Last week, we ran through some of the oldest established concepts for deckbuilding — among them, the principle of Card Advantage, , and Mana Curves. This week I’d like to look ahead to a couple of newer concepts (Flexibility and Durability), and look at how these concepts can shift in value depending on which format you are competing in.
Flexibility
Flexibility can come in many ways. From the ability to run "Silver Bullets" (single copies of spells that you can reliably get hold of), to the ability to run each and every color, to splashing the most useful or powerful spells in any given format, flexible decks will find themselves with fewer and fewer "auto-loss" matchups.
The core principle is accessing a range of options. Survival-Recur decks do this by using to tutor up a single copy of any needed creature for the bargain cost of a single green mana, and the discard of a creature (typically Squee). When combined with green’s access to all of the colors under the rainbow, you can use a single copy of nearly any creature and have a good chance of getting to it at the right time. Flores’ Black used Vampiric Tutors to get the same results, but limited itself to mono-black and artifact "Bullets."
Flexibility does not have to be the entire theme you base your deck around though. Cards can also be evaluated individually based upon their flexibility by taking into account various options; ease of cast (instant vs. sorcery speed, colored mana requirements, amount of raw mana), how many options it provides, and how many cards it allows you to cut.
Disenchant can hit two different types of targets (artifacts or enchantments) at instant speed. This also eliminates the need to run both artifact removal and enchantment removal — which, in turn, opens up more "business" slots within your deck. can hit three targets (artifacts, enchantments and lands) but requires a heavier color commitment to green, has double the overall cost and is a sorcery. This illustrates the two major ways to look at flexibility. When looked at from a deck construction standpoint, is typically easier to splash into a deck than , but if your deck is already heavily committed to green with mana acceleration (and particularly if your name is Wakefield), then the Mold is probably your better choice, since it provides a more powerful effect once the game has begun.
The new split cards in Invasion are a perfect example of flexibility; they’re actually two separate spells on a single card. Gold cards, which seem similar, are notoriously inflexible as they require mana of two or more colors. The payoff of is typically a much more powerful effect than you would get for a single colored card (compare to Boomerang, or Planeshift's Terminate to Terror).
I want to state that Flexibility is probably not an immediate consideration for deckbuilders when evaluating cards. Raw power is typically your first, then mana requirements and synergy to the overall deck, but if given the choice between two similar options, you should choose the more flexible one in most cases. versus , for example, is not an easy choice to make. In Extended, seems to be getting the nod more, since it can be dropped quickly to avoid counter wars and still functions in the same manner as once it’s in play. However, it gives up surprise (which may or may not be relevant), can be Disenchanted itself, and can be stopped with . Then again, it can be searched up with , Replenished into play, etc. It goes back and forth.
Now, on a similar track… (1WW, Enchantment, Sac to , but while it’s in play, all artifacts and enchantments cost target opponent two additional mana to play) is clearly more powerful than either previous spell, but it is more expensive and less flexible — so it is seeing a lot less use. On top of everything else, you can also throw in Wax/Wane and as further considerations for enchantment removal. I can come up with arguments for why any or all of these spells might be the best in Extended… But it would depend on the deck and where its particular weaknesses lie. Of course, that is the true fun of building in Extended or Type 1 — the sheer volume of choices — but I’m drifting off subject.
While few decks are truly going to be based around the principle of flexibility, it is a good feature to look at when building mid-long range decks.
Durability
Durability is the concept of getting more bang for your buck. In this case, I’m not referring to a card like Yawgmoth’s Will (which allows you to play your graveyard as if it were in your hand until the end of turn), because that is truly a Card Advantage spell. Durable cards are ones that can be used over and over again (such as , , and Capsize), or they require minimal investment to protect (, , , etc.).
In part, Durability can be referred to as recursion through graveyard manipulation, buyback, etc… But on the whole, durability also refers to the toughness of a particular deck, card, or strategy. This is an important concept, since a durable deck can oftentimes assume that its threats or main strategy are already well protected, and so can focus more effort on their opponents who do possess a threat to them.
Example: PandeBurst has no real reason to fear enchantment removal, since it can use the stack to combo-kill an opponent in response to the removal spell (assuming that it Replenishes the enchantments into play simultaneously). As a result, it can focus on decks capable of removing graveyards from the game and countermagic, which are its most likely threats.
Example: Draw-Go decks use as the kill card, since it’s unlikely they will have to waste counters to protecting him. He also blocks, attacks, flies and boosts himself with ease, and without any further support from the planeswalker who summoned him.
Example: has a high degree of durable creatures and spells since Gaea’s , triggering off an Oath, will reshuffle everything from the graveyard back into the library, allowing them to be redrawn later. In essence, they have a deck that will never die and can constantly be exploited.
