Magic the Gathering Blog
Good Games 5k Trial - Gosford
I've been told if I don't blog this, The Pirates will never let it go.
Not that they will anyway, but here goes.
I had woken this morning to a colossal migraine, and to get out of bed pumped half a tab of Nurofen Plus into my gob (don't try that at home, boys and girls). Eventually I got to a point where I was good enough to play.
It was a small crew at the Gosford Good Games for the 5K trial - literally 8 of us. It would be three rounds to top 4, then playoffs from there.
The field was pretty diverse - a couple of Jund, Planeswalker Control, UWr, Boros Bushwacker, Allies and Taronga Zoo. I was pretty confident with that field.
I played a practice match against Grixis before hand and the deck worked like a dream, especially after sideboarding. And then the tourny began.
My first matchup was Jund running Garruk and Eldrazi Monument. I managed to take that one down 2-0, which is what was expected from the deck.
My second matchup was Allies. This went 1-2, and I had little I could sideboard in against it. Allies was super-fast, almost Boros fast. I made a critical mistake in Game 3, throwing a 1-land hand that was entirely removal. If I'd kept it, I could have kept the board clear while I searched for land.
But it was match three that was the major fuckup.
It was Game 1, playing Boros. My opponent had mulled to five, and I was in great form. Board domination. Opponent's hand almost empty. A full clutch.
In response to some major shennanigans on the field, I crack a fetchland, pick up my library, and start searching for a Forest.
No forests.
But I do have my opponent calling a judge.
Because I've picked up the WRONG FUCKING LIBRARY.
That's right, I've turored right into my opponents library. That's tek, right?
Wrong.
I get a game loss - for the record, I should probably have got a DQ. And although I pick up the next game, Boros sweeps me in the third.
I could blame the drugs, but I won't. I'll blame bone-headed stupidness instead.
That said: the deck is good. Here's the changes I would make:
* -3 Bloodbraid Elf, +3 Explore. I always wanted more land. MOAR LAND. And Bloodbraid I rarely wanted to cast. Explore would also fill the 2-drop slot nicely.
* -1 Tectonic Edge, +1 Sejerri Steppe. I think I would of like the ability to instantly protect a Knight (or another creature) using the Knight's fetch ability. Would definitely have swung some games.
* +2 Earthquake or DoJ in the sideboad. The early aggro decks were harder than I thought.
Other than that, the deck is absolutely solid. Pity I'm such a twit.
I've been told if I don't blog this, The Pirates will never let it go.
Not that they will anyway, but here goes.
I had woken this morning to a colossal migraine, and to get out of bed pumped half a tab of Nurofen Plus into my gob (don't try that at home, boys and girls). Eventually I got to a point where I was good enough to play.
It was a small crew at the Gosford Good Games for the 5K trial - literally 8 of us. It would be three rounds to top 4, then playoffs from there.
The field was pretty diverse - a couple of Jund, Planeswalker Control, UWr, Boros Bushwacker, Allies and Taronga Zoo. I was pretty confident with that field.
I played a practice match against Grixis before hand and the deck worked like a dream, especially after sideboarding. And then the tourny began.
My first matchup was Jund running Garruk and Eldrazi Monument. I managed to take that one down 2-0, which is what was expected from the deck.
My second matchup was Allies. This went 1-2, and I had little I could sideboard in against it. Allies was super-fast, almost Boros fast. I made a critical mistake in Game 3, throwing a 1-land hand that was entirely removal. If I'd kept it, I could have kept the board clear while I searched for land.
But it was match three that was the major fuckup.
It was Game 1, playing Boros. My opponent had mulled to five, and I was in great form. Board domination. Opponent's hand almost empty. A full clutch.
In response to some major shennanigans on the field, I crack a fetchland, pick up my library, and start searching for a Forest.
No forests.
But I do have my opponent calling a judge.
Because I've picked up the WRONG FUCKING LIBRARY.
That's right, I've turored right into my opponents library. That's tek, right?
Wrong.
I get a game loss - for the record, I should probably have got a DQ. And although I pick up the next game, Boros sweeps me in the third.
I could blame the drugs, but I won't. I'll blame bone-headed stupidness instead.
That said: the deck is good. Here's the changes I would make:
* -3 Bloodbraid Elf, +3 Explore. I always wanted more land. MOAR LAND. And Bloodbraid I rarely wanted to cast. Explore would also fill the 2-drop slot nicely.
* -1 Tectonic Edge, +1 Sejerri Steppe. I think I would of like the ability to instantly protect a Knight (or another creature) using the Knight's fetch ability. Would definitely have swung some games.
* +2 Earthquake or DoJ in the sideboad. The early aggro decks were harder than I thought.
Other than that, the deck is absolutely solid. Pity I'm such a twit.
Taronga Zoo
[A decklist by Neale Talbot]
This deck leans heavily on a shell developed by Rubin Zoo (and by extension of that, Naya Lightsaber by Mike Flores). I'd like to thank Baz & Jay for their help tuning the deck, Bjoern and his friends for playtesting it, and Marshall for his input in the sideboard.
Once Worldwake was released, I returned to the zoo list Kibler played at Pro-Tour Austin. Once I saw the dual man lands from Worldwake and the Next Big Thing, Tectonic Edge, I knew I wanted to be able to tutor for them using Knight of the Reliquary. Which is why I returned to the Rubin list for inspiration, as Flores' (quite rightly) forgoed the Knight with only Arid Mesa as it's main pump machine.
The result was Taronga Zoo.
Taronga Zoo has performed very well in testing. The results - before a new sideboard was built - were about 60:40 vs Jund, Vampires & Boros, 50:50 vs Grixis and Lightsaber, and 30:70 vs UWr. This gives us advantage over most of the field, with one particularly bad matchup.
Here's the list:
Taronga Zoo Decklist
// 24 Creatures
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Noble Heirarch
1 Dragonmaster Outcast
1 Scute Mob
3 Knight of the Reliquary
4 Ranger of Eos
3 Bloodbraid Elf
4 Baneslayer Angel
// 8 Instants
4 Path to Exile
4 Lightning Bolt
// 3 Planeswalkers
2 Ajani Vengeant
1 Elspeth, Knight-Errant
// 25 Lands
4 Forest
3 Mountain
4 Plains
1 Raging Ravine
2 Stirring Wildwood
3 Tectonic Edge
4 Arid Mesa
2 Sunpetal Grove
1 Rootbound Crag
1 Oran-Reif, the Vastwood
//
3 x Slingbow Trap
3 x Great Sable Stag
4 x Kor Firewalker
3 x Luminarch Ascension
2 x Burst Lightning
Maindeck
The deck has a lot of clear synergies, but a surprising one is mana denial. Between Ajani and Tectonic Edge, with a good draw you can keep your opponent on 2 effective mana for quite a while.
Although only 24 creatures are listed, you're really running 27+ - three more from the three manlands, and an infinite number you can pump out via Elspeth.
Knight of the Reliquary is a champ, able to tutor up Oran-Rief, a man-land, or a Tectonic Edge. This deck considers Edge almost a spell, rather than a land - "1, destroy target non-basic land, give Knight of the Reliquary +1/+1". Sounds good to me.
In testing the Manlands have been great. They give you extra reach post Day of Judgment, as well as a beat-down machine. Occasionally you'll lose one to a Terminate, but if you play smart you'll generally get around Lightning Bolt. And when they do die, they're only pumping Knight of the Reliquary. Modular, right?
Ranger has a lot of good targets, but one great move late game is grabbing both a Scute Mob and the Dragonmaster Outcast. The sort of devil's choice you love to give your opponent. Or a win condition if they don'thave any removal in hand.
Sideboard
The sideboard is mainly to shore up some of your worse matchups, though UWr is always going to be a dog. We had a fair bit of discussion about Luminarch Ascension, Summoning Trap or River Boa, but Luminarch won the day. You lay it down, then apply pressure, and hopefully UWr is spending so many resources in defence they can't get rid of the Ascension. Hopefully.
Slingbow Trap is pretty spectacular. For G you can kill Abyssal Persecutor, Vampire Nocturnus, Malakir Bloodwitch, Vampire Nighthawk or Broodmate Dragon. For 3G it kills Baneslayer or a Broodmate token. Sure, it's conditional in that they have to be attacking, but when does Vampires not attack?
Great Sable Stag helps the UWr and Grixis matchups, with some splash damage for Jund. The main thing is to try to play it with the ability to pump with Oran-Rief and get it out of Lightning Bolt range.
Kor Firewalker is just nuts - NUTS - against RDW, and can also turn a match against Grixis. Grixis' only real removal options are Into the Roil or Sorin.
Burst Lightning helps against Malakir Bloodwitch, slowing down Boros, nuking a Ball Lightning, or just pushing damage across to your opponent.
Exploring Options
Other options we considered were:
* Dropping the Heirarchs for Loam Lions and turning on the aggro.
* Dropping the Bloodbraid Elfs for Explore and going for Mana Ramp.
* Playing a singleton Quicksand.
* Getting rid of M10 duals entirely and going the whole hog with manlands.
* Dropping red entirely and heading into some sort of GW Little Kid deck
I'm sure all of these will be attempted in time. But for now the deck is what it is. Hopefully this migraine will go away and I'll get to play it today at the Good Games 5k Trial. If not, I hope at the very least you get to have fun with it.
