There are many resources in Magic. However, only two resources in the game are essential: Life and Library. Other resources are non-essential and include the Cards in Hand, Mana sources, and the Graveyard (capitalization for emphasis). For some decks, the removed-from-the-game zone is also a non-essential resource.

In a previous article, Best Deck, Unfair Deck, and The Solution, I divided the world of card effects into Offense (attack on an essential resource) and Defense. I divided card effects into reusable offense (O1) and single-use offense (O2), and defenses to those offense sources (D1 and D2). Using these simple divisions and the concept of hardening (protecting each strategy), I discussed how we can think about decks and match-ups between decks, and then identify deck strategies that are likely to work well given the strengths of different offense and defense effects in the available card pool.

Offense is defined as an attack against an essential resource (i.e., Life or the Library) and not as an attack against a non-essential resource (such as Mana). Defense is necessarily an attack against a resource, but that resource will almost always be a non-essential resource. For example, Wrath of God is an attack against the “creatures” resource but is nonetheless a defense, not an offense, because it does not attack Life or Library.

There are reusable sources of offense (O1) and single-use sources (O2), but these offenses must be directed against Life or Library to be considered in the “Offense” category. Everything not contributing directly to an attack against Life or Library is defense or hardening, by definition. Note, however, that there is a fine but important distinction between effects and cards: Many cards such as Early Harvest enable offensive effects, and we care about the effects, not necessarily the classification of individual cards.

With this in mind, we can begin to classify effects that attack non-essential resources. Attacks against these resources translate directly into defense and hardening, and never into offense itself. We will examine how attacks against the non-essential resources of the Hand and Mana translate into different defense classes and hardening in different match-ups. Importantly, we will see that attacking a non-scarce, non-essential resource is meaningless. Finally, we will see when attacking the scare, non-essential resource enhances a strategy and when it does not.

The ideal deck would be completely efficient. That is, there would be no scarce non-essential resource at any one time. The ideal deck would always have exactly enough Mana to cast each spell in hand every turn or to utilize Mana-requiring effects of permanents. Nonetheless, random chance, the fact that only one land may be played per turn, disruption, and inefficient deck design all contribute inevitably to a scarce resource problem. Something is going to be scarce. What is important to recognize is that different deck strategies tend to have different scarce resources.

For all practical purposes, the scarce resource for all decks very early in a game is Mana. This is the only truly universal rule of deck inefficiency. Late in the game, the Hand often becomes the scarce resource. That is, any top-deck can be played with the available Mana. In some decks, the Graveyard even the RFG cards can become the scarce resource.

The most important thing to understand about non-essential resources is that only the scarce one matters. Attacking a non-essential resource only matters if that resource is scarce, is about to become scarce, or becomes scarce because you attacked that resource. This is very important and is worth matching with some examples:

Example: it's late in the game with Vore facing Zoo. Zoo has no cards in hand and six lands in play. Vore attacks the Zoo player's Mana by playing a Stone Rain. This attack against a non-scarce resource is meaningless during the next turn. Zoo will be able to play anything it top-decks because all its spells have casting costs of less than five.

Example: Against the same Zoo deck, a Thoughts of Ruin for six would force Mana to become Zoo's scarce resource and thus would be an effective attack against that resource.

Example: Moratorium Stone is used against the Zoo deck and depletes the Graveyard “resource.” Because Zoo uses nothing from the Graveyard, the yard is not a scarce resource, and the “attack” does nothing.

Keep this in mind: Essential resources are always relevant targets. Of the non-essential resource, only the scarce one is a relevant target.

Discard attacks the hand. Because the hand is a non-essential resource, attacks against the hand can only work as a defensive measure or hardening (Hellhole Rats aside). Hand attacks are special for another reason. Attacks against the hand are almost always at Sorcery speed, so the last card in hand tends to be inviolate (i.e., it can be played rather than subjected to discarding).

If one attacks a hand, the effect depends mostly on the strategy played by that deck. Hand attacks can be effective only when the hand is or will become a scarce resource during the game.

Here is what discard tends to do against different strategies:

O1 (reusable offense) – Discard against an O1-strategy deck may act as D1; however, most O1 cards are most effective when on the board, obviously, so a hand attack tends to be weak. During most games, O1 tends to have a scarce resource of Mana in the early game; by the late game, the hand is the scarce factor, but the sorcery speed of most discard means that the hand is unassailable when it is finally the scarce factor. The bottom line is that hand attacks tend to be poorly effective against O1 strategies.

O2 (single-use offense) – Discard against an O2 deck act as D2. Such attacks tend to be effective because O2 must usually be in hand to be deployable, and when O2 is deployed, the hand is often the scarce resource (i.e., there is usually enough Mana available, and other non-essential resources tend not to matter when employing O2).

