fbpx

Careful Consideration – Not Taking the Bait

Hello. I’m very excited to be writing my first article on channelfireball.com!

Okay, so this isn’t my first, but it feels that way. For those who aren’t familiar with me and/or started reading channelfireball.com in the last six months or so, I was a weekly writer from the site’s inception until around March of this year, and I’ve been editor of the site (along with LSV) since November of last year. My quick resume is PTQ grinder, recently played in PT Amsterdam, didn’t make Day 2, learned infinite from the people I prepared with, discovered that I love Magic, and may love the people involved with Magic even more.

My writing petered out a bit when the Standard season started this spring, and I just didn’t feel like I had a good enough theoretical understanding of the format to write anything meaningful about it. My understanding of how to construct the best Jund deck for a given tournament eluded me, I wasn’t sure what the plan was against Mythic, and everything seemed really swingy. The subsequent M11 Limited format wasn’t particularly nuanced, but I’ll share my M11 insights with you anyway:

1. Crystal Ball was the most overrated card in M11 draft.
2. Necrotic Plague was criminally underrated in M11 draft. Even in the last week before Scars of Mirrodin came out on Magic Online, I was seeing 5th pick Necrotic Plagues in 8-4 draft queues. Come on, folks. When during the draft videos LSV or Conley say things like, “why is this card still in the pack, it’s basically Wrath of God,” they’re not exaggerating. It’s as if people have protection from words.

Oh, you wanted something for a format that’s not dead? Fine. You’re so high-maintenance. I’m not even going to share my Lorwyn set review with you now.

But since you presumably came here for (applicable, useful) Magic content, here’s a situation that comes up with some frequency in a format that’s a little more current:

It’s Scars of Mirrodin draft and you’re on the play. It’s game one, round one, and you mulliganed to six, then played Swamp, Plains, Gold Myr. Your opponent kept his seven card hand.

Your opponent plays Swamp, Fume Spitter on turn one. On turn two, he plays a Mountain, then attacks with Fume Spitter.

Your hand is:

 

Assume that you are running 17 lands in your deck and you know nothing about your opponent (he’s just some random name on Magic Online). What do you do here?

You have two five-drops and two four-drops in your hand, but no fourth mana source. If you miss your next land drop, you’re in trouble, since your hand is pretty clogged with things that cost four or more.

You’re in a bad situation anyway, since he has a Fume Spitter on the board and it’s likely going to kill your [card]Gold Myr[/card], choking you on mana even further. But your opponent doesn’t know you don’t have a land in hand. Maybe you let it through, go to 19, and hope that he passes the turn without killing the Myr. Your opponent not killing the Myr (even if the opponent thinks you do have a land in hand) is almost certainly a mistake, but people make mistakes all the time.

So this line of play has you sacrificing one point of life, but puts you in a situation where if you draw a land, your hand is turned on and you’ll be in substantially better shape. You’re already in a bad spot anyway and you need something to happen in order to catch up, so it’s worth risking the one point of life, because if you give your opponent a chance to make a mistake, you give yourself a chance to substantially improve your chances of winning.

The problem is that he’s never going let the Myr live. You’re giving away that point of life for no gain virtually every single time they attack Fume Spitter into Myr.

(I’ve got a sick read.)

How can I be so sure?

Let’s look at a different example where they opponent is much more likely to make a mistake:

A contrasting scenario

You have a Necropede in play and no other creatures. Necropede is in your deck as a defensive guy, since your deck is slow but has a powerful late game. Your deck is also not poison-based, and you have no proliferate cards in your deck (like Contagion Clasp), so giving them an early poison counter and proliferating for the win is not going to happen, either. You’re never going to poison anyone to death, since Necropede is the only infect creature in your deck. It’s game three, and your opponent should know you’re not poisoning anyone. Your opponent has a Myrsmith out. In your hand is a Dispense Justice.

Attacking here and passing is a play you could consider; if he blocks with Myrsmith, you get to kill it, which is good for you. He’s probably not going to block, since that block is pretty awful for him. If you leave Necropede back to block, then Myrsmith is definitely not going to attack into your Necropede.

But if you remove Necropede as a potential blocker, if he then attacks with the Myrsmith, (hopefully before playing any artifact spells to trigger the Myrsmith), then you can dispense some sweet delicious justice and get the Myrsmith off the table, which is what you want.

