typically engage in this conversation, because my answer will always be "It depends on the game state."


    It is a deck of X successes out of Y cards when you're looking for a Bridge or a Pithing Needle. I do agree that sometimes it is not as clear cut, but is often is (especially when we're about to lose and only have a few outs).
    You can ask yourself this question: Have you ever lost a game because you could not recurr anything because you milled all your Academy Ruins and Codex Shredders? Personally, I haven't. But I have lost several times when I had recursion online but could not recur the card I would need to not die (Bridge, Needle, Spellskite/Welding Jar, etc...) because there were none in my graveyard. If I could mill myself more, I would, even blindly. Basically, if I could start the game with half my library in my graveyard, I would most of the time.

    The only downside to self blind-milling I can see is the fact that if you mill yourself with Shredder, you don't mill them. But, unless i know the opponent's decklist perfectly, i am very reluctant to blind mill the opponent. Similarly, I would unlikely blindly use ghoulcaller's bell because for many decks the graveyard is a ressource.
    However, if I have surgical extraction in hand (and unless i am actively digging for a card), I will blind mill them instead of myself.

    But in the case of a game against someone that does not have graveyard hate (and apart for the very corner case of having milled all but one of the card you need in the matchup), I don't see any reason for not milling yourself as much as you can.
    Posted in: Control
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.