In my previous post I gave a possible score that I might have had if presented with the same choices as Andrew in his Golfish Draft (as detailed in his posts starting here). This post follows up on some issues related to that; namely: What was I alluding to with the [mtgcard Vesuvan Doppelganger] shenanigans, and how would things have gone if I had drafted the key card in the deck (the [mtgcard Yew Spirit]) after all?
There's a further question of what would be the best options with the benefit of hindsight (or prescience, if one prefers). I certainly can't pretend to have a definitive answer to that, but I will give one possible result in the next post. As a teaser, I invite you to consider the opening play of [mtgcard Black Lotus], [mtgcard Show and Tell], [mtgcard Omniscience], [mtgcard Serra Avatar], and [mtgcard Garruk, Primal Hunter]. Sure it's a five-card combination, but it pretty much allows you to play 23 of your other 25 cards at once. That may or may not be optimal, but it's certainly a powerful way to start.
As for the other matters... not choosing the [mtgcard Yew Spirit] was an extremely poor decision on my part (one could argue that there were several others, but that was the worst of them). It was so broken if it could be made to work that it was not sensible to ignore it that second time, particularly given that I did not expect to make effective use of the [mtgcard Stream of Life] that I chose instead. Anyway, with that in hand the play would essentially go as before except for the final turn; this time [mtgcard Ajani, Caller of the Pride] would summon the lions between the two combat damage stages (if you want to be technical about it, after the first damage resolution and associated affects and before the second combat damage phase begins) and then the [mtgcard Yew Spirit] would be pumped as much as possible. I make the end result somewhere in the vicinity of 10^10^30.8, or just 30.8 in Andrew's revised scoring metric.
Now for the [mtgcard Vesuvan Doppelganger|Vesuvan Doppelgangers]: What I had been thinking earlier was that rather than having just copies of [mtgcard Roiling Horror] around, it might be feasible to use [mtgcard Trostani, Selesnya's Voice] during upkeep, then switch a [mtgcard Vesuvan Doppelganger|Doppelganger] to copying [mtgcard Trostani, Selesnya's Voice|Trostani] instead. That new copy could then also create a token creature, and so it would go; each time the life total more than doubles, at the expense of being able to attack with one less creature that turn. That turns out to be definitely worth it provided there are always at least three [mtgcard Roiling Horror]s that will attack, and there are more than that in this case.
That first plan ran into the stumbling block that [mtgcard Trostani, Selesnya's Voice|Trostani] is legendary. But even then I thought it was still worthwhile acting under the new "Legend Rule" -- we could choose to get rid of the original and so still use the new one, and the doubling machine runs happily along. The end creature count is the same so the difference is simply between front-loading the doubles or attacking with more creatures. The doubling is always better, and the limiting factor in how well this works is the availability of white mana for the token creation. It's a lovely generation engine, really, as the [mtgcard Stolen Identity] keeps us supplied with both tokens and mana (thanks to [mtgcard Gaea's Cradle]) so that we can keep pace with the other factors. In this case I think it ended up being around 30 extra doubles, which would probably push the end result over 10^10^36.
However, that new Legend Rule only comes into play starting July 13, 2013. This draft, and indeed this post, happened before then so this cannot work as envisaged. It is possible that a variation of it still can -- if two [mtgcard Vesuvan Doppelganger|Doppelgangers] both copy [mtgcard Trostani, Selesnya's Voice|Trostani] then the first to resolve will trigger the legend auto-destruct on both. What I don't know is whether the second resolution then fizzles as the creature to be copied is no longer present, or whether the creature data is "already set". I suspect that it ends up fizzling based on similar rulings, but I'm not sure. I also haven't worked out whether this is worth it; it's a process that loses creatures, unlike the other version, so I imagine it is not.
Anyway, that's what I was thinking, and come mid-July that engine will work quite nicely. But not yet.
Update: An email exchange with one of the other players in the draft drew my attention to the fact that the [mtgcard Stolen Identity] is cast when the ciphered copy's ability triggers. That means that it can interact profitably with the [mtgcard Ink-Treader Nephilim], causing exponential growth in the number of copied creatures rather than linear. We lose the initial boost from the [mtgcard Rite of Replication] (which I had chosen instead of the [mtgcard Ink-Treader Nephilim]), but it is plausible that this is quickly overcome.
... Well, not so quickly, but inevitably. The slowdown is actually the loss of [mtgcard Trostani, Selesnya's Voice|Trostani] -- since it is legendary, the first time the massive copying happens it disappears. That removes some copies, but far more importantly it also removes the life gain each time a creature appears. Still, exponential growth must win out given enough turns; in this case I make the resulting score at least 1.6*10^45, or with the [mtgcard Yew Spirit] somewhere over 10^10^40 (I've not thought about this carefully, but that feels plausible as a lower bound).
No comments:
Post a Comment