You are playing a game of Standard across the table from your opponent. You opted to play G/R Freshmaker, but don't know what she is playing. She wins the die roll and chooses to go first. She draws her seven cards, thinks, and plays a swamp. You smile. You now have an advantage. Who's the beatdown? That's easy; you are. And by playing that way before you even lay your first land, you are at a significant advantage.

How do you know? Well you could have spent hours upon hours testing laboriously and know that she's probably playing Mono-Black Control or G/B Cloud. And you know that G/R Freshmaker takes the beatdown roll against either deck And because you are a good Magic player you have already read Mike Flores's classic article entitled "Who's the Beatdown" more times than you have fingers and toes. And from your intense memorization of this article, you know that your best bet to win the game is to attack fast, fierce, and unrelenting.

Developing a spectrum that goes from "active" to "reactive" (or in Magic terms "beatdown" to "control") is something that has never been attempted through a theoretical lens. Sure, we could spend hours testing Deck A vs. Deck X, Y, Z, Q, R..., but that could take forever. Instead, I propose making a spectrum and then testing if this spectrum works.

So how do we go about creating this spectrum? Well, rather than reinvent the wheel, we can take what Mike Flores gave us in his famous article that we all have memorized by now. If you are a naughty Magic player didn't click the link Teddy Cardgame provided earlier, there are three ways Flores outlined you can tell which deck is beatdown and which is control:

"1. Who has more damage? Usually he has to be the beatdown deck.

3. Who has more permission and card drawing? Almost always he has to be the control deck."

Using these three rules, I have developed simple ways to create three different spectrums from beatdown to control. These three spectrums are then combined into one colossal spectrum to develop a hypothetical model of what the actual metagame might look like. The three categories are Damage, Removal, and Permission/Card Drawing.

Damage
What usually deals damage in a game? Creatures. And while some decks may go to the dome with direct damage, this is usually an afterthought as direct damage is reserved for removing threats. To create a damage score I tallied up the power of all the creatures (or cards that had the potential to become creatures) in the deck. A deck with 3 Eternal Witness and 3 Blinkmoth Nexus would get a score of 9.

Removal
Since there are four types of "permanents" in the game, there are four types of removal: artifact removal, creature removal, enchantment removal, and land removal. Right now, only two of these are crucial. Artifact removal and creature removal are pertinent in the current standard metagame. To create a removal score I tallied up the number of cards that could potentially remove one or more artifacts and/or creatures from play. A deck with 2 Duplicant, 2 Echoing Truth, 2 Echoing Decay, and 2 Viridian Shaman would get a score of 8...and probably not play too well.

Permission/Card Drawing
Like removal, I just counted then number of cards that would let a player draw a card and/or counter a spell. A deck with 4 Night's Whisper, 3 Phyrexian Arena, and 2 Sensei's Divining Top would get a score of 9. [I'm not sure I agree with the Top's classification here, but I'm willing to listen. - Knut]

Each score was tallied from three different deck builds of nine archetypes: Affinity, Tooth & Nail, G/X Control (G/U Control, G/R Freshmaker, G/B Cloud), and Mono-X Control (Mono-Blue Control, Big Red, Mono-Black Control). I choose these eight decks because they were part of my hypothesized metagame in "The Green Allure". I also added White Weenie due to its increasing popularity and since it and Affinity are obviously the most active decks in Standard. White Weenie and Affinity would function as a safeguard to see if the spectrum would work; if White Weenie and Affinity wound up being "more reactive" it would be an easy assessment to throw out the data.

The three builds were all decks that performed well at champs. Each category was scored individually three times and the middle score was used. Here are the numbers:

Affinity
Decks used: Yousefi, Delaware [1]; Yakupov, Colorado [1]; Garnelis, Connecticut, [1]
Damage: 30; 44; 44
Removal: 0; 0; 3
Permission/Card Drawing: 4; 4; 4

Tooth and Nail
Decks used: Gildea, Pennsylvania [1]; Hansen, Iowa [1]; Faires, Utah [1]
Damage: 38; 40; 41
Removal: 5; 5; 8
Permission/Card Drawing: 2; 3; 3

G/U Control
Decks used: Johnston, Idaho [1]; Muir, Vermont [2]; Anderson, Wisconsin [2]
Damage: 32; 40; 56
Removal: 8; 9; 12
Permission/ Card Drawing: 4; 11; 16

G/R Freshmaker
Decks used: Illing, North Dakota [2]; Giroir, West Virigina [2]; Kim, Washington [3/4]
Damage: 40; 44; 57
Removal: 13; 17; 18
Permission/ Card Drawing: 0; 0; 0

Hearth Kami, Arc-Slogger, and Kumano were not counted as "removal" as they do not remove a creature upon being cast. If they were counted, G/R's removal count would be much higher.

