Guest Gamelog Review: FDN Limited

Recently Mike Provencher (@mtgscribe on twitter / @mtgscribe.bsky.social), who has been a great internet friend over the past year & an excellent Magic content creator in her own right, had an idea that someone should do a piece where they review other people's game logs for kind of a glimpse at how two different players might see the same game. I thought this was a great idea and asked for submissions! We'll see how it goes this time, and I'll possibly do this more if people find it compelling.

This time around I got two submissions - The first was from @tresio on twitter, a friend who I met through the Magic Numbers archetype skeletons show, who submitted 17lands logs and asked me to pick whatever games I wanted! This will be a deep dive of Tresio's games from one specific draft. The other submission I got was a video of a Sanctum teammate's Otters gameplay, so I'm going to record that separately as the constructed portion.

Tresio was also able to read this piece ahead of time and provide some comments to add context to what he was thinking at the time!

Gameplay is one of the most important parts of limited, but it's generally quite underdiscussed, because it's so hard to put universal rules to. I'm excited to have a chance to dive deep!

Before we can think about gameplay productively, it's important to know what kind of deck we're working with. Here we've got a pretty solid gruul deck splashing white for a rare anthem. It's dense at the 2-and 5-drop slots, light elsewhere, but the curve ranges from Frenzied Goblin on 1 to Drakuseth on 7 (which gives me a bit of a sense of a fractured gameplan - are we ramping or attacking? Bit of both).

We've got 4-power synergies with the beetle and Rubies, and while there's only one 4-power 4-drop to ramp to with Ruby, the Beast-Kin rangers and some of our 5s should be able to trigger those effects somewhat often. However, it's worth noting that we only have 6 creatures that are 4-power on their own, so we might need to be careful exposing them if we can afford it.

Let's get into the games! This is Best-of-One, and the first game ends up being pretty straightforward:

Game 1

https://www.17lands.com/history/c0954526b957495e9ea89a962a397850/0/0

We keep an okay, not great hand, that's definitely a keep in Limited. It's going to be a problem if we can't find red, but that's an appropriate risk to accept for a hand that otherwise looks very functional.

Unfortunately by turn 3, we haven't seen red and have only drawn more red spells, so this is going to be one of those Difficult Games*TM. Here we have the option of playing our Felling Blow or our Beetle. If we had a more functional hand I'd like developing our board before using a removal spell, but since we're setting up to have a pretty awkward draw, I think we might need to be a little more optimistic/aggressive and try not to fall too far behind, so I like casting the Hunting Blow.

What on?

Both creatures are pretty close in value in my view. One has 2 power, the other has some harder to estimate damage potential. I think the Balmor is very slightly better on the board than the 2/1, but only slightly. I think the potential mana savings our opponent could get from the 2/1 outweigh the higher combat upside of Balmor, so I'd kill the faerie.

This is, notably, a spot where judging card danger by rarity might lead you astray! Balmor is certainly a higher draft pick and a "better card" than Mocking Sprite, but in game, another factor we have to consider is mana cost. Sprite costs 3 and Balmor costs 2, but when they're both on the battlefield they cost zero, and that means Sprite is likely a bit more valuable. The default rule should always be to kill the more expensive thing, unless you have strong reason not to (which you often will!)

Tresio decides to kill the Balmor, and we end up in the following spot two turns later:

Tresio comments that he targeted the Balmor because with bite spell removal, he is often concerned with removing higher-toughness creatures.)

Dang, still no red! At least we have a card to play. But wait, our opponent left up Essence Scatter mana... should we play around it and avoid getting blown out?

I strongly think the answer is no. We need to accept that if the opponent has an Essence Scatter here, we very likely lose the game.

Given that our opponent was able to deploy a 3-drop last turn and still leave up Scatter, as well as them being down to 2 cards in hand, it's quite likely they'll be able to hold it up for the rest of the game. Beyond that, we're falling too far behind! Even if we pass the turn, let the opponent attack us down to 11 with their flyers, and they tap out for something, failing to leave up scatter, we've now lost too much tempo for casting our 5-drop to be that good anyways. Plus, if we finally find that mountain, we don't want to be stuck with yet another card in our hand waiting to be deployed, we want to be able to put the pedal to the metal.

Tresio agrees, plays the scatter, and unfortunately gets got. But that was a "make 'em have it" moment, and we made em have it. Good play!