[A decklist by Neale Talbot]
This deck leans heavily on a shell developed by Rubin Zoo (and by extension of that, Naya Lightsaber by Mike Flores). I'd like to thank Baz & Jay for their help tuning the deck, Bjoern and his friends for playtesting it, and Marshall for his input in the sideboard.
Once Worldwake was released, I returned to the zoo list Kibler played at Pro-Tour Austin. Once I saw the dual man lands from Worldwake and the Next Big Thing, Tectonic Edge, I knew I wanted to be able to tutor for them using Knight of the Reliquary. Which is why I returned to the Rubin list for inspiration, as Flores' (quite rightly) forgoed the Knight with only Arid Mesa as it's main pump machine.
The result was Taronga Zoo.
Taronga Zoo has performed very well in testing. The results - before a new sideboard was built - were about 60:40 vs Jund, Vampires & Boros, 50:50 vs Grixis and Lightsaber, and 30:70 vs UWr. This gives us advantage over most of the field, with one particularly bad matchup.
Here's the list:
Taronga Zoo Decklist
// 24 Creatures
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Noble Heirarch
1 Dragonmaster Outcast
1 Scute Mob
3 Knight of the Reliquary
4 Ranger of Eos
3 Bloodbraid Elf
4 Baneslayer Angel
// 8 Instants
4 Path to Exile
4 Lightning Bolt
// 3 Planeswalkers
2 Ajani Vengeant
1 Elspeth, Knight-Errant
// 25 Lands
4 Forest
3 Mountain
4 Plains
1 Raging Ravine
2 Stirring Wildwood
3 Tectonic Edge
4 Arid Mesa
2 Sunpetal Grove
1 Rootbound Crag
1 Oran-Reif, the Vastwood
//
3 x Slingbow Trap
3 x Great Sable Stag
4 x Kor Firewalker
3 x Luminarch Ascension
2 x Burst Lightning
Maindeck
The deck has a lot of clear synergies, but a surprising one is mana denial. Between Ajani and Tectonic Edge, with a good draw you can keep your opponent on 2 effective mana for quite a while.
Although only 24 creatures are listed, you're really running 27+ - three more from the three manlands, and an infinite number you can pump out via Elspeth.
Knight of the Reliquary is a champ, able to tutor up Oran-Rief, a man-land, or a Tectonic Edge. This deck considers Edge almost a spell, rather than a land - "1, destroy target non-basic land, give Knight of the Reliquary +1/+1". Sounds good to me.
In testing the Manlands have been great. They give you extra reach post Day of Judgment, as well as a beat-down machine. Occasionally you'll lose one to a Terminate, but if you play smart you'll generally get around Lightning Bolt. And when they do die, they're only pumping Knight of the Reliquary. Modular, right?
Ranger has a lot of good targets, but one great move late game is grabbing both a Scute Mob and the Dragonmaster Outcast. The sort of devil's choice you love to give your opponent. Or a win condition if they don'thave any removal in hand.
Sideboard
The sideboard is mainly to shore up some of your worse matchups, though UWr is always going to be a dog. We had a fair bit of discussion about Luminarch Ascension, Summoning Trap or River Boa, but Luminarch won the day. You lay it down, then apply pressure, and hopefully UWr is spending so many resources in defence they can't get rid of the Ascension. Hopefully.
Slingbow Trap is pretty spectacular. For G you can kill Abyssal Persecutor, Vampire Nocturnus, Malakir Bloodwitch, Vampire Nighthawk or Broodmate Dragon. For 3G it kills Baneslayer or a Broodmate token. Sure, it's conditional in that they have to be attacking, but when does Vampires not attack?
Great Sable Stag helps the UWr and Grixis matchups, with some splash damage for Jund. The main thing is to try to play it with the ability to pump with Oran-Rief and get it out of Lightning Bolt range.
Kor Firewalker is just nuts - NUTS - against RDW, and can also turn a match against Grixis. Grixis' only real removal options are Into the Roil or Sorin.
Burst Lightning helps against Malakir Bloodwitch, slowing down Boros, nuking a Ball Lightning, or just pushing damage across to your opponent.
Exploring Options
Other options we considered were:
* Dropping the Heirarchs for Loam Lions and turning on the aggro.
* Dropping the Bloodbraid Elfs for Explore and going for Mana Ramp.
* Playing a singleton Quicksand.
* Getting rid of M10 duals entirely and going the whole hog with manlands.
* Dropping red entirely and heading into some sort of GW Little Kid deck
I'm sure all of these will be attempted in time. But for now the deck is what it is. Hopefully this migraine will go away and I'll get to play it today at the Good Games 5k Trial. If not, I hope at the very least you get to have fun with it.
Labels: deckbuilding, standard, taronga zoo
Abyssal Persecutor, Abyssal Persecutor & more Abyssal Persecutor
Is it the new Baneslayer? Certainly it's the face of the new Worldwake standard. A 6/6 creature with flying and trample seems to be one of the best ways of crushing your opponent at the moment.
Thinking about the Big Lug, here are two decks that try to make the most of the guy, while also abusing some of his friends:
BUG Stompy
// 24 Creatures
4 Birds of Paradise
4 Lotus Cobra
4 Putrid Leech
4 Nulltread Gargantuan
4 Gatekeeper of Malakir
4 Abyssal Persecutor
// 14 Spells
3 Spell Pierce
4 Maelstrom Pulse
4 Explore
3 Into the Roil
// 22 Lands
3 Misty Rainforest
3 Verdant Catacombs
4 Ancient Ziggurat
4 Forest
5 Swamp
3 Island
Sideboard
4 Bone Splinters
4 Bloodghast
4 Duress
3 Whiplash Trap
This is a semi-rock deck that plans to get down the Persecutor on turn 3, likely with Spell Pierce mana backup. It is possible to play it on turn 2 with Lotus Cobra, Explores and Fetchlands, but it's unlikely.
Nulltread Gargantaun is an unrealised beast in the format. A 5/6 is absolutely nothing to sniff at, able to battle with and come out on top of any of the Thoctars. Meahwhile it can be used to bounce both the Persecutor once it has done its job or the Gatekeeper if you want to get extra value out of it. Even playing it on T2 and bouncing a Birds of Paradise isn't the worst move in the world as you immediately apply pressure and force your opponent into defence mode.
The mana is probably a little clumbsy, and the removal is light on, but once you're swinging in with a couple of 5/6s and 6/6s, who really cares?
---***---
At the opposite end of the colour spectrum is this use for Abyssal Persecutor
Monoblack Abyssal Control
// 20 Creatures
4 Bloodghast
4 Gatekeeper of Malakir
4 Kalastria Highborn
4 Fleshbag Marauder
4 Abyssal Persecutor
// 4 Enchantments
4 Soul Stair Expedition
// 2 Planeswalker
2 Sorin Markov
// 10 Spells
3 Grim Discovery
4 Bone Splinters
3 Tendrils of Corruption
// 24 Lands
12 Swamp
4 Verdant Catacombs
4 Marsh Flats
4 Tectonic Edge
Sideboard
4 Duress
4 Doom Blade
3 Marsh Casualties
4 Vampire Hexmage
Talk about abusing mechanics here. I'd be surprised if your opponent can ever keep a creature on the battlefield. Meanwhile every time you sac a creature, you're getting value out of Kalistria Highborn, Bloodghast, Grim Discovery and Soul Stair Expedition. It's imcremental card advantage at its best.
The sideboard has been thrown together and could do with some work - Dead Reckoning, Nemesis Trap and Quest for the Gravelord are all possibilities - but I think the core of the deck is solid. There's something about the idea of beating an opponent over the head with Persecutor, then using Sorin's ultimate to force your opponent to kill it, that I love.
Is it the new Baneslayer? Certainly it's the face of the new Worldwake standard. A 6/6 creature with flying and trample seems to be one of the best ways of crushing your opponent at the moment.
Thinking about the Big Lug, here are two decks that try to make the most of the guy, while also abusing some of his friends:
BUG Stompy
// 24 Creatures
4 Birds of Paradise
4 Lotus Cobra
4 Putrid Leech
4 Nulltread Gargantuan
4 Gatekeeper of Malakir
4 Abyssal Persecutor
// 14 Spells
3 Spell Pierce
4 Maelstrom Pulse
4 Explore
3 Into the Roil
// 22 Lands
3 Misty Rainforest
3 Verdant Catacombs
4 Ancient Ziggurat
4 Forest
5 Swamp
3 Island
Sideboard
4 Bone Splinters
4 Bloodghast
4 Duress
3 Whiplash Trap
This is a semi-rock deck that plans to get down the Persecutor on turn 3, likely with Spell Pierce mana backup. It is possible to play it on turn 2 with Lotus Cobra, Explores and Fetchlands, but it's unlikely.
Nulltread Gargantaun is an unrealised beast in the format. A 5/6 is absolutely nothing to sniff at, able to battle with and come out on top of any of the Thoctars. Meahwhile it can be used to bounce both the Persecutor once it has done its job or the Gatekeeper if you want to get extra value out of it. Even playing it on T2 and bouncing a Birds of Paradise isn't the worst move in the world as you immediately apply pressure and force your opponent into defence mode.