G/B Cloud
Decks used: Claytor, Kentucky [1]; Claridge, Alabama [3/4]; Preskitt, Wyoming [3/4]
Damage: 32; 32; 57
Removal: 7; 15; 17
Permission/ Card Drawing: 0, 0; 3

Mono-Blue Control
Decks used: Goding, Queensland [1]; McGraw, Georgia [5/8]; Star Wars Kid, Jigga Blue Two: Electric Booga-Loo
Damage: 11; 22; 25
Removal: 4; 5; 5
Permission/Card Drawing:18; 18; 18

Big Red
Decks used: Sixkiller, Oklahoma [1]; Strunk, Florida [1]; Williams, Colorado [2]
Damage: 26; 36; 40
Removal: 9; 9; 15
Permission/Card Drawing: 0; 0; 0

Mono-Black Control
Decks used: Christopher, North Dakota [1]; Wood, Ohio [1]
Damage: 35; 42; 50
Removal: 10; 11; 14
Permission/Card Drawing: 3; 4; 6

White Weenie
Decks used: Shiota, Nara-Ken [1]; Nastetsky, Maryland [2]
Damage: 28; 45; 54
Removal: 0; 0; 8
Permission/Card Drawing: 0; 0; 0

Beatdown Scores Using Damage
1. White Weenie, 45 [9 points]
2. Affinity, 44 [8 points]
2. G/R Freshmaker, 44 [8 points]
4. Mono-Black Control, 42 [6 points]
5. Tooth and Nail, 40 [5 points]
5. G/U Control, 40 [5 points]
7. Big Red, 36 [3 points]
8. G/B Cloud, 32 [2 points]
9. Mono-Blue Control, 22 [1 point]

Beatdown Scores Using Removal
1. Affinity, 0 [9 points]
1. White Weenie, 0 [9 points]
3. Tooth and Nail, 5 [7 points]
3. Mono-Blue Control, 5 [7 points]
5. G/U control, 9 [5 points]
5. Big Red, 9 [5 points]
7. Mono-Black Control, 11 [3 points]
8. G/B Cloud, 15 [2 points]
9. G/R Freshmaker, 17 [1 point]

Beatdown Scores Using Permission / Card Drawing
1. G/R Freshmaker, 0 [9 points]
1. G/B Cloud, 0 [9 points]
1. White Weenie, 0 [9 points]
1. Big Red, 0 [9 points]
5. Tooth and Nail, 3 [5 points]
6. Affinity, 4 [4 points]
6. Mono-Black Control, 4 [4 points]
8. G/U Control, 11 [2 points]
9. Mono-Blue Control, 18 [1 points]

Combining all the points we arrive to the hypothesized final beatdown spectrum:

FINAL BEATDOWN SPECTRUM
100% Active Deck
1. White Weenie, 27
2. Affinity, 21
3. G/R Freshmaker, 18
4. Mono-Black Control, 17
4. Tooth and Nail, 17
4. Big Red, 17
7. G/B Cloud, 13
8. G/U Control, 12
9. Mono-Blue Control, 9
100% Reactive Deck

So after much tedious math (moving that scroll wheel is hard, isn't it?), here is our spectrum ranging from beatdown to control. How does one use this spectrum? Let's say you play Tooth and Nail. Your opponent lays down an Island. Unless she is going rogue (which causes all sorts of problems for us theorists), you know she's likely playing G/U Control or Mono-Blue Control. You look up on the spectrum and see that his deck is below yours, and thus, will be taking the "control" role. Thus, it is your job to take the Beatdown role. You already know what your sideboard strategy will be in part: get your control spells out and your creatures in. The spectrum seems to have worked in its simplicity, and does provide some other interesting insights.

First off, adding Green has very different effects on each mono-colored build. In The Green Allure, I hypothesized that the metagame contained four distinct archetypes: Affinity, Tooth & Nail, G/X Control, and Mono-X Control. But, adding Green has different implications for each color: adding Green to Red makes it more beatdown-oriented, while adding Green to Black makes it more control-oriented. Depending on your local metagame and play style, adding or removing green altogether dramatically shifts your deck along the spectrum. So, do not do it lightly (like the day before a big event on a whim) as it could potentially affect what you have learned in testing.