We get attacked down to 10 (with the ping from the dragon), and untap and find our mountain!

I think the card we're playing this turn is pretty obvious - we've got to be mana efficient and get our 5-drop down, as well as remove one of the opponent's flyers. We attack with the colony to trigger raid, and play the raider. But what do we kill?

Next turn our opponent will have three 2-power flyers, each with minor upsides. What upside is the strongest?

• Grows with every draw

• Makes spells cost 1 less

• Pings on spell cast

In my view, the strongest of these abilities is clearly the first one. A +1/+1 counter is more valuable than a ping since we're out of blockers in the air, and any spells our opponent has they're likely already able to cast. I think we should kill the Skymage, despite it looking the least threatening right now.

Tresio kills the whelp, and unfortunately our opponent has this insane sequence (sprite->2 mana draw 3) to punish us. I think we'd have been dead against these cards no matter what call we made, but that doesn't mean the decision didn't matter!

We do get to put the opponent to 4 with our power doubler, but it's not enough, they have a deterministic kill in the air. A light quibble, but technically I'd have not tapped out in the chance I can scare them off with a reach trick. Barely matters.

Alright, that was the warmup. The next game we play is going to take a whopping 20 turns! Let's get into it...

Game 2

https://www.17lands.com/history/c0954526b957495e9ea89a962a397850/1/0

This is an easy keep! Though I do want to note that I'm not a big fan of the goblin here. I really want that card in an aggressive deck that can curve out with high power threats; this hand is an example of why our deck isn't great at doing that.

We do get to play the goblin off of Ruby on turn 2 for a bit of nice-feeling explosive development. Our opponent starts off with two solid white creatures, and on turn 4 this is our hand, pre-land-drop:

Here I want to make sure we get our tapland out of the way so we can slam our 5-drop on 5. We miss out on an attack with our goblin, and we might be able to play the 5-drop anyways if we draw a land, but it's not worth 1 damage to take away the surefire route.

Tresio plays the mountain instead, which I believe might just have been an oversight forgetting Ruby could tap for mana.

Tresio: “Indeed. I was thinking about Ruby tapping on future turns, but overlooking it on the current turn. My focus was on playing the Ranger on-curve.”

Lots of options on this turn! I'd like to play our 5-drop, but I've already complained about that so I'll let it go :)

The hornbeetle grows itself so I think we're definitely playing that. We could go for the power doubler and get in a pretty big attack, but I think that play will be available to us at a future time and is mostly just a waste of a card for 4 damage.

So it looks like we're playing Beetle + Bite Down, or Beetle + Nothing, leave up Bite Down but maybe don't cast it.

This Pridemate is threatening to get out of hand with another gainland, and I don't like the idea of letting the opponent untap before casting our removal spell that requires our creature to live, so I think I like biting down now instead of leaving it up for flexibility. This is a classic case of risk vs. reward, and I can't see the reward of a juicier target maybe coming down being worth the risk that there's any instant speed removal on the other side.

Tresio agrees, and kills the pridemate.

Do I like this attack? I'm not sure. I like being proactive and taking it to the opponent, but I'm also a bit hesitant to trade off one of our only potential 4-power creatures.

There are real upsides and real downsides. Simplifying the board is nice when we have a creature that removes a blocker on the other side, but the Helpful Hunter makes it tricky for the goblin to ever be able to attack anyways, so it doesn't seem like a big factor in this game.

Ultimately I don't think making this attack is that wrong if it even is wrong, but I do think I disagree with it. I'd rather have 2 creatures to trigger my beetle next turn, and it also opens up the chance to offer a trade then instead and get the 2 counters from morbid.

For their turn, opp played a pretty scary rare, Elendra. This is one that can get out of hand if we're not careful. Luckily we drew a Heartfire Immolator, so we do have the chance to 2-for-1 ourselves and get it off the board immediately. I think this is a play worth considering, since the Bulk Up isn't really worth a full card in my view. However, I think it's also a reasonable line to just play out the needletooth pack and try to scare off an attack with good blocks. Yes, this is a bit scary if they attack anyways, but the situation where they'd have a profitable attack involves two removal spells, and even then, they still wouldn't be over 30 life and we'd be able to make the same play next turn. Patience and bravery I say!