Much like flexibility, very few decks will be built wholly around the concept of Durability ( being about the only one I can think of, and even then it’s not the only principle used), but it can be used as a way to evaluate the relative strength of certain cards. Control decks will place far more emphasis on the value of durability than other archetypes, but combo engines do tend to go with the more durable versions as well.
Example: Fruity Pebbles uses , and , but this infinite loop has existed since Ice Age first came out, using , Ashnod’s Altar (sac a creature to add 2 colorless to your pool) and (0 Casting cost 0/2 flyer), plus a or something similar to pump the mana generated into to one giant opponent-killing X spell. However this was very fragile and required an additional card to perform the kill. The Pebbles engine is faster and more durable since it possessed fewer cards to be stopped, and could deal immediate damage through the Bombardment, so it supplanted it.
Durability is a nice element to have in a tourney deck, but not nearly as critical as Card Advantage or Synergy, even among control decks. When we start looking at Limited formats — or even better, Chaos games — Durability becomes a concept worth of basing your entire deck upon. Just think about how powerful is ranked by nearly every Invasion sealed player. It’s not because it's functionally similar to Shock Troops; it's because it can shock again and again.
One of the most common problems I see at tourneys, or when helping friends building decks for them, is how much casual players will overvalue durability. When you come from the chaos atmosphere, your priorities are very different from that of the dueling tourney player. You will run across casual players using instead of (since he fades away), or shying away from due to the life loss. Often time, pros and writers will deride people as "Scrubs" and "Rookies" for not immediately realizing the life loss is irrelevant in duel. One of the oldest canons on the web relates to how it doesn't matter whether you're at one life or twenty when you win the game, just as long as you win. However, let me let all of the full time tourney players in on a little secret; in chaos, life gain is good, and durability is one of the central tenets of good deck building in Chaos. This is often times why newbies to the tourney scene may run or Congregate; they have learned through bitter experience how good these cards really are. While and are terrific dueling cards, quite honestly, they suck in Multiplayer. These variances in opinion are something that I have long thought to be one (but certainly not all) of the reasons why Casual and Pro players will always be at each other’s throats. Next time you're in a duel though, you may want to think about why this random "scrub" you are facing is playing Life Line and Radiant’s Dragoons. The answer may surprise you, but I’d be willing to bet that both Anthony and the Ferrett are cringing from just hearing both of those words in the same sentence. (The Ferrett most definitely is -- The Ferrett) That combo is very, very strong in a chaos environment, but is just too slow to matter in a tournament.
Whichever side of the fence you are on, if you have friends looking to come over and play on your side, make sure to explain the concept of shifting priorities to them. It will help them play better decks (which, in turn, will increase their likelihood of competing again) and quite possibly will introduce some terrific new minds to the game of competitive Magic, or some very enjoyable players into your Chaos circle.
Looking across the formats
What I would like to do is compare these concepts across the boards. Chaos refers to multiplayer Magic as a whole, but with a particular focus on a largish group (five or more players) randomly beating the hell out of each other. The Five, or Five Color, is a new and really exciting format that is just starting to catch on. You need to use all 5 colors, a minimum of 250 cards, at least 18 from each color, it’s for ante, and it’s Type 1 (more or less). Complete rules and whatnot can be found at the official 5 Color site. (http://www.mixweb.com/nneenn/5color/) This is a more challenging format than you might think, I’ll probably come back to this soon, but I’m still exploring potential strategies for 5 Color decks, so I’ll have to get back to you on it.
Where the red band gets the thickest represents areas where the most attention must be focused when building your decks, particularly when you are developing a new idea from the ground up. Card Advantage, for example, affects so many different archetypes that people have explored it across many platforms, while the concept of Flexibility and Durability (Which have their primary impact upon building for Multiplayer and The Five) have remained largely unexplored. Similarly, deckbuilding in Limited is often ignored from a strategic perspective; it’s often looked at as Sealed Luck. However, more recently, writers have been focusing more and more on the "Tempo" Deck, the U/R/B build, and the control build… Demonstrating that there are pre-built archetypes, even within Sealed, which can be incorporated into creating a successful deck. You just won’t know what your deck will be until you see how deep your card pool is.
As you can see, concepts like Mana Curve and Consistency play a much larger role in more limited deck building environments. As your mana and/or mana acceleration becomes more and more plentiful, this sort of tight deckbuilding concepts can be overruled in favor of more powerful cards. really swings into its own in the newer formats, particularly those dominated by creature-based decks. (Limited, Block Constructed, and Type 2)
When looking at the Hand Grenade theory, you’ll want an environment where as much information as possible is available. This makes Type 2 or Block Constructed ideal, as there will be a smaller pool of top decks making it far easier to build a foil — far easier compared to broader fields, such as Type 1 or Chaos. Though I can easily see how a foil deck could be built for 5 Color (4x and the like), I would still question the strength of doing so. In Limited Formats, this does not really refer to Sealed "Luck," but in Draft of any sort you can occasionally find yourself as the only player in a Pod drafting a particular color. Sometimes this can let you build the best deck, even though you’ve technically got the "weakest" color.