A better player might read you as having the Dispense Justice (Why else would you attack with the Necropede and then pass with three mana up? He knows you’re not poisoning him.) and might pass the turn without attacking back. But if you think you can’t beat an active Myrsmith, then attacking with Necropede to bait the counterattack with Myrsmith is a reasonable line of play. There’s a decent chance he makes the mistake and does exactly what you want him to do, increasing your chances of winning.

So in the second scenario, you can reasonably expect an unknown opponent to make a mistake some of the time. Why is that not the case in the first?

(Note that there are other lines of play you might want to take in order to disguise the Dispense Justice, but the point of this second scenario isn’t to be exhausive; it’s merely here to serve as a contrasting scenario to illustrate when it is correct to bait a mistake out versus when it’s not correct to bait.)

Revisiting the scenarios from their perspective

There are several differences between the two situations. Let’s start with the Necropede into Dispense Justice one, then think about what the opponent might be thinking.

One possibility is that they aren’t. They aren’t thinking about what you could have, or why you’re passing with three mana up. This is a pretty common mistake, especially when the format’s new. At a prerelease, you can pretty much bank on people not knowing what to play around, and that’s understandable. (I remember at the Zendikar prerelease I played two guys thinking, “if there’s an Infest/Pyroclasm effect, I’m fine – if everything dies, I can still recover based on what’s in my hand. Then he played a kicked Marsh Casualties. Wait. That’s a card?! I did not win that game.)

Another possibility is that they don’t care if you Dispense Justice their Myrsmith for whatever reason. They have (correctly or incorrectly, likely incorrectly) decided that they are essentially willing to trade their Myrsmith for your Dispense Justice. Maybe they have a Molten-Tail Masticore in their hand and they know that since the game’s going to go long, they want to be able to beat down with Masticore without it getting Justiced. It’s probably still wrong to attack with Myrsmith there, since they can just sit back and get more value by generating 1/1s that will also help get to the long game. Attacking with a 1/1 and a Masticore (or two creatures and a Masticore if you have metalcraft active) later in the game is also a potential way to play around Dispense Justice if that’s really what they’re worried about.

There are lots of lines of play for our opponent that we can construct here that are likely suboptimal and it’s not particularly important to go into them with any real degree of depth. Rather, we just need to note that each of these lines makes at least some sort of logical sense for taking that line of play, even if that logic isn’t totally correct.

Now let’s look at what they are likely thinking when they attack their Fume Spitter into your mana Myr:

If they don’t want the Fume Spitter to die, it means they don’t want to make the trade. If, for example, they are holding Spitter back to kill a future Myrsmith or Embersmith or a similarly threatening x/1 creature, then they want to hold the Fume Spitter for future turns.

If they want the Fume Spitter to be around for future turns, then there’s no reason why they would attack. If they are attacking, it’s essentially saying, “I am willing to trade my creature for yours.” But even if you don’t block, they still have the option of making that trade postcombat. But that option was already taken when they decided to attack in the first place. When they make the active choice to turn the Fume Spitter sideways, they’re saying, “my guy is trading for yours no matter what you do.” In addition, if they attack and you don’t block, you cannot telegraph to them any clearer that you want your Myr to live, which gives them even more incentive to kill the mana producer.

However, people make dumb mistakes all the time. They miss onboard kills, or click through their attack steps, or forget to play a land. Their brain short-circuits. But the difference is that when someone forgets to play a land, they just forgot to do something. They didn’t see the on-board kill because they forgot to check life totals, or the board was too complicated. Almost all of the “short-circuit” mistakes are when someone fails to take an action. But when they attack Fume Spitter into a mana Myr, they’ve made a conscious decision to do something. Don’t underestimate the importance of them making the active decision to turn their creature sideways versus the passive decision of not attacking for the win (or not playing a land, or so on).

Board complexity is also not a factor here. The board is very simple. They have a 1/1 and you have a 1/1, and you are also tapped out. There isn’t a lot to clutter up their decision-making, or complex combat math, or them playing around a pump spell, or anything like that.