Tresio goes for a slightly different line, playing immolator and leaving up the Bulk Up. Opp attacks, and casts their removal "in response" to our double block. This lets us use our Bulk Up to prevent their 2-for-1 (kinda, it's still a 3-for-2, but was always going to be that using the Bulk Up + Immolator). This outcome is one I'm relatively happy with, since it clears the way for our 4/5 to stabilize the board.

However, I believe our opponent missed an opportunity here. If they simply pass instead of casting Bake, we're forced into taking the straight up 2-for-1 in combat and letting the Bulk Up stay rotting in our hand. This would have been a much scarier play, because they'd save their removal for the 4/5 and leave us with a pretty meaningless board. I think we didn't need to expose ourselves to this - Simply cast our 4/5, and if they attack with their 5/5, block with the 4/4, our now 4/4 beetle, and one other creature (probably the Ruby so they can't choose to kill two by default). This is a pretty safe block that nearly guarantees we'll keep at least one of Immolator, Pack, and Beetle while getting the bomb off the board. If they don't attack into that board, we can just untap and use the Bulk Up + immolator to kill it (or if they passed leaving up removal, maybe just continue to stare at each other while growing the beetle).

The board gets significantly simplified after this. The opponent mostly tapped out for the Bake, so we get to untap and slam our 5-drop (finally!). We offer a trade with the goblin so that we can upgrade it into 2 counters from the Pack. It's slightly negative in terms of the cards being traded off, but the upside more than outweights that, and we are happy to trade off 1 damage for 1 damage if the pack ends up getting removed.

Opponent takes the trade, we put counters on Ruby to diversify our threats a bit, and they add a Felidar Savior to the board and pass back. We draw a land, so things are getting pretty small-game at this stage.

We can attack with the Ruby this turn and get a 2-for-1 plus some counters if they block, and soem free damage with enough blockers on the crackback if they don't.

This is an interesting attack that should set off alarm bells. The card that immediately jumps to mind is Fleeting Flight, but it could be something weirder like a Celestial Armor or Tragic Banshee.

Typically, I'm going to assume here that my opponent isn't making this attack as a complete bluff, and assume they have the common trick that it transparently represents. In this case, we could either take 4, or offer the trade with the 4/2 in the hopes it baits out the trick.

I think I like taking 4 here. We've got the opponent under a good amount of pressure, we're at 19, and it's better for us to force trades on our turn than their turn because of the Needletooth Pack. However, I think blocking with the 4/2 is also pretty reasonable if you just want to simplify the board, get the last card out of their hand, and are worried about the 4/2 going out of commission for a little while if the opponent decides to just let it through and enter into a race. Tresio decides to block, and the opponent declines to cast their trick. But we've gained some potential information! The card is likely not Tragic Banshee and probably not Celestial Armor. I'm more and more confident it's either a total bluff (unlikely) or the Fleeting Flight (quite reasonable read).

We get to attack them down to 15, and we're easily winning this race, but they draw a Cat Collector, which stabilizes things a bit.

It turns out the trick was Fake Your own Death. Whoops, that should have been on my radar, and is a point in favor of offering the trade, because it has better synergy with the savior, which is going to be utilized here. We're back to parity folks!

Here begins the long slog. Mostly this game is going to be decided by whoever topdecks better, but we've still got to be on our toes for small ways to eke out card and board advantage. Both players have plenty of life, so board presence is going to be key here. No trading down on resources unless we absolutely have to.

Two turns later, things aren't looking so hot. We drew land, and opp drew spell-spell. Out Pack is going down, and we're one more removal spell away from being rapidly out of the game.

It's interesting to think in this spot about whether we should block the Cat Collector if it attacks alongside the 1/3. I actually believe we shouldn't for now, because the 3/4 is so good at holding off the other two creatures. Therefore I believe our opponent should have attacked with it -- but they don't, which is a small relief.

What do we draw??

Now that's what I'm talking about!!!

This is the PERFECT spot for this card. We get to stabilize the board and "re-roll" our previous dead draw. Unfortunately, we hit... another forest. Bummer, but at least we're mostly stable and thinned the deck a bit.

Opp draws a Dauntless Veteran and we draw... ANOTHER land. Bummer. But at least we're still... on the edge of stable? A single removal spell means we almost instantly die, but for the time being, it's still not really profitable for opp to attack us for anything but 1 per turn. This is the benefit of keeping the 3/4 around I was talking about earlier. Material is precious, we've got to milk this virtual card advantage until opp starts to hit their dead draws.