The Fundamental Turn theory is a terrific way to evaluate your Type 1 or Extended Creations, but becomes less valuable as the formats become progressively slower. In one aspect, this can be applied to Chaos games, as any one member of the group who is seriously lagging the rest in terms of development (either as a player or from a card pool standpoint), will need to come up to speed.
All decks, regardless of format, can benefit from the use of Synergy. Nowhere though is this more true than in Extended. Type 1, the Five and Chaos can all afford to splash some "off" cards, simply because of their raw power. (Such as in a Zoo deck.) However, Extended is so fast that you really need every card propelling you towards the final goal. Very few truly powerful splash spells are worth disrupting the central theme of your deck for. Most have been long since restricted, or increase your risk of getting hit by a , etc. Standard is quite a bit slower, so occasionally an off-color or off-theme bomb can be added (such as or into Rebels), to help the deck shore up certain bad matchups. Limited tends to see little overall deck synergy, but discovering small combos (Such as and Nightscape Apprentice) can help make your deck that much stronger.
Flexibility is truly the most defining difference between Chaos and most modern constructed formats. Though a few decks (Survival-Recur) focus on it, it’s certainly not a prime concern for most builders. In Type 1 and the other formats that use the Type 1 card pool (such as The Five or Chaos), you really don’t have any excuses to ignore it. When you look at the Type One card pool, you find cards that break the "new" rules for nearly every color (such as Black being unable to pop artifacts, or Red getting hosed by a Story Circle) and it’s so easy to play multiple colors, that getting screwed by a single enchantment or artifact should be pretty close to impossible. Allowing yourself to get shafted in Multiplayer because you forgot how to deal with artifacts is just inexcusable.
Durability: Ahh, my favorite concept; almost completely irrelevant to building in Type 1, and of minimal value in type 2 or 1.X, but essential to winning in Chaos, and a very important aspect of The Five. In Chaos you can anticipate having your hand, and probably your board, smashed several times by various players, so truly durable creatures and/or spells can be a godsend. Having access to and just gets unfair to your opponents; while they scramble for an answer, you fill up your graveyard and keep on sending the beats. The is a terrific example of built in Durability for a burn spell; Urza’s Rage represents a different aspect of this, too. While it’s not recursive, it’s also not counterable, making it much more of a sure thing. Control players have been using the mighty since his inception, and the main reason is that he can protect himself from nearly any form of removal. (As well as attack and block at the same time, fly, and grow bloated)
Looking Across Archetypes
Okay, now you're probably wondering: How do these themes in deckbuilding apply when looking to build a specific kind of deck? (Or maybe you're not, but either way, that’s where I’m headed.) Well, you can loosely break up decks into Combo, Beatdown, and Control, (Aggro-Control, Lock Control, and Pure Control, if you prefer), with each type having a variety of decks associated with them. I’d rather not do a deck-by-deck analysis, because that would not only push the limits of my typing skills, but also because small changes in a deck can easily shift its emphasis.
Example: a Rebel engine, which only splashes green for Wax/Wane, is going to play entirely differently from a Rebel deck splashing Blue for . The difference between a "Counter Rebels" deck and a "Waxy Rebels" may only be 6-10 cards total, but the decks play completely differently.
How about some explanations?
Combo decks often get the most press time among writers. This is due to their extreme focus on Synergy, Card Advantage and how they define the Fundamental Turn for the environment under which they function. They make only token gestures towards the Mana Curve (since their goal is typically to break it) and Mana Consistency. However, a more consistent mana base can encourage one combo deck over another (such as Trix over Necro-Pebbles). so I’ve indicated minor influences on both. Overall, they ignore momentum and flexibility; in fact, the best combo decks can ignore one’s opponent entirely. Durability is of minor concern, once the engine is in place. Of course, it’s very hard to create a "Rogue" combo deck, since they tend to be the defining decks of the format… At least after their first successful week.
As we switch to beatdown, the focus changes, we are now trying to make each and every card a quality threat, rather than having a single combination threat. The Mana curve is now much more important, as it becomes difficult to justify having mana accelerators wasting draws for the deck. Cards such as , , or encourage us to go with a mono-color strategy. Much like combo, a beatdown deck can set the fundamental turn for an environment if it is powerful enough. These decks are oriented around the early game only, so most long-term flexibility, card advantage, and durability are sacrificed in the name of speed. While we start seeing some interaction with our opponents, increasing the value of tempo, but beatdown is still pretty focused on "Goldfishing" an unprepared opponent. Lastly, since many, many beatdown decks use a very similar methodology, (cheap creatures, getting progressively larger, some alternative finisher/booster) they can often be sideboarded unilaterally against. (For example, is best against White Weenie or Rebels, but could very easily be used against Sligh or Suicide Black in a pinch). This is why it is very difficult to go rogue with beatdown either.