D1 (defense against reusable offense) – Discard against a D1 strategy act as O1+ (hardened O1). Such attacks are effective and allow the use of better O1 sources in the abstract. What I mean by this includes the idea that if two creatures have the same Converted Mana Cost, the hardened creature tends to be less powerful (lower power and/or toughness) than the non-hardened creature. This is just how R&D makes Magic cards so that there is some balance between hardened creatures and non-hardened creatures. When facing O1, the hand is the scarce factor, usually, so attacking the hand can be effective O1+.

D2 (defense against single-use offense) – Discard against a D2 strategy act as very poor O2+. Most D2 can protect itself against most discard (most D2 is counter-magic), so discard attacks against a D2 deck tend to be ineffective.

We see something important from even this simple classification: Discard works best against O2 and D1 and worst against O1 and D2. For example, discard will work very well against a “burn and Wrath” O2D1 deck but very poorly against an O1D2 deck such as Critical Mass with medium creatures and counter-magic.

Attacking Mana generally means land destruction (LD). If we break down the deck strategies against which LD is brought, we again see the strengths and weaknesses of the LD strategy.

O1 – LD attacks against O1 can be strong but are only in potential. That is, potentially LD can act as D1 for O1 that is stranded in hand. Not surprisingly, if the O1 requires more Mana to be deployed, the D1 is stronger.

O2 – LD attacks tend to be stronger against O2 and act as D2. If the O2 could have been employed effectively earlier in the game, then it would have been. Almost by definition, an attack against Mana is a decent D2 defense. The place where this idea breaks down is where Mana is not the scarce factor in O2. This happens when, for example, a deck runs all 1-3 casting-cost burn. In such a case, LD is near meaningless.

D1 – LD attacks tend to be poor at limiting D1 strategies because D1 seldom has Mana as a scarce factor. Nonetheless, LD can be D1 when Mana is forced to be the scarce factor. How does an LD deck force this? In general, overwhelming LD can make Mana the scarce factor (Wildfire can pull this off), and not surprisingly, one of the best ways to ensure LD acts as D1 is to wait for a long time before committing one's own O1 to the board.

D2 – LD attacks are fairly poor against D2 because much of D2 is inexpensive and doubles as defense against the LD attack, in the first place.

The bottom line is that LD is fairly good against expensive offense (or offense that uses a “splashed” color of Mana) and bad against defense. LD appears to be a fine if situational defensive strategy against both types of offense and generally acts poorly as hardening. How does Vore do so well, one has to wonder? The answer can be found in the single card, Wildfire, that not only is LD that can force Mana to be a scarce factor and acts as D1 (killing off most creatures). The other way Vore can force Mana to be the scarce resource is by forcing a repeat of the first turn (when Mana is a scarce resource for almost all decks) though use of a Boomerang or Eye or Nowhere, or even Stone Rain on a Karoo land.

Have you wondered why few decks seem to attack both Mana and the hand at the same time? It would appear with Rakdos builds that this would be at least possible given the card pool in Standard. There is nothing that prevents one from running the Fall side of Rise / Fall alongside Wrecking Ball and Stone Rain. The strategy seems to be made for us, no? But it just doesn't work well in practice. Why not?

The problem is that the hand and Mana are both non-essential resources, so attacks against both are guaranteed to be attacks against at least one non-scarce resource. If the Hand is the scarce resource, then the LD is meaningless. When the Mana is the scarce resource, forcing the discard of a business spell is also meaningless because that spell was uncastable.

If a strategy for attacking both the hand and Mana is to be viable, it will probably be because the wielder can switch between strategies through sideboarding: Sideboard to more hand attacks versus O2 and to more LD versus O1. This does not strike me as the most efficient way to win Magic, but it at least is better than keeping in both kinds of attack against non-essential resources.

The Graveyard is a resource that is increasingly utilized by decks in Standard. Solar Flare, Snakes, and Aggro Ideal all use the Graveyard as a substantial resource. Rune Snag relies on using the Graveyard as a resource. Not surprisingly, using the Graveyard as a resource has the potential to be “unfair” because few decks in Standard attack the Graveyard.

Should we be attacking the Graveyard? To answer this question, ask the following other question: Is the Graveyard the scarce resource? For Snakes, the answer is “yes,” but only if your own deck has a strong D1 element. Wrathing the board is great against Snakes… except for that darn Sosuke's Summons. In this case, the scarce resource is the presence of Sosuke's Summons in the Graveyard. Hence, my team is siding in Moratorium Stone against Snakes but only - and this is important - when we are running a lot of D1. Otherwise, the scarce resource is likely to be something other than the Graveyard.

Countermagic is the duct tape of this game of ours. Counters have a lot of potential functions. They acts as D1 against O1 and D2 against O2. In all decks, countermagic acts as hardening. The one thing countermagic isn't is offense (except for Induce Paranoia and a few others).

The sheer versatility of countermagic means that decks run it when, objectively, they probably shouldn't.