When people take actions, they have a reason for doing so. Even if that reason isn’t 100% correct, very few people just take random actions for no reasoning behind them. Here, even the most rudimentary line of reasoning results in the Fume Spitter trading with the Myr. If they don’t want the trade, they won’t attack – even if it’s correct to make the trade (maybe they undervalue mana Myr; the value of the Myr is actually irrelevant. If the creature was a Sylvan Ranger or a Memnite, the decision-making on their part is the same. A very similar thought process occurred when Mogg Fanatic and Llanowar Elves were in the same Standard/Limited format semi-recently).

The only time they would attack with Fume Spitter and they do not want to trade, but make the attack anyway, is if they have a pump spell in hand, but that situation is quite rare and you would have to be really darn sure that that’s what’s going on – that’s a very complex and specific read, and falls more in the category of “soul-reading mumbo-jumbo” than anything else. Because in order for you not to block the Spitter and have it be correct, you have to put them on:

1 – Having a pump spell in hand,
2 – Being willing to trade a pump spell for your Myr,
3 – Them coming to the conclusion that they want to save their Fume Spitter for something else later in the game.

Good luck deducing all of that with any degree of certainty on turn two.

There is another situation where they would make the attack but don’t want to trade, and that’s the bottom category of extremely unskilled players. If someone presents you a 58 card deck in a Limited format, they probably are very new to Magic and are still working out the mechanics of combat. In that situation, you might get enough value out of not blocking. But we’re talking about the very very very bottom of the player pool, skillwise. However, against an unknown opponent, I’m going to assume some base level of competence, and I don’t see any reason why they would ever make that attack unless the Myr was going to die anyway.

The bottom line is that when you don’t block with the Myr, all you’re really doing is starting the game at 19. You’re actually giving away a point of life for no reason. It’s tempting to look at your hand of four- and five-drops and think, “but if he doesn’t sacrifice the Spitter, I have a chance of getting back in to this game!” The number of games you lose by giving away a free point of damage is going to far outweigh the number of games you win because you get to untap with your Myr in play, because they are going to kill your Myr in an overwhelming majority of the games. In addition, your hand is slow, so that extra point of life is even more important because you’re likely to take more damage early on in the game.

Baiting your opponent into making mistakes is a part of the game, and nobody plays perfectly, so your opponent is going to make mistakes. Even LSV made mistakes when he was 16-0ing the Swiss at a Pro Tour. So doing things that put them in a position to give you an edge is usually good.

However, you also have to think about what they are thinking. If it doesn’t make any logical sense for someone to do something, they probably aren’t going to do it. Imperfect decisions are the result of imperfect logic. They are almost never the result of no logic. Relying on the kind of “loose wiring” mistakes to steal games is so far-fetched that while it might happen once in a blue moon, giving up resources (like a point of life, especially when you have such a slow hand) in the hopes that you win the lottery is going to lose you more games than it wins.

Yours snap-blockingly,
-Zaiem
zaiemb at gmail dot com
zbeg on Twitter

31 thoughts on “Careful Consideration – Not Taking the Bait”

  1. If they attack with Masticore + 2 myr tokens later in the game it still doesn’t play around dispense justice. They can just block the tokens and at the end of combat cast dispense justice when masticore is your only ‘attacking’ creature left.

  2. Dave: you’re right. It’s been corrected.

    Emerald: While that is true, the point is that they could be engaging in some sort of faulty logic by attacking into a known (or suspected) Dispense Justice. If they thought the situation through, they might realize that this attack isn’t necessarily even going to play around a metalcrafted Justice (although your situation is not a given either, since they could have a removal spell to get rid of a blocker and attack with a fourth creature, or what have you). The point is that people have logic for doing most things, even if the logic isn’t correct. This is an example of faulty logic. It’s not meant to be a “correct” play, because clearly it’s not.

  3. I haven’t been following CFB for that long, but if this is a normal caliber article for you, how about you replace Matt Nass in the weekly line-up? This was a great article.

  4. I guess if you really really want that myrsmith dead, you could dispense justice yourself when your necropede swings in? I get that this isn’t the point though.

  5. I’m going to have to disagree with your assessment of blocking with the myr. You are going to lose an overwhelming % of games with that hand if the myr dies. However, a less than pro opponent could easily be thinking ” there is no way he blocks with his myr so I will sneak in a point here” and maintain his creature for future equipments or smiths. I mean obviously your myr dies alot here, but I don’t think it is nearly as automatic as you make it to be.