The mana is probably a little clumbsy, and the removal is light on, but once you're swinging in with a couple of 5/6s and 6/6s, who really cares?
---***---
At the opposite end of the colour spectrum is this use for Abyssal Persecutor
Monoblack Abyssal Control
// 20 Creatures
4 Bloodghast
4 Gatekeeper of Malakir
4 Kalastria Highborn
4 Fleshbag Marauder
4 Abyssal Persecutor
// 4 Enchantments
4 Soul Stair Expedition
// 2 Planeswalker
2 Sorin Markov
// 10 Spells
3 Grim Discovery
4 Bone Splinters
3 Tendrils of Corruption
// 24 Lands
12 Swamp
4 Verdant Catacombs
4 Marsh Flats
4 Tectonic Edge
Sideboard
4 Duress
4 Doom Blade
3 Marsh Casualties
4 Vampire Hexmage
Talk about abusing mechanics here. I'd be surprised if your opponent can ever keep a creature on the battlefield. Meanwhile every time you sac a creature, you're getting value out of Kalistria Highborn, Bloodghast, Grim Discovery and Soul Stair Expedition. It's imcremental card advantage at its best.
The sideboard has been thrown together and could do with some work - Dead Reckoning, Nemesis Trap and Quest for the Gravelord are all possibilities - but I think the core of the deck is solid. There's something about the idea of beating an opponent over the head with Persecutor, then using Sorin's ultimate to force your opponent to kill it, that I love.
On the State of Magic Theory
There are a number of new MtG ‘theories’ kicking around at the moment. I’ve summarised these briefly (in my own words) below:
* Michael J Flores:The player that spends the most mana the most efficiently over the course of a match will invariably win. "It's all about the mana."* As tweeted by MJF himself.
* AJ Sacher: Whoever spends the most mana over the course of a game has a significant advantage over an opponent; a mana not spent is mana wasted.
* Zac Hill: The value of a given action can be measured by the number of favorable interactions it creates relative to a maximum number of interactions of which your deck is capable, or the number of an opponent’s interactions it correspondingly negates.
* Patrick Chapin (paywall protected): The object of a game of Magic is to manipulate your resources to get more and better options while denying your opponent the same in order to take away their option to continue to play.
Michael’s & AJ’s new theories are heavily influenced by the Philosophy of Fire, which Michael wrote about in 2004. That article dipped into the relative costs of resources with the following sentences:
At this point I think it’s a good idea to mention Zvi’s article on Michael’s Philosophy of Fire, in which he says the following,
It appears that the state of Magic theory is currently circling back on itself. Whereas once resources were valued in terms of life-equivalency, they are now being valued in terms of mana-equivalency. Whereas once interaction value was based on tempo and card advantage, now it’s based on option and possibility creation and denial.
I no longer care for these either/or type of theories. Card advantage is everything! Tempo is everything! Mana efficiency is everything! Interaction is everything! Option denial is everything! Clearly all these things matter; tempo, efficiency, interaction, options, card advantage; However, not every one of these matters to every deck. The Burn deck cares little about interaction but a great deal about tempo. The Combo deck cares little about the individual mana efficiency of its cards but a great deal about the interactions between them. The control deck cares a little about everything a lot about card advantage. All these theories are important, but none of them are the be-all and end-all of Magic theory.
A little while ago I posted the idea that Magic is a game of negotiation, in that both players start with a set number of resources and use these resources to trade with each other until one reaches a win condition. This is a simple analogy and certainly not a high-falutin’ theory. However I did go into some depth on the resources available to a player:
Tier 1: Starting Resources
* Life total
* Cards in Hand
* Cards in Library
* Cards outside of game
Tier 2: Battlefield Resources
* Permanents in play
* Creatures in play
* Basic land types in play
* Enchantments in play
* Artifacts in play (Affinity)
* Tokens in play
Tier 3: Gameplay Resources
* Creature types in play (Tribal)
* Mana symbols in play (Chroma)
* Mana symbols in graveyard (Chroma)
* Mana symbols in hand (Chroma)
* Card types in graveyard (Lhurgoyf)
* Lands in graveyard (Lhurgoyf)
* Nonbasic lands in graveyard (Lhurgoyf)
* Instants in graveyard (Lhurgoyf)
* Sorceries in graveyard (Lhurgoyf)
* Creatures in graveyard (Lhurgoyf)
* Enchantments in graveyard (Lhurgoyf)
* Power of creatures in play
* Toughness of creatures in play
* Mana Generators in play
* Counters on permanents in play
* Cards in Graveyard (Threshold, Dredge)
* Top card of your deck
Tier 4: Meta Resources
* Mulligans
* Time / Turns left
* Deck 'power'
* Deck tempo
* Deck consistency
* Deck threat diversity
* Deck threat response
* Deck card interactions
* Knowledge of own deck
* Knowledge of opponent’s deck
* Knowledge of opponent’s hand
* Knowledge of top card of opponent’s deck
* Knowledge of top card of your deck
I think it is a time consuming and pointless exercise to try to position all these resources in a framework of mana efficiency, tempo, card advantage, or any other single element of Magic theory. What we can do is understand how we access our resources, maximise the value of our resources, and get efficiency from their expenditure in order to better achieve the outcome of ‘winning the game’.
Here are a number of ways (and by no means exhaustive) we trade resources, both spending one type of our own resources for others (eg. spending mana to draw a card) or with our opponent (eg. burning an opponent in the face):
* Life total manipulation (inc. Burn, Necropotence)
* Drawing a card
* Accessing cards in Library (Tutor)
* Accessing cards in Graveyard (Dredge)
* Accessing cards outside of game (Wish)
* Accessing and using mana, and having wider varieties of colour available
* Tapping a permanent for effect
* Activating an ability for effect
* Triggering an ability for effect
* Attacking or blocking with a creature
* Countering a spell
* Destroying a permanent
And here are some ways (again not an exhaustive list) we maximise our resource expenditure:
* Using efficient cards (ie low casting cost for ‘power’ ratio)
* Using cards with reusable abilities (triggered, activated)
* Using cards with multiple abilities
* Using cards that gain card advantage (eg. Cryptic Command, Blightning)
* Using cards that gain permanent advantage (eg. Gatekeeper of Malakir)
* Maximising use of all available resources each turn (depending on efficacy of doings so)
* Maximising re-use of cards (flashback, buyback, unearth, dredge)
* Maximising compatibility/integration of cards (the sum is more than its parts – combos, linears)
* Using Instant Win Conditions
When building a deck I think it’s important to understand what the deck is trying to do in order to win the resource battle. Is it a deck prepared to trade life for card interaction and a combo win (eg. Ad Neaseum Storm) or is it a deck that seeks to reduce the value of your opponent’s resources (eg. Ghostly Prison/Moat decks) or is it a deck that tries to gain consistent permanent and advantage (eg. Jund), or is it a deck that preys on your opponent’s weaknesses by putting out the most efficient, tempo based cards available (eg. Naya Lightsaber)?
A deck needs to define its path to victory, whatever that may be; I counter everything my opponent does, play these two combo pieces, then win; I lay down a lot of efficient 1 mana creatures and kill everything he plays to block with; I play bigger and better creatures than my opponent. Each strategy will have its own strengths and weaknesses, depending on the metagame (ie. the strategies your opponents are taking).
A deck also needs to weigh up what path it will take to maximise its resources on that path to victory, whether that be tempo (eg. mono-white weenie) or card advantage (eg. UW control), mana efficiency (Naya Lightsaber) or card interaction (eg. Hive Mind).
Not every deck will have use for every strategy or theory. Furthermore, some strategies will have specific weak spots against others (eg card advantage vs. tempo, interaction vs efficiency). But as of yet we have no theory that rules them all, nor in the darkness binds them.
There are a number of new MtG ‘theories’ kicking around at the moment. I’ve summarised these briefly (in my own words) below:
* Michael J Flores:
* AJ Sacher: Whoever spends the most mana over the course of a game has a significant advantage over an opponent; a mana not spent is mana wasted.
* Zac Hill: The value of a given action can be measured by the number of favorable interactions it creates relative to a maximum number of interactions of which your deck is capable, or the number of an opponent’s interactions it correspondingly negates.
* Patrick Chapin (paywall protected): The object of a game of Magic is to manipulate your resources to get more and better options while denying your opponent the same in order to take away their option to continue to play.
Michael’s & AJ’s new theories are heavily influenced by the Philosophy of Fire, which Michael wrote about in 2004. That article dipped into the relative costs of resources with the following sentences:
"We contrast cards for life (Shock), and again cards for life in the other direction (Natural Spring), to see the card advantage generated by Natural Spring when compared to Shock. What the Philosophy of Fire does is focus on the first part of that exchange. Rather than looking at a cards-for-cards or life-for-cards relationship, it focuses on cards for life and associates a value based on the default damage spell being Shock. Simple and obvious, right? Step back a second. You know that Necropotence says x life = x-1 cards. You know that Sylvan Library says 4 life = 1 card. Now imagine you had a deck of all Shocks. That says that 1 card = 2 life."
At this point I think it’s a good idea to mention Zvi’s article on Michael’s Philosophy of Fire, in which he says the following,
"There is far more you can do looking at life as a resource and trading it for others. Magic is all about trade-offs. The Philosophy of Fire is all about changing the value of resources."
