Today I made an innocuous comment about how I don't think enough players are using their Mana Leaks on Ponder.
I really didn't expect much of a response, and moved on with my day. I got a couple responses though, and it appears some people feel that Mana Leaking a Ponder is "Almost always wrong". I didn't get detailed explanation of their reasoning, but what I did gather by reading their posts as the conversation continued was that the counter should be saved for the threat that follows. I get that logic, but think it doesnt dig deep enough. Late in the game, I'd agree with this, they cast a ponder, you'd rather save the leak for a counter war over a big threat or removal spell. But most U/W mirrors (and i mean when both players are playing the blue tempo shell of Snapcaster, Leak, Ponder, Probe, Snag, so any combination of U/W delver, or U/W Midrange matchups) are won on the very early turns when one player gets ahead. Think of all the scenarios when you even have the opportunity to counter an early ponder.
Let's say you're on the play with U/W Midrange against the mirror. On turn 1 you could either open on a Ponder, Probe, both, or neither. I'm going to exclude all cases where you open on a Probe because by looking at their hand you can determine what line you would like to take. With this deck, I'm not typically probing turn one anyway, more likely on turn 2/3, closer to the time I'm actually trying to resolve threats. If you open on a Ponder, then your turn two is typically empty, while you're trying to set up Blade Splicer in to Angel. They have to deal with it before you can untap or you'll have Angel protection that they have to play around whether you have it or not.. So turn 2 is empty for you, unless you have another ponder. If you ponder again here, there's likely a good reason. You either need land, or action, and that will drive your line of play in that case, otherwise its likely the first ponder did enough to get you through the first few turns. So the situation where you're shipping turn 2, and your opponent's best play is to play a ponder, think about what is happening here... Why is that person Pondering here, let's assume they're at least decent at this game, and they ponder before they play their land so that you dont know if they have land to play. In the mirror, this means their tapping below leak mana on turn 2, leaving free path to resolve a Splicer. This means they either don't have a Leak, don't have a land, or don't have a plan at all. In my opinion, decreasing their ability to see up to 4 new cards while you go on the offensive is a pretty serious blow.
Now lets say you're on U/W Midrange against Delver.
If you open on Ponder, and they open on Delver, sure them setting up Delver on a turn 2 ponder is an additional reason to leak it, but again, not the only one. Resolving a Blade Splicer before they can resolve a Geist of St Traft is a huge lift in that matchup, and if they allow it when they are on the draw they are asking for pain. This means you can often attack with your golemn, and still hold off the geist even if they snag the token because they'll need to play around the angel It will be easy for this deck to deal with the lone delver once they untap with their splicer+token. The bonus of them losing the opportunity to force a Delver flip is all the more reason to do so.
What about Delver Mirrors. Here the sitution is a little murkier, as it will likely depend if you opened on delver, and if you did, did they open on delver... did either player already gutshot the other delver? Were there mulligans involved? The Mana Leak on the ponder is an instant 1-for-1, which when two tempo decks bash each other in the face is a great play when you're already ahead. If you opened on delver, and you blind flipped, and they didn't blind flip theirs? I'm counter that ponder. Stop their flip, maintain your advantage. The entire turn cycle is deleted, and you're still ahead. If you blind flip, and they also blind flip, i'm less likely to counter a turn 2 ponder, but would depend on a ton of other factors. What else is in my hand? Am I going to tap out for Geist then Angel the next two turns? If so, lets make the tempo play now. If no, then save the leak because the opponent may pull ahead otherwise. What if I have a geist and a snapcaster? Same story, I want to leak now, so on turn 4 i can snapcaster->leak to protect my geist, and keep attacking. If you don't have a geist, /and/ you didn't get an early delver draw, then I wouldn't counter the ponder, I'd save it for a scarier threat, but the fact is, you're probably already pretty far behind if you don't have either one of those plans early in the game. To me, /that/ is the corner case, that your only hope of winning is mana leaking their first threat and drawing out of a land pocket before they find a second one. The deck plays removal and snapcaster.
What about on the draw? Welp, on the draw, I am usually boarding out some number of mana leaks, as so I didn't really consider that this is something people would be arguing or even considering. The same rules generally apply, but the thing is you are always behind one land on the draw, and counting a ponder on turn 3, leaves them 2 land to leave up and still prevent your turn 3 play. This is why mana leak sucks on the draw, and less (if any) copies are needed.