  6. I agree with Matt. I make attacks all the time where I’d generally prefer they didn’t block, but know my opponent isn’t going to. In the case with the Fume Spitter, it’s almost always right to blow up the Myr post combat, but not always. If I’m the guy with the Fume Spitter and actually want to save it (maybe i have a cerebral eruption in hand and want to save the fume spitter to get maximum value out of it, for example), I’m probably going to still attack there, because it’s rare that your opponent blocks, and if they do block it tells you something about their hand anyway (that they don’t value the Myr particularly highly).

  7. Harrison: Funny enough, Matt Nass was one of the first people I thought of when I wrote this article. I sent it to him for his approval, because I wanted to make sure that my logic/thinking was sound, and I respect his opinion a lot, and he helped identify a few things that could make the article better. I like the way he thinks about the game, and I do learn a fair bit from his writing. Your mileage may vary.

    Also, let’s be fair. This is only my fourth article since March 18th, and when you write that infrequently, your quality is going to be much higher. If I could write like this every week, I would…well, I’d write every week.

    SpoonSpoonSpoon, others: The fact that you can Dispense Justice on the Necropede is indeed missing the point (in addition to being overall a pretty poor play). It was merely to manufacture a situation where you make a seemingly suboptimal play to bait an opponent into making a mistake. That’s all that’s there for. I wouldn’t read too much into the specifics or the exact lines of play for that situation. That said, I don’t like Dispense Justicing my own Necropede if I think my opponent will make a mistake. If I do that, I’m down a Necropede and a Dispense Justice. If I do it the other way, I spend a Dispense Justice and I still have my Necropede on the table, which is obviously much better. Two-for-oneing yourself is not really a way to solve the problem if you can bait them into making the mistake that results in you not two-for-oneing yourself.

    (And let’s say I’m playing against PV and I don’t think he’s going to make that mistake. Giving your opponent a free two-for-one is pretty brutal, especially against a good player where you can afford even less to be down a card unnecessarily. Myrsmith is good, but I don’t think it’s THAT good that you have to start throwing away cards to get it off the table, but I might be incorrect in that evaluation.)

    Matt: Noted. I could rebut your point, but really my rebuttal would just be a repeat of what I said in the article, and I’m not sure how to state my case much further than how I stated it. “There’s no way he blocks with his Myr here” is reasoning that’s way below the threshold of non-pro in my opinion. But that’s all stated above, I suppose.

    Goat: If you’re attacking with a creature that you don’t want to trade for their Myr, you shouldn’t be attacking. If it is correct to hold the Fume Spitter for an Embersmith (or whatever), then don’t attack! Either it’s correct to run your guy into the possibility of the trade, in which case the Fume Spitter’s best job is to eat the Myr that turn, or it’s correct to hold it back for a future threat. If you want to hold it back but run it into the opposing 1/1 anyway you’re saying, “I know this isn’t the right play but I’m doing it anyway.”

    If you’re concerned about how highly they value the Myr when making the decision whether or not to trade, then what does it say to you when they don’t block with the Myr? So given that, aren’t you going to kill it anyway? And if you still think it’s not right to kill the Myr, then what are you learning, exactly?

    And even if they don’t value the Myr on the board based on what’s in their hand, you have no way of knowing that until you attack into their Myr and they offer the trade. You don’t have that information available to you when you decide to attack. So it’s not like your gaining any strategic advantage by knowing that they don’t value the Myr, and even that’s not necessarily true. If your opponent thinks at all about what you’re likely thinking when you make that attack, they’re going to block no matter how highly they value that Myr because it’s not worth throwing away a point of life for the hail mary chance that the Myr lives.

  8. Ill explain why you never attack with the fume spitter in that situation, ever. Assuming your opponent is decent, they MUST block, even if that myr is the only possible chance they have to win the game(well maybe not then but w/e). The reason is because you have the ability to trade your fume spitter for their myr any time you could possibly want to, so if you attack and offer them the chance to trade to prevent 1 damage, they must do it since if you really want to kill the myr you can post combat anyways. If you actually need fume spitter alive you cant attack in that situation because your opponent doesnt actually have the choice to block or not block, the fume spitter might as well have lure.

  9. I posted before actually reading the article… anyways the same thing applies, you must block with your myr because your opponent has the option to trade anytime they choose to.

  10. “If you’re attacking with a creature that you don’t want to trade for their Myr, you shouldn’t be attacking.”