It appears that the state of Magic theory is currently circling back on itself. Whereas once resources were valued in terms of life-equivalency, they are now being valued in terms of mana-equivalency. Whereas once interaction value was based on tempo and card advantage, now it’s based on option and possibility creation and denial.
I no longer care for these either/or type of theories. Card advantage is everything! Tempo is everything! Mana efficiency is everything! Interaction is everything! Option denial is everything! Clearly all these things matter; tempo, efficiency, interaction, options, card advantage; However, not every one of these matters to every deck. The Burn deck cares little about interaction but a great deal about tempo. The Combo deck cares little about the individual mana efficiency of its cards but a great deal about the interactions between them. The control deck cares a little about everything a lot about card advantage. All these theories are important, but none of them are the be-all and end-all of Magic theory.
A little while ago I posted the idea that Magic is a game of negotiation, in that both players start with a set number of resources and use these resources to trade with each other until one reaches a win condition. This is a simple analogy and certainly not a high-falutin’ theory. However I did go into some depth on the resources available to a player:
Tier 1: Starting Resources
* Life total
* Cards in Hand
* Cards in Library
* Cards outside of game
Tier 2: Battlefield Resources
* Permanents in play
* Creatures in play
* Basic land types in play
* Enchantments in play
* Artifacts in play (Affinity)
* Tokens in play
Tier 3: Gameplay Resources
* Creature types in play (Tribal)
* Mana symbols in play (Chroma)
* Mana symbols in graveyard (Chroma)
* Mana symbols in hand (Chroma)
* Card types in graveyard (Lhurgoyf)
* Lands in graveyard (Lhurgoyf)
* Nonbasic lands in graveyard (Lhurgoyf)
* Instants in graveyard (Lhurgoyf)
* Sorceries in graveyard (Lhurgoyf)
* Creatures in graveyard (Lhurgoyf)
* Enchantments in graveyard (Lhurgoyf)
* Power of creatures in play
* Toughness of creatures in play
* Mana Generators in play
* Counters on permanents in play
* Cards in Graveyard (Threshold, Dredge)
* Top card of your deck
Tier 4: Meta Resources
* Mulligans
* Time / Turns left
* Deck 'power'
* Deck tempo
* Deck consistency
* Deck threat diversity
* Deck threat response
* Deck card interactions
* Knowledge of own deck
* Knowledge of opponent’s deck
* Knowledge of opponent’s hand
* Knowledge of top card of opponent’s deck
* Knowledge of top card of your deck
I think it is a time consuming and pointless exercise to try to position all these resources in a framework of mana efficiency, tempo, card advantage, or any other single element of Magic theory. What we can do is understand how we access our resources, maximise the value of our resources, and get efficiency from their expenditure in order to better achieve the outcome of ‘winning the game’.
Here are a number of ways (and by no means exhaustive) we trade resources, both spending one type of our own resources for others (eg. spending mana to draw a card) or with our opponent (eg. burning an opponent in the face):
* Life total manipulation (inc. Burn, Necropotence)
* Drawing a card
* Accessing cards in Library (Tutor)
* Accessing cards in Graveyard (Dredge)
* Accessing cards outside of game (Wish)
* Accessing and using mana, and having wider varieties of colour available
* Tapping a permanent for effect
* Activating an ability for effect
* Triggering an ability for effect
* Attacking or blocking with a creature
* Countering a spell
* Destroying a permanent
And here are some ways (again not an exhaustive list) we maximise our resource expenditure:
* Using efficient cards (ie low casting cost for ‘power’ ratio)
* Using cards with reusable abilities (triggered, activated)
* Using cards with multiple abilities
* Using cards that gain card advantage (eg. Cryptic Command, Blightning)
* Using cards that gain permanent advantage (eg. Gatekeeper of Malakir)
* Maximising use of all available resources each turn (depending on efficacy of doings so)
* Maximising re-use of cards (flashback, buyback, unearth, dredge)
* Maximising compatibility/integration of cards (the sum is more than its parts – combos, linears)
* Using Instant Win Conditions
When building a deck I think it’s important to understand what the deck is trying to do in order to win the resource battle. Is it a deck prepared to trade life for card interaction and a combo win (eg. Ad Neaseum Storm) or is it a deck that seeks to reduce the value of your opponent’s resources (eg. Ghostly Prison/Moat decks) or is it a deck that tries to gain consistent permanent and advantage (eg. Jund), or is it a deck that preys on your opponent’s weaknesses by putting out the most efficient, tempo based cards available (eg. Naya Lightsaber)?
A deck needs to define its path to victory, whatever that may be; I counter everything my opponent does, play these two combo pieces, then win; I lay down a lot of efficient 1 mana creatures and kill everything he plays to block with; I play bigger and better creatures than my opponent. Each strategy will have its own strengths and weaknesses, depending on the metagame (ie. the strategies your opponents are taking).
A deck also needs to weigh up what path it will take to maximise its resources on that path to victory, whether that be tempo (eg. mono-white weenie) or card advantage (eg. UW control), mana efficiency (Naya Lightsaber) or card interaction (eg. Hive Mind).
Not every deck will have use for every strategy or theory. Furthermore, some strategies will have specific weak spots against others (eg card advantage vs. tempo, interaction vs efficiency). But as of yet we have no theory that rules them all, nor in the darkness binds them.
Labels: theory
Top 10 Cards Most Likely to Be Reprinted in Rise of the Eldrazi
You know, in order to stay one step ahead of the Magic blogging pack, you need to be prepared to go out on a limb. Which is why I'm going to speculate not on Worldwake, but on the next set, Rise of the Eldrazi.
This speculation is on the basis of two cards in Worldwake, both also speculation themselves:
Walking Atlas, (2), Creature - Construct
You may put a land card from your hand onto the battlefield.
Eye of Ugin, Legendary Land
Colorless Eldrazi spells cost 2 less to cast.
7, T : Search your library for a colorless creature card, reveal it and put it in your hand. Then shuffle your library.
These two cards imply there will be colourless non-artifact creatures in Rise of the Eldrazi. Eye of Ugin has also been referenced by another card, Ghostfire, which is itself colourless. This implies a colourless theme in Rise of the Eldrazi.
So on that basis, let's speculate on Top 10 Cards Most Likely to Be Reprinted in Rise of the Eldrazi.
1. Ghostfire (Future Sight): Chance Almost certain. The orignal coloulress colored non-permanent spell. It references the Eye of Ugin. Thirdly, it's time shifted. What more convincing do you need?
2. Thran Lens (Urza's Legacy): Chance Sounds good. Thran Lens does one thing and does it well: All permanents are colorless. If the Eldrazi encourage colourless permanents, surely they'd have a Thran Lens or two lying around.
3. Moonlace (Time Spiral): Chance Good, if only because WotC hate us all. You could see this becoming a draft pick or part of some rediculous combo, as it targets both spells and permanents, making them colourless. Here's hoping not.
4. Celestial Dawn (6th Ed): Chance Possible. It has a land-flavoured theme, and in the current standard Plains matter, as it combos nicely with Iona the Sky Ruin and helps combat colourless permanents. Certainly one to watch.
5. Mycosynth Lattice (Darksteel): Chance Possible. The opposite of Celestial Dawn, makes everything colourless. Could be just what the Eldrazi ordered. Would make the EDH crew happy.
6. Ghostly Flame (Ice Age): Chance Perhaps. It's a narrow Mycosynth Latice and could be a very interesting addition to the set. Mirrors Ghostfire nicely.
7. Helm of Kaldra, Sword of Kaldra, and Shield of Kaldra: Chance Unlikely. It makes a colourless Legendary Avatar, and it would be great to see a reprint, but I'm not holding my breath.
8. Ancient Kavu (Invasion): Chance Possible. WotC love their Kavus, and this one's ancient, and the Eldrazi are ancient, and the original flavour text links to Phyrexia... it's a long bow to draw, isn't it?
9. Ersatz Gnomes (Mirage): Chance Slim. When was the last time WotC printed a gnome? Maybe Rise of the Eldrazi will be their big comeback... and maybe not. Perhaps a functional reprint will be seen instead.
10. Sliver Queen, Ghostflame Sliver, Brood Sliver: Chance Unlikely If slivers return, these three will definitely be among them. There has been some chatter on the boards that the Eldrazi were the creators of the Sliver race. Plus, WotC have released the Premium Sliver deck and are releasing the new dual decks Phyrexia vs. the Coalition. If WotC's marketing gears are working well then maybe we'll see them back. With MtG you should never say 'never'. Except when saying it about saying 'never'.
And there you have it. Absolute, utter, wild speculation. Go out and buy those Moonlaces, everyone!
Note: Please don't go out and by any Moonlaces, ever.
You know, in order to stay one step ahead of the Magic blogging pack, you need to be prepared to go out on a limb. Which is why I'm going to speculate not on Worldwake, but on the next set, Rise of the Eldrazi.
This speculation is on the basis of two cards in Worldwake, both also speculation themselves:
Walking Atlas, (2), Creature - Construct
You may put a land card from your hand onto the battlefield.
Eye of Ugin, Legendary Land
Colorless Eldrazi spells cost 2 less to cast.
7, T : Search your library for a colorless creature card, reveal it and put it in your hand. Then shuffle your library.
