Comments for "The Theory and Design of Magic: The Gathering" Class Page

Comment on Grand Prix Oakland Wrap-Up by Life at a Magic Tournament

Life at a Magic Tournament — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 03:12:20 +0000

[...] (Note: if you actually want a tournament report and specifics about what I played, head over to my other blog) [...]

Comment on Position space of Magic by Estimating the Number of Magic Game States by Frank Li « "The Theory and Design of Magic: The Gathering" Class Page

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:36:11 +0000

[...] In this one, Frank does what he says in the title: estimates the number of Magic game states. I talked about the position space of Magic and how big it is, but Frank actually goes about quantifying it. [...]

Comment on Position space of Magic by Excerpt from Ben’s Final Paper « "The Theory and Design of Magic: The Gathering" Class Page

Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:30:56 +0000

[...] haven’t read it. It’s a hard topic to address because I think the scope of Magic is too large to explain how information should affect your play-by-play. Instead, I think the general guidelines [...]

Comment on Week 9 podcast up by KDubz

KDubz — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:45:37 +0000

Hey you should have your podcast/post on magicthegatheringcards.ning.com would be a great way to get more subscribers. Its like facebook but specifically for MTG!

Comment on Symbolic AI and Knowledge Representation by The Icarus Cognitive Architecture « "The Theory and Design of Magic: The Gathering" Class Page

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 04:48:43 +0000

[...] "The Theory and Design of Magic: The Gathering" Class Page All about teaching a class on Magic « Symbolic AI and Knowledge Representation [...]

Comment on Two Kinds of AI (extended) by Symbolic AI and Knowledge Representation « "The Theory and Design of Magic: The Gathering" Class Page

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 01:43:44 +0000

[...] mentioned in a previous post that I’ve spent some time working with a cognitive architecture, and it seemed like a good [...]

Comment on You Make the Play: bolt edition by Reyemile

Reyemile — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 03:22:35 +0000

Salivanth, you’ve thought out all the scenarios well–however, where are you getting the %100 chance of victory from?

Kevin: Fundamentally, the problem is that you’re trying to simplify a complex game. MtG has too many variables to summarize a game as a “50% chance of victory”

That being said, the situation you set up was an interesting challenge. You’re clearly trying to reach beginners, and that’s great. But a better question would be, “what information do you need to make the right play here?” That question will get readers THINKING about the information holes that inevitably crop up in any hypothetical magic situation, rather than encouraging them to gloss over them.

Comment on You Make the Play: bolt edition by kevin

kevin — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:33:34 +0000

Reyemile: Yeah, it probably was poorly thought out, but perhaps even more poorly explained about what I was looking for. You were right on the money about the factors to consider here, which is what I was getting at. I think an inherent problem with using Magic examples versus classic Game Theory is that game theory can pull examples out of their butt that are perfectly contrived. I’m having a lot of difficulty coming up with contained examples in Magic, so let me know if you have any tips on how I can write these up better. Absolutely a work in progress. And I consider swinging with the knight better than harm’s way because of the lifelink, though I guess I didn’t really special case the 4 damage from both. I’ll work that situation out of the example. Thanks for being critical.

Salivanth: Yeah, absolutely agree with your analysis, except scenario 2 as described in my take 2 post. I try not to deal with life totals because I think they’re a game mechanic that is more a game mechanic that a good payoff metric, since there’s so much more to the game there. I guess you just have to trust me on those numbers?

Comment on You Make the Play: bolt edition by You Make the Play: bolt edition take 2 « "The Theory and Design of Magic: The Gathering" Class Page

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:32:08 +0000

[...] "The Theory and Design of Magic: The Gathering" Class Page All about teaching a class on Magic « You Make the Play: bolt edition [...]

Comment on You Make the Play: bolt edition by Salivanth

Salivanth — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 10:40:22 +0000

Obviously we must assume the opponent may have Lightning Bolt in hand. We don’t know the life totals, so we need to go by an abstract win percentage. Here are the scenarios:

Scenario One: Swing with the Knight alone. If he has LB, use Harm’s Way to redirect 2 damage back at him. Next turn, the opponent plays Jund Charm. 50% chance of victory.

Scenario Two: Swing with the Knight alone. If he doesn’t have LB, pass the turn. Next turn he plays Jund Charm. You redirect the damage at him with Harm’s Way. You win. 100% chance of victory.

Scenario Three: Play Honor of the Pure and swing. He has LB. You have a 33% chance of victory. Next turn you play Figure of Destiny and back it up with Harm’s Way mana.

Scenario Four: Play Honor of the Pure and swing. He doesn’t have LB. You connect. You have a 66% chance of victory.

Scenario Five: Pass the turn. Clearly suboptimal. You have a 33% chance of victory.

Scenarios One and Two rely on attacking without Honor of the Pure. You have a 50% chance to win if he has LB, and a 100% chance if he does not.

Scenarios Two and Three rely on attacking with Honor of the Pure. You have a 33% chance to win if he has LB, and a 66% chance if he does not.

Scenario Five relies on passing the turn. You have a 33% chance to win if he has LB, and a 33% chance if he does not.

Thus, it doesn’t matter if he has Lightning Bolt or not. The correct play is to attack without playing Honor of the Pure to give you the maximum chance to win.