did row 17

I started looking at 18, and realized I might have done the math wrong when I filled out my row.

If 18 spends their first turn killing my token, they have enough life to tick Ajani up to ultimate, get rid of the mountain, and then slowly killing me. At first I assumed that Ajani would just use the -2 as often as possible, in which case I would have won. But it seems I was wrong...

2v12: Razors note seems to be talking about 2v15. It looks like its scored right. If 12 leads with V and +1's, Specter makes 12 discard but dies to Vindicate and Vraska can kill Shriek (in many ways). If 2 leads, counter counter Vindicate ends the game.Wiat...nvm, same ending but, 2 leads, counter counter, discard Vindicate. Play Vraska, +1. If Specter attacks Vraska it dies and leaves V with enough counters to take out Maw. If not, V +1's again for 2 turns (leaving it at 9 and able to kill Maw and Specter without risk). If Maw ever attacks V, then it's a free -3 for V and Specter can't finish the job. 2 can do a max of 12 damage to 12 (t1 Specter attack, t2, Specter attack, t3 Specter and Maw attack, t4 Maw attack) leaving it welll within win range.

3v13: Should be 6-0 in favor of 3 I think...

Spoiler

3t1: Upkeep trigger Mardu Bringer, play Elixir (If 3 Mardu's anything else, Bringer...Brings...them back and 3 loses (maybe))
13t1: Play Leveler, 3 crack Elixir (3:25, 13:20)
3t2: Draw Elixir, Bant (1st mode) Leveler
13t2: Play Ether
3t3: Draw Mardu, play Mardu to Ether. Then the cycle for win.

If 3 plays Ether first, then you still Bant it (Mode 1), then you simply crack elixir before you cast Mardu, cast Mardu for tokens, then you have two blocks which get Bant back before Leveler can even punch through.

on the Draw it's the same, on the upkeep trigger 3 Mardu's the Bringer. Then 13 can either play Leveler or Ether. If 13 plays Ether, you Bant (Mode 1), then play Elixir. 13 plays Leveler. 3 cracks Elixir, 13 deals 10 (3:15), 3 draws Elixir plays it and cracks it (3:20), 13 attacks (3:10), Draws Mardu, makes tokens, plays Elixir...then 13 loses because 3 draws Bant killing it's last threat.

Just re-read Mardu...didn't realize it didn't hit creatures.

3vs14: I don't think its really contested, 14 on the play leads with Confessor and takes Mardu. Life doesn't matter anymore Helix wins. 3-3 because 14 on the draw:

5v13...ugh, this may take a while...

I just realized I can add sheets to the Official Spreadsheet...I suggest we add a "Match Comparison" Sheet in which you can do a staggered play-by-play to show how a match may end up...would this disrupt anything or be useful?

i think it would help visualize the process a bit and aid in identifying branch points. (Also, since I'm new to this, if anyone has a system that works...hook me up!)

Gah! This pops up after I deleted all my notes on the match-up!

You: Emrakul!
You: Smoosh Face!
Me: Necrotic Sliver
You: Beginning of Combat, blow up Emmy, take 2
Me: Meddling Mage, return Sliver
You: Swing for 2
Me: Sliver, Vindicate those Salvagers. Win!

Doesn't emrakul, the aeons torn have protection from necrotic sliver? Or is just protection from spells and not permanants?

Edit: Ah yes. "Emrakul may be affected by colored spells that don't target it or deal damage to it, including those that cause it to become blocked. Abilities of colored permanents (such as Journey to Nowhere) may target it. Auras may be moved onto it by abilities or by colored spells that don't target it (such as Aura Graft)."

It doesn't.

But auriok salvagers swings with Emmy on Emmys bonus turn.

So turn 1.5 you take 17.
Turn 2 you pop sliver but still take 2 from salvagers and are now at 1. You cast meddling Mage next, but salvagers will be swinging against Mage for lethal if you don't block. And after you block with Mage, salvger lotus loop recasts emrakul.

Yeah...that colored spells thing gets me a lot too. Not at all the same thing as Prot Everything

This is why we are supposed to cast progenitus people.

Sooo.... how close are the scores to being finalized?

Okay, I'm going through some disputed scores on the WUBRG spreadsheet.

Changing 10v20 to 0-6. 10 can't play a titan before 20 plays Emrakul, so 20 just hits with Auriok Salvagers until it wins.
Changing 4v20 to 3-3. When 20 goes first, it plays out everything and hits for 17 during the extra turn. 4 basically has no way to prevent two more hits from Auriok Salvagers while also using preventing Emrakul from coming back.

The rest either seem fine as they are or are so complicated that I'm leaving them as-is unless someone who wants them changed goes through the effort themself. (If we're using "they" as a singular pronoun, "themself" becomes a word, right? Sure.)

I'm tempted to just fill in Moroii's 20 and 21 rows based on the 20 and 21 columns, but I'm too paranoid about errors, so I'll go through and check them sometime soon.

Okay, here are my notes so far for Moroii:

Everything in column 21 should be a 6. 21 can't race itself if it doesn't make Spirit tokens on its own turn, but it can't do that and threaten Arcane Denial. Even when it is tapping on its own turn, it only wins by 1 life, so basically any attempt to cause life loss will beat it.
Changed 5v6 to 3-3. See Hello World's note.
Changed 3v17 to 0-6. See razor's note.
Not sure about 7v17. It's marked as 0-0. It should be either 2-2, 4-1, or 6-0, depending on whether or not Varchild's Raiders can race Mayor of Avabruck. I'm worried that blocking options make this tree way too complicated. If we can't figure it out, I'll mark it 2-2.