These two cards imply there will be colourless non-artifact creatures in Rise of the Eldrazi. Eye of Ugin has also been referenced by another card, Ghostfire, which is itself colourless. This implies a colourless theme in Rise of the Eldrazi.
So on that basis, let's speculate on Top 10 Cards Most Likely to Be Reprinted in Rise of the Eldrazi.
1. Ghostfire (Future Sight): Chance Almost certain. The orignal coloulress colored non-permanent spell. It references the Eye of Ugin. Thirdly, it's time shifted. What more convincing do you need?
2. Thran Lens (Urza's Legacy): Chance Sounds good. Thran Lens does one thing and does it well: All permanents are colorless. If the Eldrazi encourage colourless permanents, surely they'd have a Thran Lens or two lying around.
3. Moonlace (Time Spiral): Chance Good, if only because WotC hate us all. You could see this becoming a draft pick or part of some rediculous combo, as it targets both spells and permanents, making them colourless. Here's hoping not.
4. Celestial Dawn (6th Ed): Chance Possible. It has a land-flavoured theme, and in the current standard Plains matter, as it combos nicely with Iona the Sky Ruin and helps combat colourless permanents. Certainly one to watch.
5. Mycosynth Lattice (Darksteel): Chance Possible. The opposite of Celestial Dawn, makes everything colourless. Could be just what the Eldrazi ordered. Would make the EDH crew happy.
6. Ghostly Flame (Ice Age): Chance Perhaps. It's a narrow Mycosynth Latice and could be a very interesting addition to the set. Mirrors Ghostfire nicely.
7. Helm of Kaldra, Sword of Kaldra, and Shield of Kaldra: Chance Unlikely. It makes a colourless Legendary Avatar, and it would be great to see a reprint, but I'm not holding my breath.
8. Ancient Kavu (Invasion): Chance Possible. WotC love their Kavus, and this one's ancient, and the Eldrazi are ancient, and the original flavour text links to Phyrexia... it's a long bow to draw, isn't it?
9. Ersatz Gnomes (Mirage): Chance Slim. When was the last time WotC printed a gnome? Maybe Rise of the Eldrazi will be their big comeback... and maybe not. Perhaps a functional reprint will be seen instead.
10. Sliver Queen, Ghostflame Sliver, Brood Sliver: Chance Unlikely If slivers return, these three will definitely be among them. There has been some chatter on the boards that the Eldrazi were the creators of the Sliver race. Plus, WotC have released the Premium Sliver deck and are releasing the new dual decks Phyrexia vs. the Coalition. If WotC's marketing gears are working well then maybe we'll see them back. With MtG you should never say 'never'. Except when saying it about saying 'never'.
And there you have it. Absolute, utter, wild speculation. Go out and buy those Moonlaces, everyone!
Note: Please don't go out and by any Moonlaces, ever.
Labels: mtgo, Rise of the Eldrazi, speculation
The Unified Theory of Grand Funk Railroad
Here is a compacted version of the Flores/Sloppystack/Kelly podcast about Michael's Grand Unified Theory of Everything.
Please note that THIS IS NOT A TRANSCRIPT. It is a pretty good summary of what was said. Some things were pretty hard to hear, especially over the cross-talk, but this just about captures it.
I wanted to lay this out to give a better idea of what Flores was talking about. I'll put some thoughts at the end.
Please note if Sloppystack is talking (or Kelly - I can't tell the two apart, and so they're all Will to me), the line is preferences with an SS. Otherwise it's all Mike, all the time.
I've left out a bunch of analogies, side discussions, and other stuff I felt unimportant to the summary. Mike, Stack, if you're reading this, feel free to ping me with any complaints.
Where you see something in brackets, that's generally a note I've made to clarify a position. These are all my own assumptions.
Top8Magic Podcast Summary
Synergy is just stupid.
Linears are free value, as long as the cards are good.
We can't just play Cruel Ultimatums because we'll die before we can cast it.
What we can do is play the best cards that we can with the amount of mana we have to cast them.
There is only one mertric that matters in Magic - how much value you're getting out of your mana.
This is not 'make the most use of your mana every turn'. Doing the most you can get out of your mana is often horrible.
I'm talking about a metric, not a philosophy you should have.
It's easiest to explain in extremes.
Dredge. A dredge deck may only have total access to 3 mana.
If I flip over three Narcomeobas and flashback Dread Return, I've already got UUU3BB2. Therefore ten mana, and then I get my Flamekin - therefore another 4 - and the Bridge From Belows have created Zombie tokens.
A Zombie Token could be seen as B2 - but more like G1 - I think it's fair to say it's W.
Therefore I've gotten 24 mana worth of value, and you're dead. And the reason is I've got 24 value and you've got zero.
SS: A simple way of explain this, is if you gave a red deck 24 worth of mana on T2, you'd be dead.
Another extreme - a sealed deck game.
If you're not doing anything in the first three turns, here's what's happening. T1, I lost a mana. T2, I lost 2 mana. T3 I lost 3 mana. I'm down six mana. The fact is I'm fallow for six mana.
This explains two things that are the most frustrating things for Magic Players.
1. Mana Flood - If I can play land but can't do anything with it, it's like having no land.
2. Mana Screw - I'm getting the exact same amount of value as a mana flooded player.
Let's combine the two theories.
Ben's theory is 'play the best cards'
Playing the best cards allows us to distill a real use of mana into the most effective packages.
So I can play G1 and play an Elvish Visionary. What's an Elvish VIsionary worth? It's probably worth .5G + U. I think it's probably worth U plus .5U. So U.5.
What if I play a Grizzly Bear? We can say it's worth 2, right? It's really worth W.
I'm benchmarking with a realistic cost for a tournament playable cards - what is the benchmark for a tourament playable X. Hound of Konda is W, so a Grizzly Bears is worth W.
If I cast a Grizzly Bears, I'm losing a mana, because it's only worth a W.
Let's talk about Wild Mongrel. It's probably worth more than G1. I'm not sure how much more.
When I cast a Tarmogoyf, It's probably worth GG2. For the cost of G1, I've got the value of GG2.
Why is Swords to Plowshares iconic? That effect really costs BR. Why is Path to Exile different? It's probably worth U.
A U is worth more than a W. That's a given.
If you look at who wins a game, the all the mana that one player spent is more than the other in value.
What's a Kitchen Finks really worth? It's way more than SS1. Probably 4 more.
SS: Let's break it into what does 4 life cost, what does a 3/2 cost, and what does a 2/1 cost?
A 1/1 cost 1. 4 life costs 1. A 3/2 cost 1G. So it's probably 4 mana, maybe 1 mana more.
People have been taught to value card advantage.
Card advantage gives you more options, more options gives you one thing only: more opportunity to spend mana.
Literally nothing else other than mana value expenditure matters.
SS: To what degree does the metagame affect the value of a card?
Metagame doesn't matter at all.
SS: I'm going to stop you. But what about Relic of Projenitus. For some matchups, say against Dredge, it's
going to be worth 23 mana to you, because you'll undo your opponents 23 mana. But of other matchups it's not.
For others it'll be worth U. You're paying 2, to get U.
Don't talk about what it's worth over the course of a game. Talk about what it's worth over the course of a tournament.
SS: Then you're accepting the fact that the metagame matters.
The metagame matters.
When do you use your your relic / tormod's crypt. I use it when my opponent's beginning to generate mana. Unless my opponent's flipping over Narcomeobas for Dread Return, I don't pop it.
How much does it cost to destroy your opponent's graveyard? Zero.
How much does it cost to draw a card? U (eg. Peek, Brainstorm, Ponder).
So you're paying 2 to get the effect of U + zero.
My deck (Lightsaber) is designed to hit all my land drops. It gives me the opportunity to dump my mana so I have no fallow mana.
I'm playing Think Twice. What's the value of both sides of a Think Twice? It's only UU. But in order to get that I have to spend five mana. That's bad, but what other options have I got? I've got to have something that ensures I hit my land drops, and 2 is an okay amount of mana to pay for a cantrip. It's just slightly below average.
SS: Whispers of the Muse costs UU5 to draw 2 cards, whereas Think Twice is UU3.
Think Twice is guaranteed card advantage.
SS: Your fallow mana is worth zero, so whatever value your getting out of it is better than zero.
I wanted to play a much more efficent card, which is Ancestral Vision. But Ancestral Vision is way worth than Think Twice, because it does nothing to hit your third land drop, and Think Twice is tremendous help.
Once you've got three land, and you can Think Twice again, you're going to hit your forth land drop.
SS: See, that's Borderland Ranger.
I'm also playing Spell Snare. I thought it was the best card in Standard. Can we agree that Spell Snare is not just the best card in most models, but in my model it's clearly a great mana, as you spend one mana against your opponents' two mana every time.
That's a best as you can get.
SS: Can we agree countering a spell is worth UU?
Or worth U. (Such as Force Spike; Mike goes back to UU by the end of the podcast. I'd say UU was a fair assessment)
What if my opponent has no 2 mana spells in my deck? Spell Snare's not very good. But over the course of a tournament, can't we say that this is a card we'll generally get more value than it costs?