    I don’t agree with this either, but Matt and Goat have already made the point I would make. Depending how well you know your opponent’s skill level, it is possible that you should be attacking, because of the damage.

    Being a bit more technical, suppose you knew, 100%, that your opponent wouldn’t block. Then clearly the correct decision is to attack, regardless of whether you want the trade or not. This is still true at 99%, and 98%, and…etc. The only question is what level of certainty you need. Personally, if I was 80% sure or more my opponent wouldn’t block, and I didn’t want the trade, I would attack there. The extra point of damage will win more games than the games I lose if they trade, imo.

    Now in this particular situation, I think the chance is much lower than that against a generic opponent, probably below 50%, so I wouldn’t attack if I wanted to hold onto the fume spitter.
    But it is worth making it clear that your article doesn’t apply in general terms, it applies here because of the high value of gold myr in scars limited. You seem to be arguing in general terms.

    Magic is a game of imperfect information and imperfect play, and to say ‘well you should only attack if you’re happy to trade, because it gives your opponent to option to trade’ is over-simplifying too far in my view. Especially in standard, I get situations where I attack into ‘unfavourable’ trades (from my point of view) all the time, because I know they’ll look favourable to me from my opponent’s POV. Having vengevines in play and 4 lands in hand against some 3/x creatures, for just one example. Bad to attack from my point of view, but my opponent isn’t going to want to block and will assume (correctly, based on the probabilities) that I can revive the vengevines.

  11. Great article! I love the mental aspects of the game and it’s good to have someone go into depth on specific situations.

  12. I’ve seen myrsmith take over enough games unchecked that I probably make the dispense my own necropede play. Depends on the opponent’s deck ofc, so if it really is a game 3 situation I probably have enough info to make the right call. But it definitely is an option. A 1/1 in this format may not be worth a card, but a 1/1 artifact definitely can be (memnite being the case in point). If you have the read that they are a bit artifact light but also heavily reliant on metalcraft (not at all uncommon in draft), then dispensing is probably right.

    Also WB Zaiem.

  13. when they attack, they are not saying “we are trading no matter what”. the attacker could be thinking “either we will trade, or i will deal you a damage every single turn”. (not likely, but not impossible).

    risking one life point for the benefit or saving your myr is a windmill slam easy choice in that situation.

  14. I assume you were talking to Jon about this? Brian and I decided that taking the damage was correct because the chance of one life being relevant was lower than the chance that they’d misclick and kill their own Fume Spitter. At least until release events are over.

  15. I liked this article – it made me think of some things I hadn’t before.

    With this attack, there are two situations I don’t block, and they are the two Zaiem described in the article – either I think they are bad, or I am playing around something, Tel Jilad’s Defiance being by far the most likelly card in this same scenario.

    If I have the Fume Spitter and I don’t want to trade for some reason, I will NEVER attack. I’m pretty sure over 90% of the people would block in there. Even if my opponent is horrible, there is still a say 50% chance he blocks, assuming he just guesses every single play, and the upside of him taking one is not worth the downside of him trading when I don’t want it to happen.

  16. @david others re: dispense justice – I thought about this some more, and I guess the answer to “would I dispense justice my necropede” is “depends, but I’d have to think about it.” In some decks Myrsmith is meh, in some decks it’s insane. By game three I should have a pretty good idea. I still might not if I think I can get away with gettimg them to make a mistake and bait them into walking into my Justice. I don’t know if that’s too greedy or not. Depends on the opponent. I’d absolutely run that play at FNM, and probably against a lot of PTQ opponents as well. And if they don’t attack, I can run the Necropede self-kill the next turn, although the tempo loss sucks.

    @Max – Yeah, Jon and I argued about it for way too long the other night, but then he moved to Canada in shame a few days later, so it’s pretty clear who won THAT argument. Brian’s the one who helped me fully come around on this – I still liked blocking but when it first came up I couldn’t put it into words why.

    Thanks for the nice comments, everyone. 🙂

  17. Zaiem,

    It’s always good to see you writing. I think the community as a whole would play much better Magic if we really took the time to think through more hypothetical (and common) scenarios.