I don't have time to finish going through these right now, but I think several Hunted Phantasm vs. Gibbering Descent decks are scored incorrectly. I don't see how Hunted Phantasm can ever race Gibbering Descent, even on the play.

I did the math, if Raiders stays back and blocks any incoming 3/3s it wins.

I was like 100% sure Anurid Scavenger was a 3/4.
huh

So yeah, every Hunted Phantasm deck should be 0-6 against every Gibbering Descent deck. Here's the rundown when Phantasm goes first:


This matters for the following nine match-ups: 5, 9, & 10 vs. 13, 16, & 19
Some of these matches were already marked 0-6, but some weren't.

I marked my 19 as 3-3 vs 5, because my deck does something your line doesn't account for - gives my opponent at least one creature, be it to block with or attack with. This gives a lot of decision points (whether to attack with the Spirit or leave it at home to block; if it attacks whether I block it; if and when I give another spirit; whether I attack into untapped Phantasm on my T1...)

I had a playdown earlier though I see now I botched it (I allowed for Maze play but didn't count it in Moroii damage).
The best I got is:

If I don't attack into phantasm and don't block my spirit:
5: Lotus->Phantasm. 20-20
19: Lose 5, play out entire hand, give away a spirit. 20-15
5: Discard Maze, lose 3, swing for 5 including spirit, no blocks. 17-10
19: Skip upkeep. Swing with 5. 12-10
5: Lose 3, swing for 5. 9-5
19: Skip upkeep. Swing for 5. Gift another Spirit. 4-5
5: Lose 4, die on the turn would have swung for win.

If opponent keeps Spirit back to block one goblin:
5: Lotus->Phantasm. 20-20
19: Lose 5, play out entire hand, give away a spirit. 20-15
5: Discard Maze, lose 3, swing for 4 and leave spirit at home, no blocks. 17-11
19: Skip upkeep. Swing with 5, spirit blocks one, 4 get through. 13-10
5: Lose 2, swing for 4. 11-6
19: Skip upkeep. Swing for 4. Gift another Spirit. 7-6
5: Lose 3, swing for 5. 4-1
19: Skip upkeep. Swing for 4. 0-1


So I believe I do get the 6-0, but my Orchard play makes it awful close.

Oh, right. I had momentarily convinced myself that Gibbering Descent could be cast for 3 mana. Forbidden Orchard complicates things a bit, but it looks like you do still 6-0. Does your deck still 6-0 against Wasteland, though? It looks like losing your ability to gift a second Spirit makes you lose on the draw.

Yeah, I think I wind up exploring the "I attack into Phantasm on my T1" tree. Which I also botched earlier.


W: Lotus->Phantasm. Wasteland. 20-20
19: Lose 5, swing with 5, Phantasm blocks 1 and takes 4. Play out entire hand, give away a spirit. Wasteland wastes land. 16-15
W: Lose 3, swing for 5 including spirit, no blocks. 13-10
19: Skip upkeep. Swing with 4. 9-10
W: Lose 3, swing for 5. 6-5
19: Skip upkeep. Swing for 4. 2-5
W: Lose 3, die.

If W-deck uses spirit as blocker rather than attacker:

W: Lotus->Phantasm. Wasteland. 20-20
19: Lose 5, swing with 5, Phantasm blocks 1 and takes 4. Play out entire hand, give away a spirit. Wasteland wastes land. 16-15
W: Lose 3, swing for 4 (spirit stays home). 13-11
19: Skip upkeep. Swing with 4. Spirit blocks one. 10-11.
W: Lose 2, swing for 4. 8-7
19: Skip upkeep. Swing for 3. 5-7
W: Lose 2, swing for 4. 3-3
19: Skip upkeep. Swing for 3. 0-3

More score changes!

Changing 9v14 and 10v14 to 6-0. 14 can only use its land once before it gets hit by Wasteland, so it either suspends Greater Gargadon, eats all the Goblins, then dies to Hunted Phantasm while Gargadon is still suspended; or it exiles the Phantasm, then dies to its own Goblins.
Changing 13v16 to 1-4. When 13 goes first, 16 discards Wasteland, then plays Gibbering Descent and everyone skips their upkeeps forever. When 16 goes first, 13 needs all three cards to cast Gibbering Descent, so it gets shut out and loses.
Changing 13v17 to 0-6. 17 can discard Chancellor of the Tangle and still cast Mayor of Avabruck, which I believe still races the extra 1 life lost every turn.
Changing 13v18 to 3-3. Ajani Vengeant can't be cast on the draw, but on the play, it still (barely) races the extra life loss.
Changing 13v19 to 3-3. Whoever plays Gibbering Descent first stops the opponent from casting Gibbering Descent.
Changing 15v18 to 2-2. I trust Aaarrrgh's note.
Changing 16v18 to 3-3. This is basically the same as 13v18.
Changing 18v19 to 3-3. The spirit token makes this a bit different, but 19 is still a goldfish on the draw, and it still wins the race on the play.

And that's it! I might have made some mistakes, and there might be something not caught by the symmetry checker, so please let me know if anything doesn't make sense.
Even without 100% confidence, I'm going to "announce" the prize winners later tonight, just so people can start making decisions. Just keep in mind that the prizes might shift around a bit if someone finds something wrong in the spreadsheet after tonight.

I vote that the next format not be an advanced MIT class project.