What am I missing here? Is there a rule that says you may only counter Ponder if you are certain they don't have lands, or you're certain they're digging for answers? (Perhaps, via Gitaxian Probe?) Can anyone, within the framework of how these Standard matchups play out explain to me why it's wrong to choose this plan? In my opinion, saving the mana leak means you lost your turn, and they didn't. You chose not to do anything on your turn, and they got to ponder.
This is what I was thinking when I saw the debate about this. A lot of U/W players are using ponder to dig/fix a hand. Disrupting their early play seems good. And late game you obviously save your leak... I thought that was pretty standard (heh get it, I said standard...)
ReplyDeleteI thought that too, but when people started telling me i was insane for even mentioning it, i felt obligated to put forth my case. :)
DeleteBecause you still leave control of the game to something that isn't you; countering the Ponder still leaves him drawing the cards as he normally would. You don't actually change anything about the result and simply trade a more expensive Leak for a cheaper Ponder (which he will Snapcast if he needs anyways). Whereas if you actually counter real cards your opponent loses the use of those real cards in the actual game. You're spending a Mana Leak to make the game "just fair"; good players don't do that, they spend their Mana Leaks to make the game "unfair" and to deny you the right to play Magic. You keep talking like these games are over in 5 turns and that there's no valid reason to have a Leak in your hand on turn 6 with either of these decks. That's incorrect.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who plays a LOT of Delver I can assure you that I will dance a little jig every time you counter my Ponder with something as powerful as a Mana Leak. No offense but this is actually fairly obvious to most people who play tempo or control decks that feature Mana Leak and that's why I called your suggestion/advice "insane".
In that case, I hope that we play so I can see you dance said jig. If you're gripping your leak, just because you may need it 4 turns later, something is wrong. You'll have your own ponders and snapcasters to deal with things later. It's not just keeping them from being fair, and it isn't just leaving them "drawing the cards as he normally would". Even if they leave the order exactly the same, they have dug one card further into their deck, giving them more action on each turn than they previously had. When you're currently ahead, keeping them off action (and cards in hand) is extremely valuable. I think you're being extremely closed minded, but also you completely straw-manned my argument. I never said that "There's no valid reason to have a leak on turn 6". Leak is significantly weaker on turn 6, but still relevant, especially at countering an Angel, or for a Leak-Snap-Leak situation. But again, that's why we play 4 leaks and 4 snapcasters. I think you need to actually play with a deck revealed and see how it changes when a ponder is countered, it's pretty significant. Further, even using your argument that "They get those cards anyway" they lose the opportunity to shuffle if that would be the correct choice, which is pretty backbreaking if they were to see even 2 blanks out of 3 options. As you said, they can snapcaster their ponder later, but then they aren't snapcastering a leak, snag or gut shot. Pretty relevant, too. You aren't "Leaving control of the game to something that isn't you" you're taking control away from your opponent from setting up their turn. I still don't see how any of this applies to the way these matchups play out in the early turns. You're suggesting my opponent should have free reign to sculpt their hand as they please, because that single mana leak will deal with whatever threat they play next? Not true. They may ponder into threat + leak backup, they may play around your leak later, they may bait the leak with a geist when they have another one. None of these are actively good for you, and typically cost you a card. When they can pay for leak to force through a threat, you lose a card. When they bait a leak with a geist, only to slam another the next turn, they gained a card, because the 2nd geist isn't action unless the first one eats a counter. Getting your guaranteed one-for-one once you're ahead is usually pretty strong in these mirrors. I think you should seriously reconsider your stance.
DeleteCould be backbreaking, MIGHT stop them from drawing what they need.....I've save my Leaks for plays that *are* backbreaking and actually stop real cards.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, you're just wrong and it's not much fun for me to debate it. I enjoy your blog but this is basically some of the worst advice I've ever heard in Magic.
Well, I didnt ask for a debate, but you chose to participate. I put forth reasonable rebuttal to your points and you focus on my word choice. Putting "just" before "wrong" isnt really support of your point, or helpful commentary(as I previously stated on twitter before you decided to repeat it here), its just negative and insulting. Has no reason to even be said. So if you dont want to debate it, fine, but just shouting "no, youre just wrong, im not listenening, nannynannybooboo" is a bit absurd and isnt welcome on my blog. Thanks.
DeleteLol, "I'll". Nice edit button :)
ReplyDelete