SS: But it's still format specific, because you wouldn't maindeck Relic in Standard. I think you have to agree there are some cards that are format specifc. For instance, if you play graveyard hate, you play Tormods Crypt, which is Zero for a zero-mana effect, or Relic, which is 2 for a Zero + U effect.
Playing a Relic and immediately removing a graveyad and drawing a card is worth 1 - because of Scrabbling Claws.
SS: So we've established that there's no loss of mana for playing Relic? Because sometimes it's worth 24 mana, and sometimes it's worth 1 and U.
Let's talk about Sword of the Meek.
SS: Sword of the Meeks upper limit of value is only limited by the amount of mana you can put into it. What's the value of the Thopter/Sword combo. Whats a 1/1 flyer worth? U, or G.
It's it's worth G, or W, the worst mana.
SS: What's 1 life worth? .25 W?
It's worth a fractional amount.
If WotC made a 1/1 flyer ETB Gain A Life, they would make it 1W or something.
You get one Holy Strength for your team.
SS: You can just dump all your mana and get 1.25 for each 1 you spend.
Stop thinking about Card Advantage.
SS: It's a fuzzy term, it doesn't have any definition. Is a token a card?
Card Advantage doesn't even make sense, in the way that we would talk about it.
It was Runeblaster when I recognised the value of this theory.
XXXX had a clutch of Maelstrom Pulse, which in theory puts him in a great position.
Andre plays a Runeblaster, destroying XXXX's Savage Lands.
You know what happened? He wiped out his hand, made him have fallow land. Yes, he has lands in play, but he can't cast any spells, because Andre killed his Savage Lands.
By keeping him off a colour XXX had no utility for his lands.
Instead of spending 12 mana, he spend none, and had no value.
One of the things I attempt to value a lot now are CIPT lands.
CIPT lands are really, really fuzzy.
I'm not going to say they're bad.
Because they come into play tapped, you've used your resource of 'play a land this turn', but you've got no value.
SS: We payed 1 for a zero. But it gives us an opportunity to convert mana for the rest of the game.
If we'd played a forest, we'd have payed zero for the same thing.
Remember the context of having the mana to be able to play it.
People were lining up Lightsaber with Jund.
Line the two up.
You know what the problem with Jund is. All of it's cards are Gold. So if you deny any of the colours, it can't cast it's spells.
Lightsaber has no cards, other than Bloodbraid Elf, that is Gold. That's tremendously advantagous. You deny me of one colour, I cast spells of another.
You can't mana screw Lightsaber by taking a single mana out.
Life is irrelevant
Cards are irrelevant.
Life is important because as long as I'm alive, I can keep tapping lands for mana.
SS: Not being dead gives you the ability to keep using mana in the most efficient way possible.
Whoever spends the most mana (efficiently) is the one who is going to win.
SS: I'm spending mana, if you're not you're going to be dead soon.
I think it will be more than an 80% correlation. I'll be playing a thousand games to test it.
Kelly says to me to play Mind Rot over Cruel Ultimatum.
I presented my answer in a mana contest.
What if I had a card that costs R6, it nugs my opponent for 5, draws 4 cards, and kills a Sphinx of Jwar Isle. Would you play that card? Obviously you would.
Cruel Ultimatum is already R1 (Incinerate) and a B1 (Cruel Edict) and draw 3 is UU2. And then you've got Disentomb, which is B. And then I have gain 5 life, which is W. And then it's discard 3, which is what, BB? That's the most mana efficent card there ever was. You have to play this card. It's the poster child for my theory.
SS: So what you're saying is any deck that can cast that card should play it and find ways to cast it.
A card I play in States, a very good card, is Zektar Shrine Expedition. It costs R1. It's worth RRR1. It's worth twice as much mana as it costs. (Note: this is when I started to wonder if Mike was punk'n everyone. Zektar Shrine? Seriously)
SS: And it's got things like surprise factor...
I don't care about those things. I care about mana advantage.
I can play Magic better or worse than someone else. But I can guarantee you, if someone is playing twice as smart as I am, and I'm spending twice as much mana as they are, they will be defeated.
SS: Sure.
When someone with that deck connects with a card that costs RRR it's going to be highly efficent. Because the deck has cards laced together in a way that are highly mana efficent. A deck that has Ball Lightning is going to have cards in it that are RI for 5 damage. It's going to be attacking their life total.
But when I spend RRR to hit me for 6, and you spend R to get me back, you just juked me on mana. You used one mana for my three. That's the best thing you can do.
SS: And you can't evaluate that with card advantage, because it's not a 3-for-1.
It's a 1-for-1.
SS: But I spent RRR to do something, whereas you spent 1R to play Zektar Shrine Expedition, played a land to put the counter on the Shrine, then used the mana to do something different, that's way better. I've always had a loose concept of use all your mana, play your cards...
You don't always want to blanket tap all your mana every turn. It's playing predictably, and you can do stupid things.
Say I've got creatures in play and a Wrath of God in my hand. In a very efficient way I can play the Wrath - but that's got to be bad for me.
SS: It's very efficent. Destroying all creatures has got to be WWW1.
I think it's established at 2WW. But, when it's timely and advantageous, I think you've got a mana advantage out of it.
But when you're destroying your own creatures you're going deeper in the hole; it's not a very good use of your mana.
SS: It's like giving your opponent mana. And it's reducing your options.
Let's talk about being tricky, with-holding mana useage and cards.
I think when we use those tactics its with the goal of gaining massive mana value in the future.
If we do nothing for a while, let our mana be fallow, it's not necessarily a bad thing. But if we do nothing, and our opponent makes some big committment, and we counter it in a highly mana efficent way, that's good.
Let's talk an example.
Say I have three lands, and Kelly's swinging into me with his Grizzly Bears. And I flash in Benelash Commander and it destroys his Grizzly Bears. Then that Belelash is worth five mana.
SS: Four mana, because Grizzly Bears is worth W. But it's still five mana because he overpayed for the Grizzly Bears.
I think this is an easly way of being tricky, and passing on your mana, but then using a combat trick to gain advantage is a good one.
SS: You're also gaining two life by not taking two damage. Sometimes I'll put a colossal wall out to stop the beats.
And you get a free R.
So that's a really good point.
We can look at play as a context, because opportunity also matters.
I haven't figured out the maths entirely.
What about Treetop Village?
Kelly asked, what would we pay for a 3/3 trampler?
GG?
Kelly wants to use this mana to stop me to play this. He has a counterspell in his hand, which is worth UU. By playing Treetop we have found a way to deny him using his mana.
Let's say he has a Volcanic Hammer in his hand. He also cannot use this card to kill the Treetop because it's a Sorcery.
So there's an example of overspending in context, but also making our opponent's mana fallow.
A Terror could be mana neutral against our 3/3.
The example is not to show Treetop Village is bad, it's to show it can be good. It's good more often than it's not, because in situations where we play Treetop Village our opponents often have Wrath of God, Counterspell.
SS: A Treetop Village is a Llanowar Elf who cannot be targetted (by Sorceries) or Wrathed. Sometimes they get blown out by an instant speed removal spell, and sometimes not.
And that's the Grand Unified Theory of Magic.
Some Thoughts About the Podcast
* The main theory here is an addition to Ben's line that 'You should play the best cards'. Perhaps Ben's line should now be "You should play the best cards well". But that's probably an oversimplification of Mike's argument. Mike's theory is that 'He who plays spend the most mana the most efficently will win the game'. But I assume this to be trivially true, and look forward to seeing the 1000 games Mike will play to prove it.
* Mike has clearly put a lot of thought into what 'the best cards' actually means. His best work here is a framework for understanding why some cards are better than others. Clearly there is a lot of work to be done about what things cost and why they cost it. I can understand why drawing a card would cost U. But it's not really U - it's U and a card. To draw a card without spending a card, it's generally 3U. Mike's argument that a card archtype 'eg. 2/2, or 'Cantrip' seems intuitively that it can be solved, but will prove to be very difficult. A 2/2 may cost W, but in Standard you can get a 3/3 for G. Or 1G. Or 2G.
* Mike clearly thinks some mana is worth more than others. It seems to be U > B > R > G > W, though I would need confirmation of this from Mike.
* Mike shifted very quickly away from 'the metagame doesn't matter' to 'the metagame matters' I would argue that context is everything in determining card value. There was also a lot of confusion about value within a game and value over a tournament. During a game is when a card proves it's worth; over the life of a tournament is where a card proves it's consistency of value.
* Mike dismissed synergy quickly, but then admitted that synergy increases mana efficiency. Dredge is a deck built entirely around card synergy. Of all the examples talked about Dredge produces the most mana efficiency AND card advantage and it's done through Card Synergy. Nacromeoba is a terrible card without the Dredge Framework around it. The same is true for the Foundary/Sword of the Meek combo; the synergies and interactions between these two cards are what create the mana efficiency, not the cards by themselves. I think Mike needs to rethink the value of synergy in a deck.
* Mike's going to have a lot of fun figuring out keyword mana efficiency; lifelink, trample, flying, shroud - each will need an associated value to make the framework work.
* Mike's theory is dependent upon tempo. In fact, it may be the best argument for the theory of Tempo ever created. The same is true for Card Advantage. A couple of Mike's examples used Card Advantage as example some of the best ways to gain Mana Efficency. By dismissing both Tempo and Card Advantage as unnessary, Mike does his theories a grave disservice.