One more turn cycle, Opp bricks and we find a real card - a Felling Blow!

... do we even cast it?

I think the answer here is no. Removal is going to destroy us regardless, and none of the creatures on board meaningfully change the combat math here. The one argument would be playing around another combat trick by killing the Veteran, but I think we have to assume the opponent isn't going to find more removal by the time we find another blocker, and save our own until they play something we truly need to answer.

Tresio kills the veteran, which I think is a respectable line, but a slight leak because it's more likely in my view that we'll need to kill a future flying threat or something like that than we'll be able to stabilize after a removal spell because we killed the veteran and bought ourselves maybe a turn on their "empty board" clock.

The draws are starting to turn our way! Now we're fully stable and maybe even able to start attacking...

I like this attack a lot. We're immediately recognizing the shift from slightly behind->slightly ahead and leveraging it aggressively. It's weak to removal, but at this point I'd rather try to gain some life total advantage back before the board stabilizes again, which we might be able to use for future material leverage.

Opponent draws a Prideful Parent and forgets our creature has reach. Nice!

Of course, it's worth thinking about whether this attack is intentional, but they really haven't been playing as if they have a trick (an attack with all would've made sense in that case for example), so I think this is a pretty easy block.

We draw a land, make an elf, and opp decides to trade off most of their board for the Ruby.

They brick again, and we get to use the flashback on Bulk Up to trade up for the Parent, putting us significantly ahead on board.

Noting that I like this more than going for the extra 5 damage here - Material still seems to be much more important than life total.

Obviously we want to play the land, but do we make this attack?

It's a very interesting question, and I think the answer is yes. There's obviously a pretty big benefit to having a big creature that turns all our land drops into 1/1s, but I think at this point being able to turn the board into 3 vs. 0 is a little better, so that we can get life total equity every time the opponent bricks on a creature (or we draw removal). We're ahead by bareeeely enough here that I want to try and close it out.

Tresio doesn't go for it, which I do think is reasonable, and instead draws a Heraldic Banner after the opponent bricks (again!), which enables some great elf attacks (but would have either way). Opp trades, bricks (again!!!), and we draw some banger rares in a row for the overkill victory!!

This was an incredibly long, very close game that had lots of interesting spots come up in terms of how to prioritize resources in small games. The biggest lesson for me here is that missing out on playing the tapland on turn 3 really set Tresio back in terms of gaining meaningful board and life equity -- even small increments of which would have mattered greatly in such a grindy game, and potentially made it a much easier win.

It's easy to focus on the lategame topdeck drama, but the early-mid turns of a magic game are exponentially more important than the decisions that come after them. Take your time figuring out how to develop your plan early, and you'll find yourself in much easier situations later on.

This article's gettin' long!! Text-based gamelog review can be a slog, but I do think it's worthwhile bringing this kind of analysis to this medium for people who process information better in written form than in video form. Let's keep going in the draft. The next game happens to be a lot shorter!

Game 3

https://www.17lands.com/history/c0954526b957495e9ea89a962a397850/1/0

This is another awkward hand. We're pretty dead in the water if we don't find green early, but if we do, we've got a LOT of game. I think this one's borderline, but totally defensible to keep, and it looks like Tresio did!

Luckily, we find a forest just in time to curve out perfectly. With this Wary Thespian, we see another forest on top. Are we keeping it there?

My initial answer is no. I think this hand, with 4 mana sources, is set up well enough to only need to draw 1-2 more lands over the course of the game, and 1-2 more lands in the top 6-10 cards is a very reasonable expectation. We certainly don't need the lands to deploy the rest of our hand - at best, having one early lets us double-spell, but you know what else might let us do that? Drawing another cheap spell!

What's the play here? Opp has passed with instant speed mana, representing flashback think twice face up, or possibly something else.

Do we play a bit more conservatively and develop our banner or the calalry, or do we go for the full beatdown curve out?

In my view, this is definitely a case of "force them to have it". The opponent is falling really far behind on board, and I'd like to force the spells in their hand to do something board-affecting rather than allowing them to passively prevent us from taking actions. I want to slam the ranger and continue the pressure!