  18. Pingback: MTGBattlefield

  19. Great article, and the forums are filled with informative, mostly polite discourse. So much win!

  20. the problem with your myr example is that the game is basically over if the opponent has any kind of real draw. thus, it is laughably irrelevant to start at 19. i wouldn’t even block if it meant GAINING one life.

    if you had presented a faster hand that still wanted the myr alive, then your (correct) logic would begin to apply.

  21. Excellent article, and great discussion.

    @Zaiem: I disagree with your assessment that the “dispense yourself to kill myrsmith” play is a poor option. Since the card is essentially a bomb, and likely to generate recurring card advantage + VCA by activating metalcraft or providing artifacts to sacrifice, a straight two-for-one of a mediocre removal spell and a 1/1 defensive guy seems infinitely preferable. Taking the two-for-one prevents far more value down the line, and a potential massive tempo jump for your opponent. Since you have a late-game power deck, you really don’t want them getting that jump.

  22. I think you forgot a scenario in the Fume Spitter/Myr situation. You only went through actual outcomes with perfect or near perfect information. A pump spell is technically not perfect info, but if your willing to trade Untamed Might for a Myr you prob will trade Fume Spitter first. If they have a Tel Jilad’s Definace, then congrats, but thats the only card thats a blowout there.

    Let us assume now though, that Magic players are Magic players. I sometimes attack with my 2/2 into a 3/3 without a pump spell because I dont think the opponent will even risk the block. That situation now becomes even more likely when I have a 2/2 attacking into a 2/2. Even if I want my Fume Spitter to live more than not, as I am playing an aggro deck where damage matters, I might make the attack just because I don’t anticipate my opponent blocking. This does not mean I want his Myr dead and will automatically use my guy. But it does lead to two situations that I am at least similarly OK with. In one situation, I got in damage and in the other, his Myr died.

    When my opponent blocks my 2/2 with his 3/3 I actually lose value when goign for the bluff, but in this bluff, I make a fine trade and can’t see being upset at the situation, even if I would have rather gotten in another damage or two.

    To summarize an attack by the Fume Spitter as “They want to kill your Myr. Period” is too much of an absolute look into the situation to me. Are they likely to want to kill it? Sure, but certainly it isnt a given.

  23. My only experience with this situation is that I attacked with my Fume Spitter and my opponent didn’t block. I dealt my one damage, then sacrificed to kill his Myr. Yay, free damage. If my opponent thinks he doesn’t want to trade, then I think I do.

  24. I’d take the 1 and mise their stupidity. If i’m up S-creak without a paddle may as well go the way I want to. If they’re a known skill-miser themselves then block.

  25. In a game where I have zero read on my opponent, I don’t like attacking into their Myr if I’m wanting to save the Fume Spitter for later. But if it’s game two or three, or I watched them playing someone else, or I chatted with them enough to make a decent guess what type of player they are…

    There’s a lot of casual players at FNM type settings who are very focused on themself and their own plans & what’s to their benefit. If you both have a 1/1 or a 2/2 with an extra ability, their thinking usually just goes as far as “I don’t want to lose this ability I want to use more later”. That’s it. Not “him losing his special ability guy is good for me” or “which creature/ability is currently of more value” and certainly not “what would he be thinking that would motivate him to make such an attack”. Their decision is based almost entirely on “I want to keep my guy alive”.

    When I’m up against a player like that, if I think racing is right for me I’ll attack in with a guy I don’t want to lose, knowing they’re very unlikely to block. If I think racing is bad, I’ll hold back knowing they’ll almost never attack with THEIR guy into an equal-sized blocker. If I have another blocker out or are about to drop one, I swing in anyway. And if they swing in, I’ll read them as very likely to have pump.

    Yes, this type of player is “bad”. But you run into this mindset fairly often in casual settings, and it’s can gain you some percentage if you play a little differently against them, sometimes. If you don’t, you’re leaving free damage opportunities on the table.

  26. You guys are too absolute in your analysis.

    The defender with the myr may want to keep his myr because he has a cool 4 and 5 drop, but he also has the mana and another myr that losing the first is not that big of a deal.

    In that case, he’d want to not block so he can cast a 4 drop, at the same time he may want your fume to die because a x/1 may be on top of his deck.

    All this analysis may be in vein though, because I think there is a clear line of play here. If the opponent has a couple of good x/1’s and you are short on creature kill, you hold back. Otherwise you attack and you sac your guy. (After combat if no block, before combat if block.)

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top