* Mike's theories also ignore many other resources at hand, but the one that frustrates me the most is Time. Suspended cards are, by their nature, highly mana efficient. Mike crows about the 'suspended' card Zektar Shrine Expedition, but dismisses Ancestral Recall. However, under Mike's framework, Zektar is worth RRR (really) and Ancestral Recall is worth UUU - and if U is worth more than R, surely it's the better card. I'd like to see a resolution to how Mike resolves paying one cost for a card/permanent/effect (mana) and other costs (time/life).
I think it will be interesting to see where Mike takes the theory next. It's currently got a lot of gaps and going by the discussion, there's a lot of internal conflicts Mike has to resolve within his own head. Is a 2/2 worth W or G? Is a U really worth more than a G, or only when counterspells are actually useful. Is a Lightning Bolt more mana efficient than a Wild Nacatl? And can any of these demonstrations of value be taken out of context - and if not, is the theory useful at all?
Surprisingly, Mike has also given us a framework for measuring the efficiency of Synergy. We can now start to measure the difficulty and cost of putting a combo together vs the outcomes it gives. This may be the area in which Mike's framework for mana efficiency assement makes the most gains.
I don't disagree with Mike that the player that playes the spend the most mana the most efficiently will generally win the game. However, at this point, I think that's a general truism that does not add value to Magic theory. I'm very interested in Mike's framework for measuring mana efficiency, but it clearly has a long way to go.
Here is a compacted version of the Flores/Sloppystack/Kelly podcast about Michael's Grand Unified Theory of Everything.
Please note that THIS IS NOT A TRANSCRIPT. It is a pretty good summary of what was said. Some things were pretty hard to hear, especially over the cross-talk, but this just about captures it.
I wanted to lay this out to give a better idea of what Flores was talking about. I'll put some thoughts at the end.
Please note if Sloppystack is talking (or Kelly - I can't tell the two apart, and so they're all Will to me), the line is preferences with an SS. Otherwise it's all Mike, all the time.
I've left out a bunch of analogies, side discussions, and other stuff I felt unimportant to the summary. Mike, Stack, if you're reading this, feel free to ping me with any complaints.
Where you see something in brackets, that's generally a note I've made to clarify a position. These are all my own assumptions.
Top8Magic Podcast Summary
Synergy is just stupid.
Linears are free value, as long as the cards are good.
We can't just play Cruel Ultimatums because we'll die before we can cast it.
What we can do is play the best cards that we can with the amount of mana we have to cast them.
There is only one mertric that matters in Magic - how much value you're getting out of your mana.
This is not 'make the most use of your mana every turn'. Doing the most you can get out of your mana is often horrible.
I'm talking about a metric, not a philosophy you should have.
It's easiest to explain in extremes.
Dredge. A dredge deck may only have total access to 3 mana.
If I flip over three Narcomeobas and flashback Dread Return, I've already got UUU3BB2. Therefore ten mana, and then I get my Flamekin - therefore another 4 - and the Bridge From Belows have created Zombie tokens.
A Zombie Token could be seen as B2 - but more like G1 - I think it's fair to say it's W.
Therefore I've gotten 24 mana worth of value, and you're dead. And the reason is I've got 24 value and you've got zero.
SS: A simple way of explain this, is if you gave a red deck 24 worth of mana on T2, you'd be dead.
Another extreme - a sealed deck game.
If you're not doing anything in the first three turns, here's what's happening. T1, I lost a mana. T2, I lost 2 mana. T3 I lost 3 mana. I'm down six mana. The fact is I'm fallow for six mana.
This explains two things that are the most frustrating things for Magic Players.
1. Mana Flood - If I can play land but can't do anything with it, it's like having no land.
2. Mana Screw - I'm getting the exact same amount of value as a mana flooded player.
Let's combine the two theories.
Ben's theory is 'play the best cards'
Playing the best cards allows us to distill a real use of mana into the most effective packages.
So I can play G1 and play an Elvish Visionary. What's an Elvish VIsionary worth? It's probably worth .5G + U. I think it's probably worth U plus .5U. So U.5.
What if I play a Grizzly Bear? We can say it's worth 2, right? It's really worth W.
I'm benchmarking with a realistic cost for a tournament playable cards - what is the benchmark for a tourament playable X. Hound of Konda is W, so a Grizzly Bears is worth W.
If I cast a Grizzly Bears, I'm losing a mana, because it's only worth a W.
Let's talk about Wild Mongrel. It's probably worth more than G1. I'm not sure how much more.
When I cast a Tarmogoyf, It's probably worth GG2. For the cost of G1, I've got the value of GG2.
Why is Swords to Plowshares iconic? That effect really costs BR. Why is Path to Exile different? It's probably worth U.
A U is worth more than a W. That's a given.
If you look at who wins a game, the all the mana that one player spent is more than the other in value.
What's a Kitchen Finks really worth? It's way more than SS1. Probably 4 more.
SS: Let's break it into what does 4 life cost, what does a 3/2 cost, and what does a 2/1 cost?
A 1/1 cost 1. 4 life costs 1. A 3/2 cost 1G. So it's probably 4 mana, maybe 1 mana more.
People have been taught to value card advantage.
Card advantage gives you more options, more options gives you one thing only: more opportunity to spend mana.
Literally nothing else other than mana value expenditure matters.
SS: To what degree does the metagame affect the value of a card?
Metagame doesn't matter at all.
SS: I'm going to stop you. But what about Relic of Projenitus. For some matchups, say against Dredge, it's
going to be worth 23 mana to you, because you'll undo your opponents 23 mana. But of other matchups it's not.
For others it'll be worth U. You're paying 2, to get U.
Don't talk about what it's worth over the course of a game. Talk about what it's worth over the course of a tournament.
SS: Then you're accepting the fact that the metagame matters.
The metagame matters.
When do you use your your relic / tormod's crypt. I use it when my opponent's beginning to generate mana. Unless my opponent's flipping over Narcomeobas for Dread Return, I don't pop it.
How much does it cost to destroy your opponent's graveyard? Zero.
How much does it cost to draw a card? U (eg. Peek, Brainstorm, Ponder).
So you're paying 2 to get the effect of U + zero.
My deck (Lightsaber) is designed to hit all my land drops. It gives me the opportunity to dump my mana so I have no fallow mana.
I'm playing Think Twice. What's the value of both sides of a Think Twice? It's only UU. But in order to get that I have to spend five mana. That's bad, but what other options have I got? I've got to have something that ensures I hit my land drops, and 2 is an okay amount of mana to pay for a cantrip. It's just slightly below average.
SS: Whispers of the Muse costs UU5 to draw 2 cards, whereas Think Twice is UU3.
Think Twice is guaranteed card advantage.
SS: Your fallow mana is worth zero, so whatever value your getting out of it is better than zero.
I wanted to play a much more efficent card, which is Ancestral Vision. But Ancestral Vision is way worth than Think Twice, because it does nothing to hit your third land drop, and Think Twice is tremendous help.
Once you've got three land, and you can Think Twice again, you're going to hit your forth land drop.
SS: See, that's Borderland Ranger.
I'm also playing Spell Snare. I thought it was the best card in Standard. Can we agree that Spell Snare is not just the best card in most models, but in my model it's clearly a great mana, as you spend one mana against your opponents' two mana every time.
That's a best as you can get.
SS: Can we agree countering a spell is worth UU?
Or worth U. (Such as Force Spike; Mike goes back to UU by the end of the podcast. I'd say UU was a fair assessment)
What if my opponent has no 2 mana spells in my deck? Spell Snare's not very good. But over the course of a tournament, can't we say that this is a card we'll generally get more value than it costs?
SS: But it's still format specific, because you wouldn't maindeck Relic in Standard. I think you have to agree there are some cards that are format specifc. For instance, if you play graveyard hate, you play Tormods Crypt, which is Zero for a zero-mana effect, or Relic, which is 2 for a Zero + U effect.
Playing a Relic and immediately removing a graveyad and drawing a card is worth 1 - because of Scrabbling Claws.
SS: So we've established that there's no loss of mana for playing Relic? Because sometimes it's worth 24 mana, and sometimes it's worth 1 and U.
Let's talk about Sword of the Meek.
SS: Sword of the Meeks upper limit of value is only limited by the amount of mana you can put into it. What's the value of the Thopter/Sword combo. Whats a 1/1 flyer worth? U, or G.
It's it's worth G, or W, the worst mana.
SS: What's 1 life worth? .25 W?
It's worth a fractional amount.
If WotC made a 1/1 flyer ETB Gain A Life, they would make it 1W or something.
You get one Holy Strength for your team.
SS: You can just dump all your mana and get 1.25 for each 1 you spend.
Stop thinking about Card Advantage.
SS: It's a fuzzy term, it doesn't have any definition. Is a token a card?
Card Advantage doesn't even make sense, in the way that we would talk about it.
It was Runeblaster when I recognised the value of this theory.
XXXX had a clutch of Maelstrom Pulse, which in theory puts him in a great position.
Andre plays a Runeblaster, destroying XXXX's Savage Lands.
You know what happened? He wiped out his hand, made him have fallow land. Yes, he has lands in play, but he can't cast any spells, because Andre killed his Savage Lands.
By keeping him off a colour XXX had no utility for his lands.