Aggro-Control does a little bit of everything well, but almost nothing perfectly. Most Aggro-Control decks (like Counter-Sliver, Tempest-Era Ponza, Three-Deuce, and PT Junk) all key off tempo, keeping an opponent off-base just long enough to pull out a win with some random 5/5 beastie or untargetable hodge-podge of different creatures. When talking about the Fundamental Turn theory, A-C decks never set it for the format, but they do excel at delaying an opponent’s. is probably the single most defining card of an Aggro strategy.
Lock-Control is an amalgam, with the goal being to seal up — or blow up — an opponent’s mana base (, UBC Ponza-MM, Son of Hermit), and in some very rare cases, their creature base (Cowardice). I’ll probably draw some flack for considering lock decks separately from pure control, but the goal of a lock player is significantly different. Lock decks focus on attacking an opponent’s resources, while Pure Control decks really focus directly on the opponent (Pure Control also typically has a wider array of options for dealing with their threats). A deck like pure LD Ponza is not a tempo-based deck, such as its Tempest-age, Jackal-Pup-packing predecessor, but instead focuses on blowing up lands and mana producers as early as turn 1, and will continue to do so for as long as it can. Many pack few to no ways to deal with larger creatures; they simply try to keep them off the table forever. This level of focus and dedication to a theme puts different pressures on the deckbuilder, but also (in some cases) allows for greater creativity in laying out the deck. The result is a more focused and synergistic deck than would be associated with something like Draw-Go, but which will give up the more flexible solutions to an opponent’s threats.
Pure Control decks run the closest to Chaos decks; they offer tons of depth and reusability, and with a stated goal of surviving an opponent’s early moves they are strong into the late game. This can work, up to a point. Control decks typically have little to no theme to their decks; their focus instead is on slapping an opponent down through massive Card Advantage, Flexibility, Durability, and Card Quality. Most Survival decks, Draw-Go strategies, White/Blue strategies, and Oath decks are based upon pure control. They will actually do little-to-nothing to aggressively attack an opponent’s resources; instead, they stick their chin out and give the beatdown or combo deck a free shot. If they can successfully absorb the hit, they usually turn it around on them and take full control of the game from that point on. However, doing this requires your deck to never run out of answers and/or having your answers become your threats. (Such as a shutting down an incoming beat rush by cranking out tokens to block, as well as being a 7/7 log on offense, or a Man-o-War bouncing one threat and becoming a 2/2 in the process for you.) Control decks rarely worry about a mana curve; instead they sacrifice that speed, and in return get more and more quality in the late game. Also, from a "roguish" standpoint, most control decks have been around in one form or another for a very long time. If and when a new major card advantage engine appears on the scene, you might expect a new control deck to be built up around it, but no big ones have come about since… Well… since Exodus, really. Yawgmoth’s Will was a one-shot deal, and though a very powerful spell, it was that was the real basis of the Black Spring of ’99. Yawgmoth’s and are more combo engines than solid card advantage engines. And while and the new are spells that can draw you an awful lot of cards, they are single-shot uses. Yawgmoth’s Agenda is about the only card from Invasion that seems strong enough to build a control strategy around, but so far, the built-in Academy Labs has proven too big a hurdle to overcome. Perhaps that will change in time. The whole basis of "going rogue" is to play something unexpected. Counterspells, and Millstones are never, ever going to be unexpected; and you can take that one to the bank.
A few closing ideas
What I’ve talked about over the last couple of weeks is by no means a complete listing of strategy concepts. This was designed as a review of, and perhaps a new look at, those concepts that have long been floating among us.
With the closing of The Dojo, I felt that perhaps a review of the many ideas put forth by the great thinkers should be brought back into the light. From the early discussions on Rob Hahn’s War College, to Jamie Wakefield’s quest for fun, to the high arching theories put forth by Taylor, Sullivan, Flores, and so many others, The Dojo was a well spring of knowledge and a solid read. Most of the early theories were being developed during the Ice Age era, and with Invasion being such a similar set, those selfsame early concepts can certainly be applied now. If you get some spare time this weekend, go through the archives — they are very, very impressive.
Lastly, as I’m sure you're aware, there is a large gap between theory and reality. For all of the strategy that has been written about Magic, the game is still largely based upon luck of the draw, favorable pairings, and natural ability (perceptiveness, creativity, knowledge of the environment, etc.). We writers often tend to overlook that aspect of it. The theories that many people talk about can help you build a good deck… But playing it is another story entirely. So next week, I’ll try to jump into the difference between reading strategy online and actually making it work at your next qualifier.
Good luck at the prereleases wherever you are,
Jon Chabot
|