Take the deck “Snakes on a Plane.” The deck is clearly O1+, with the hardening provided by Sosuke's Summons (snakes forever), Coat of Arms/Seshiro the Anointed (big snakes), and countermagic. Look at this list and think about how well each element hardens the offense. What does the countermagic do? The other effects not only harden the offense but provide more offense at the same time. In Snakes, the clock is on the side of the snakes (except versus Heartbeat) because Snakes goldfishes very quickly. If the countermagic is not enhancing the offense, and defense doesn't matter much, then the countermagic can only be useful as hardening. Look now at how hardened Snakes on a Plane is in the first place. Sure, one can Mortify a Coiling Oracle, but that doesn't do a thing about Sosuke's Summons. Do you really want to counter the Mortify? Would you have been better off playing (forgive me) Matsu-Tribe Sniper and getting back Summons after letting the Oracle go? Wrath of God hurts, but really how bad is it? Sosuske's Summons is again to the rescue. In fact, except against Heartbeat, the countermagic is anti-strategic in the sense that it does something, but that something is not really necessary. This is a total contrast to O1+ decks where keeping particular O1 elements on the board is important.

The bottom line is that Snakes would probably be a better deck with less countermagic and more, um, snakes. Ohran Viper may change this equation because it is, for a change, a snake worth protecting.

Against Heartbeat, in contrast, the Snakes player darn well better have the countermagic as D2, or it's Maga for 21 gg.

We have spent some time classifying elements that attack non-essential resources. In doing this, we recognized that unless we attack a scarce resource, we are spinning our wheels. We also can sense that attacking non-essential resources is a tricky exercise to get right because the resource can suddenly become non-scare. Is there something more we can get from this classification process, or are we at a dead end?

Luckily, there is a wealth of information we can get from classification and the idea of the scarce resource. We can look at a match-up using the simple O/D classification and consider what resource will be scarce so we can predict the best sub-theme to enhance our own strategy.

There is one other piece of information we need to know before we get a lot of meaning out of the classification: Who has the faster clock? This should remind you of Flores's “Who's the Beatdown,” but puts the question in terms of whose Offense will win in a non-interactive, non-defensive game. Heartbeat does not beat anything down, but it usually has the faster clock.

Here is a summary of what we discovered before in exploring attacks against the hand and against Mana. Discard can be good against O2 and D1. LD can be good against O1 and O2, but only with the O1 or O2 comprises spells with high converted mana costs (or a splashed color of mana). With those thoughts in mind, here is where LD and discard can play a relevant role in a match-up.

O1 versus O1 is non-interactive. The player with the faster clock really does not care about the other player's clock.

• Thus, the O1 player with the faster clock should be concerned most about hardening and protecting the lead. We can think of many strategies that can harden, including using or sideboarding into creatures that are D1-resistant and the use of counter-magic. What we now also know is that an attack against the hand may be useful, but an attack against Mana probably will be of limited use for the faster O1 player.
  
• For the O1 deck with the slower clock, both LD and discard look pretty weak, We suspect that we really must bite the bullet and change strategies to include direct D1, or we are going to die. Attacking the hand or the Mana base probably will not cut it.

In the O1 versus O2 match-up, we look again to the faster clock.

• If O1 is faster, then O1 can consider using discard as a viable hardening choice.
  
• Against a fast O1 deck, the O2 deck better get some real D2 and not bother with LD or discard.
  
• If the O2 deck has the faster clock, then the O1 deck can consider discard as a type of D2.
  
• The O2 deck in the same situation wants to protect its lead, but nothing in hand attacks or LD is likely to be a lot of use.

O2 versus O2 is again non-interactive.

• The player with the faster clock will avoid LD and discard because neither provides much hardening against D2.

The player with the slower clock, in contrast, will need to provide D2. LD may be a viable choice.

O1 versus D1. Obviously the clock is on the side of the offensive deck when the other strategy is primarily defensive.

• O1 can look to discard to help harden the attack.
  
• D1 can look to LD to help blunt the attack.

O1 versus D2.

• Well, the D2 deck is dead, but in any case, the O1 deck does not want to look to Hand or Mana disruption to win, but the D2 deck can consider bringing in LD.

O2 versus D1.

• O2 may wish to bring in discard as a type of hardening.

D1 can consider bringing in discard or LD as a defense.

In all the defensive match-ups, both discard and LD are ineffective except in one case. When a D1 deck has the slower clock (though determining who has the slower clock in a defensive struggle is not my idea of a good time), then the other deck can consider discard as a possible hardening measure to protect its own slow offense.

Land destruction and discard are seldom Tier 1 strategies for a simple reason. In many match-ups, the attack will be misdirected to a non-scarce resource. Nonetheless, LD and discard can be strong strategies for defense and hardening given the right match-up and the right game state. My conclusion has to be that LD and discard strategies are so situational and fickle that only the very best builds with uncommonly strong cards, and in the hands of the best players, will have much of a reasonable chance to succeed. In the current environment, the raw strength and versatility of Wildfire as a card has covered the basic fact that strategies that attack non-essential resources are prone to failure.

Until next time,

Jeff Stewart