Second, the spectrum also illustrates why White Weenie and Mono-Blue Control are slowly building lots of fans: they are both extremes. White Weenie is the most active deck and Mono-Blue Control the most reactive. If you are a seasoned control player you have a nice new option to play; Kyle Boddy echoed this sentiment in his article "Not Another Irrelevant Format..." when he begins his article discussing how his interest in Magic was rejuvenated by this very deck! On the other side, White Weenie has no semblance of a late game; Affinity (due to its combo-oriented nature via Disciple of the Vault and Arcbound Ravager) can occasionally pull a late game win out of nowhere.

There will always be people on the two-ends: Mono-Blue control and White Weenie are not sudden fad decks that will fade away like Krark-Clan Ironworks. These two decks will continue to gain popularity and momentum and this may be the reason why. White Weenie does not have to worry about sideboard strategies that shift it into "control mode"; Mono-Blue Control never needs to fill its fifteen extra slots with plans to get aggressive.

Finally, Big Red being stuck in the middle (what some would call "Aggro/Control") shows how lost this deck is. Big Red really hurt on the damage list and I was surprised by its low score. This is easily explained by Big Red's damage being siphoned away by land destruction where great creatures like Zo-Zu the Punisher could exist instead. The only deck that land destruction is really devastating against is Tooth and Nail, and, like I mentioned in "The Green Allure," there are two mana-fixing curves you can use right now: Green (Birds of Paradise, Sakura-Tribe Elder, Kodama's Reach, Solemn Simulacrum) and Artifact (Chrome Mox, Wayfarer's Bauble, Guardian Idol, Talismans, Solemn Simulacrum).

Problems & Counterarguments
For all you college-bound seniors out there, the most important item to learn in academics is that you don't ever really have to go to class to get good grades. Then somewhere down the line you also learn that in academics an argument cannot function without a counterargument. Magic theory lacks good counterarguments. Most theorists would rather end their columns/articles then even possibly conceive that their theories could contain flaws. That's what forums are for, amirite?

Instead of just ending my article, I'm going to address the top five counterarguments that I see being discussed in the forums. I know my hypothesis and theory has flaws, but I think that these flaws are negotiable and the spectrum does provide a snapshot that can be utilized to gain a play advantage in the early game.

Good point. And I would expect the spectrum to shift as the metagame develops. The fact of the matter is we are in a very tumultuous metagame right now. Only one set of Kamigawa is out and everyone is frantically searching for a deck that consistently beats Affinity and Tooth and Nail while not dying to the other decks that are trying to do the same thing! As the metagame develops the spectrum should be updated. Until then, this spectrum is a proposed snapshot of the current range of how decks spread from active to reactive.

Another excellent point. I foresaw this argument coming up as soon as I got the idea to write the article, which is why I took safeguards against it in the process. First, I used decks that won Champs tournaments. These are the decks that most players are likely to use as a starting point when testing since they are published and the results speak for themselves. Second, this is the reason why I chose the middle number from three decks. This way the "average" deck statistics emerged instead of being skewed one way or another.

III. The counts are arbitrary. You can do damage without creatures (Beacon of Destruction); you can remove permanents without traditional removal (Mindslaver); you can gain card advantage without permission and card drawing (Kodama's Reach).

True, there are exceptions. Everything has exceptions. But, in most cases, decks function explicitly and choose cards that can do these things explicitly. As for the "card advantage" counterargument, perhaps the original Beatdown theory needs revising due to the new theories out there in the Magic world.

Every situation is unique and does merit consideration. However, let's me use an example from Mike Flores's article to demonstrate how you would still be at an advantage. You are playing Sligh and your opponent is playing Suicide Black. According to Mike Flores initial concept of a "spectrum," Suicide Black is more reactive than Slight and should take the Control role. However, your opponent chooses to play Beatdown instead. By doing this, your opponent has put you at an advantage. Your opponent has misinterpreted her role and you can capitalize it.

No, but theory does give testers a new place to start from. In an ideal Magic world we would have equal theorists and testers. Testers would put theorists' words to use and provide new evidence, proving their hypotheses right or wrong; theorists would develop new models and theories via evidence testers provide. Unfortunately, theory is kind of taboo and can get tedious to read at times (there are a good portion of readers right now that are probably eating a ham sandwich).

I have published my idea of what the spectrum looks like. If it's right, good players can utilize it to gain an advantage when playing. But, if it's wrong, we still are not at a great loss. Prove me wrong, write a rebuttal, show your evidence, and amend the spectrum. That new spectrum will be "more right" than this one and we get one step closer to figuring it all out.

Post comments, questions, or praise in the forum. Thanks for reading.

Sean Costales
Frogboy [at] Berkeley [dot] edu
AIM: Arnnaria
MODO: Arnnaria