Tresio agrees. All opponent does is flash back their think twice, so we're massively ahead.

Opponent plays another slow card, but at least one that affects the board. We untap and draw a sweet 2-drop!

This is another case where my plan is going to be to massively push board presence over everything else.

Here's a great rule of thumb: If you can get to a place where you have 5 rectangles with power and toughness on your limited board and your opponent has zero, especially if they have 10 or less life, you're extremely likely to win. Of course you should factor in cases where they're clearly representing a specific boardwipe, but one of the reasons curving out is so powerful is that it allows us to reach these positions when our opponent stumbles. A large board advantage in limited trumps nearly every other kind of advantage, so if you have the chance to achieve it, you should go for it.

My play here would be to bite down the solemn (doesn't matter that it's card disadvantage!) and play out the searsplicer goblin, attacking opp down to 8 and giving us 5 creatures to their zero. This essentially forces a boardwipe or bust, because 5 creatures and 8 life is not tenable math for our opponent trying to produce blockers. Since we're already behind on cards, I don't think we'll be able to win this game through a boardwipe by playing more conservatively.

Instead Tresio goes for banner + bite, which does represent more damage this turn, but less overall board presence.

Opponent casts two creatures and passes back with 2 mana up:

It's also worth noting here that we're pretty bottlenecked on red mana, and could have avoided this by using some of it last turn. Here my plan is to play goblin precombat to trigger the ranger and attack with just the 4/1 and 4/3.

Tresio instead opts to use the red mana on Frenzied Goblin, hoping to close things out quickly. The opponent has a Run Away Together to bounce the ranger, and we end up dealign no damage but being able to recast it.

The opponent plays out their archer again and another big blocker that threatens to take over the game if it goes much longer, but luckily we draw the removal spell that gives us guaranteed lethal, just in time.

I think this game, while a win, is illustrative of how knowing when and how to close the door can be crucially important in limited. We gave up some significant win equity here by not prioritizing board presence above all else on the crucial closing turns.

The thinkign here makes sense -- if we're already winning on board, we probably want to shore up the other resources (mana, cards in hand, etc) while we have that advantage so that we can hope to fight battles on those axes if we need to. But sometimes the right answer is to push super hard on the axis you're winning on right now, so you can close the game convincingly. In Limited, with the notably rare exception of sweepers, board presence is often an axis that you want to be ruthless rather than cautious in pushing your advantage.

Game 4

https://www.17lands.com/history/c0954526b957495e9ea89a962a397850/3/0

Our opening hand is definitely a keep, although we're a bit sad that we're probably going to be forced to grab a mountain with the evolving wilds and potentially be on a pseudo-mulligan until we find white.

On turn 2, we can either play out the Thespian or Ruby.

My call is the Thespian, because it digs us further towards lands, and Ruby isn't going to be a meaningful accelerant to something powerful next turn. Thespian also can engage in combat much more effectively, so I think it's an easy choice, and Tresio agrees!

We play the Thespian, and see a Bulk up that we can easily bin. Value!

Opponent passes back, and we whiff on our land drop. Ruby or Cerberus?

This one is a lot less clear to me. Ruby is going to have to come out at some point, but is one of our mana sources and we'd be pretty sad if it got removed. Ruby lets us play Ranger next turn without a land, but with a land it's not doign very much.

Cerberus, on the other hand, puts more pressure on the opponent... kinda. In theory, if they refuse to trade off creatures, they can ignore it, but this is a lot of pressure starting them down...

However, we're low on land drops. If we don't draw more, we're not going to be able to keep up the pressure in a meaningful way, However, that also might mean we don't have a significant chance in the game.

All in all, I think I like playing Cerberus here, but it's close and I could see that being wrong!

Opponent plays a 3/3 haste and attacks us with it, which seems like a mistake to me, since they're about to fall pretty far behind on life total and would be better served taking the trade with the 4/2. However, we can't really punish super effectively - we draw the most expensive card in our deck instead of a land, and now are only left with Ruby to play.

Still, we attack them for a full 10 all the way down to 7. Maybe we can sneak this one out?

They play a 3/4 on curve, and this time leave back both blockers. Smart.

We draw a land!!!!

... a tapland. We'll take it but we're not happy.

We can play out our ranger, but don't have any good attacks, so it's starting to become a board stall. Hopefully we'll be able to deploy our threats in time to leverage their low life total!

Yikes, that's a scary 4-drop.

... Wait, they're attacking? That's quite aggressive...

So there's two scenarios we should be reading into this.

First - Opponent has burst lightning, which lets them make this aggressive attack while not being scared of lethal on the crackback

Second- Opponent is making this attack because all of their blockers have 4 toughness and all of our attackers have 3 power, so they think it's free damage

I believe the second conclusion is wrong, because a single removal spell on our side lets us attack out, exchange a creature for 6 damage and put them to 1, untapping our Cerberus and forcing them to deploy two bodies to the board to just not be dead.

But this is a pattern I see lots of even advanced limited players following, which is not doing the "single removal spell" math. I believe the opponent is just not aware enough here and playing loose.

Plus, even if they have burst lightning... I'm not totally sure we can beat that.

Tresio opts to go for the double block here, which I think is very wrong. We don't actually have the removal spell, but we do have a different punish - our Anthem pushes the breakpoints back to favorable on our side and lets us attack with everything, make 2 trades, and untap the Cerberus! This is quite good for us. I believe Tresio missed this or was too focused on trading off creatures so as not to fall too far behind on board while mana screwed.

Tresio: “I was too concerned with opp’s Berzerker creating annoying Menaced attackers each turn, and not focused enough on the big picture. A good lesson to be regularly watching for, and calculating, possible lethal opportunities!

This is precisely the kind of mistake that gamelog review is meant to catch. We misevaluate our role, fail to see a line, or just make a decision too quickly on autopilot, and all of a sudden the window we weren't even aware of to proactively push towards winning the game has closed.

Here we needed to take advantage of our opponent being far too comfortable with their position in the game, and again, leverage the one resource we're meaningfully ahead in -- life total -- to snatch the win out of a game where we got pretty awfully mana screwed.

We just made a significant mistake, and we didn't draw the land we were hoping for - But still, it's not like our attacks are bad here! We get to play the anthem and either force double trades or put them to 3 and force a single trade (assuming no unbeatable burst lightning).

The opponent ends up keeping their rare around and falling to 3, which should tell us something, but we end up seeing that something before we have a chance to act on the information -- a bite down clears our board, sets us back to 2 mana, and is pretty devastating for our chances of winning this game.

I believe if we take the damage 2 turns ago, force them to trade off with their creatures, it's a lot less likely they can even use this bite down this game.

They follow it up with a Strongbox raider, exiling a Felling Blow. OUCH.

We draw a 1-drop that lets us double spell, but we're out of it at this point.

The Felling Blow gets rid of one blocker, and forces us to chump with the other, falling to 2 with no board. Game over.

Unfortunately, this is the last log I have from Tresio this draft. It seems like there's another game missing from the logs that must have been a loss, because we ended up going 2-3, a pretty disappointing result for a decently strong deck!

Final Thoughts

How many times have you kept a 2-lander that just didn't get there? How many bad beat stories have we all heard?

I'm not gonna give you the variance speech again. We all know it's a big part of Magic, and focusing on it instead of ways to improve can be unproductive. But what I think a lot fewer people really let themselves emotionally grapple with is that there are a lot of games where the variance didn't exactly go their way, but it went well enough for them to win anyways, and they couldn't capitalize on it.

I believe this final game we have is an example of one of those games. I think it would be incredibly easy to chalk this game up to "kept a 2-lander, didn't get there"... but that would be wrong. We actually had a really high chance to win that one with the way our draws lined up, but we failed to do so.

Gamelog reviews are for exposing these games. The games where you failed to execute your deck to its fullest potential, where you "should" have won... if you were a better player. Having the bravery to actively seek out these gaps and start to do the slow, careful work of filling them is the emotional core to becoming a better Magic player.

I talk a bit more about how to actually cement the learnings from reviewing games in this piece, so please refer to that one if you're feeling a little bit like "I can see the mistakes, I just can't fix them!".

But I do actually believe that the most important step is just wanting to see for yourself how much you're missing game to game. Massive shoutout to Tresio for being willing to do this publicly, and letting me take whatever games I found most instructive, which is basically an invitation to have someone focus in on your mistakes. That's an absolutely baller mindset!!

Tresio: “And many thanks to Ryan for being willing to provide this thoughtful, detailed feedback!"