Instead of spending 12 mana, he spend none, and had no value.
One of the things I attempt to value a lot now are CIPT lands.
CIPT lands are really, really fuzzy.
I'm not going to say they're bad.
Because they come into play tapped, you've used your resource of 'play a land this turn', but you've got no value.
SS: We payed 1 for a zero. But it gives us an opportunity to convert mana for the rest of the game.
If we'd played a forest, we'd have payed zero for the same thing.
Remember the context of having the mana to be able to play it.
People were lining up Lightsaber with Jund.
Line the two up.
You know what the problem with Jund is. All of it's cards are Gold. So if you deny any of the colours, it can't cast it's spells.
Lightsaber has no cards, other than Bloodbraid Elf, that is Gold. That's tremendously advantagous. You deny me of one colour, I cast spells of another.
You can't mana screw Lightsaber by taking a single mana out.
Life is irrelevant
Cards are irrelevant.
Life is important because as long as I'm alive, I can keep tapping lands for mana.
SS: Not being dead gives you the ability to keep using mana in the most efficient way possible.
Whoever spends the most mana (efficiently) is the one who is going to win.
SS: I'm spending mana, if you're not you're going to be dead soon.
I think it will be more than an 80% correlation. I'll be playing a thousand games to test it.
Kelly says to me to play Mind Rot over Cruel Ultimatum.
I presented my answer in a mana contest.
What if I had a card that costs R6, it nugs my opponent for 5, draws 4 cards, and kills a Sphinx of Jwar Isle. Would you play that card? Obviously you would.
Cruel Ultimatum is already R1 (Incinerate) and a B1 (Cruel Edict) and draw 3 is UU2. And then you've got Disentomb, which is B. And then I have gain 5 life, which is W. And then it's discard 3, which is what, BB? That's the most mana efficent card there ever was. You have to play this card. It's the poster child for my theory.
SS: So what you're saying is any deck that can cast that card should play it and find ways to cast it.
A card I play in States, a very good card, is Zektar Shrine Expedition. It costs R1. It's worth RRR1. It's worth twice as much mana as it costs. (Note: this is when I started to wonder if Mike was punk'n everyone. Zektar Shrine? Seriously)
SS: And it's got things like surprise factor...
I don't care about those things. I care about mana advantage.
I can play Magic better or worse than someone else. But I can guarantee you, if someone is playing twice as smart as I am, and I'm spending twice as much mana as they are, they will be defeated.
SS: Sure.
When someone with that deck connects with a card that costs RRR it's going to be highly efficent. Because the deck has cards laced together in a way that are highly mana efficent. A deck that has Ball Lightning is going to have cards in it that are RI for 5 damage. It's going to be attacking their life total.
But when I spend RRR to hit me for 6, and you spend R to get me back, you just juked me on mana. You used one mana for my three. That's the best thing you can do.
SS: And you can't evaluate that with card advantage, because it's not a 3-for-1.
It's a 1-for-1.
SS: But I spent RRR to do something, whereas you spent 1R to play Zektar Shrine Expedition, played a land to put the counter on the Shrine, then used the mana to do something different, that's way better. I've always had a loose concept of use all your mana, play your cards...
You don't always want to blanket tap all your mana every turn. It's playing predictably, and you can do stupid things.
Say I've got creatures in play and a Wrath of God in my hand. In a very efficient way I can play the Wrath - but that's got to be bad for me.
SS: It's very efficent. Destroying all creatures has got to be WWW1.
I think it's established at 2WW. But, when it's timely and advantageous, I think you've got a mana advantage out of it.
But when you're destroying your own creatures you're going deeper in the hole; it's not a very good use of your mana.
SS: It's like giving your opponent mana. And it's reducing your options.
Let's talk about being tricky, with-holding mana useage and cards.
I think when we use those tactics its with the goal of gaining massive mana value in the future.
If we do nothing for a while, let our mana be fallow, it's not necessarily a bad thing. But if we do nothing, and our opponent makes some big committment, and we counter it in a highly mana efficent way, that's good.
Let's talk an example.
Say I have three lands, and Kelly's swinging into me with his Grizzly Bears. And I flash in Benelash Commander and it destroys his Grizzly Bears. Then that Belelash is worth five mana.
SS: Four mana, because Grizzly Bears is worth W. But it's still five mana because he overpayed for the Grizzly Bears.
I think this is an easly way of being tricky, and passing on your mana, but then using a combat trick to gain advantage is a good one.
SS: You're also gaining two life by not taking two damage. Sometimes I'll put a colossal wall out to stop the beats.
And you get a free R.
So that's a really good point.
We can look at play as a context, because opportunity also matters.
I haven't figured out the maths entirely.
What about Treetop Village?
Kelly asked, what would we pay for a 3/3 trampler?
GG?
Kelly wants to use this mana to stop me to play this. He has a counterspell in his hand, which is worth UU. By playing Treetop we have found a way to deny him using his mana.
Let's say he has a Volcanic Hammer in his hand. He also cannot use this card to kill the Treetop because it's a Sorcery.
So there's an example of overspending in context, but also making our opponent's mana fallow.
A Terror could be mana neutral against our 3/3.
The example is not to show Treetop Village is bad, it's to show it can be good. It's good more often than it's not, because in situations where we play Treetop Village our opponents often have Wrath of God, Counterspell.
SS: A Treetop Village is a Llanowar Elf who cannot be targetted (by Sorceries) or Wrathed. Sometimes they get blown out by an instant speed removal spell, and sometimes not.
And that's the Grand Unified Theory of Magic.
Some Thoughts About the Podcast
* The main theory here is an addition to Ben's line that 'You should play the best cards'. Perhaps Ben's line should now be "You should play the best cards well". But that's probably an oversimplification of Mike's argument. Mike's theory is that 'He who plays spend the most mana the most efficently will win the game'. But I assume this to be trivially true, and look forward to seeing the 1000 games Mike will play to prove it.
* Mike has clearly put a lot of thought into what 'the best cards' actually means. His best work here is a framework for understanding why some cards are better than others. Clearly there is a lot of work to be done about what things cost and why they cost it. I can understand why drawing a card would cost U. But it's not really U - it's U and a card. To draw a card without spending a card, it's generally 3U. Mike's argument that a card archtype 'eg. 2/2, or 'Cantrip' seems intuitively that it can be solved, but will prove to be very difficult. A 2/2 may cost W, but in Standard you can get a 3/3 for G. Or 1G. Or 2G.
* Mike clearly thinks some mana is worth more than others. It seems to be U > B > R > G > W, though I would need confirmation of this from Mike.
* Mike shifted very quickly away from 'the metagame doesn't matter' to 'the metagame matters' I would argue that context is everything in determining card value. There was also a lot of confusion about value within a game and value over a tournament. During a game is when a card proves it's worth; over the life of a tournament is where a card proves it's consistency of value.
* Mike dismissed synergy quickly, but then admitted that synergy increases mana efficiency. Dredge is a deck built entirely around card synergy. Of all the examples talked about Dredge produces the most mana efficiency AND card advantage and it's done through Card Synergy. Nacromeoba is a terrible card without the Dredge Framework around it. The same is true for the Foundary/Sword of the Meek combo; the synergies and interactions between these two cards are what create the mana efficiency, not the cards by themselves. I think Mike needs to rethink the value of synergy in a deck.
* Mike's going to have a lot of fun figuring out keyword mana efficiency; lifelink, trample, flying, shroud - each will need an associated value to make the framework work.
* Mike's theory is dependent upon tempo. In fact, it may be the best argument for the theory of Tempo ever created. The same is true for Card Advantage. A couple of Mike's examples used Card Advantage as example some of the best ways to gain Mana Efficency. By dismissing both Tempo and Card Advantage as unnessary, Mike does his theories a grave disservice.
* Mike's theories also ignore many other resources at hand, but the one that frustrates me the most is Time. Suspended cards are, by their nature, highly mana efficient. Mike crows about the 'suspended' card Zektar Shrine Expedition, but dismisses Ancestral Recall. However, under Mike's framework, Zektar is worth RRR (really) and Ancestral Recall is worth UUU - and if U is worth more than R, surely it's the better card. I'd like to see a resolution to how Mike resolves paying one cost for a card/permanent/effect (mana) and other costs (time/life).
I think it will be interesting to see where Mike takes the theory next. It's currently got a lot of gaps and going by the discussion, there's a lot of internal conflicts Mike has to resolve within his own head. Is a 2/2 worth W or G? Is a U really worth more than a G, or only when counterspells are actually useful. Is a Lightning Bolt more mana efficient than a Wild Nacatl? And can any of these demonstrations of value be taken out of context - and if not, is the theory useful at all?
Surprisingly, Mike has also given us a framework for measuring the efficiency of Synergy. We can now start to measure the difficulty and cost of putting a combo together vs the outcomes it gives. This may be the area in which Mike's framework for mana efficiency assement makes the most gains.
I don't disagree with Mike that the player that playes the spend the most mana the most efficiently will generally win the game. However, at this point, I think that's a general truism that does not add value to Magic theory. I'm very interested in Mike's framework for measuring mana efficiency, but it clearly has a long way to go.
Archives
» May 2009
Magic the Gathering Blogroll
Older Archives
The old non-Magic the Gathering related wrongwaygoback.com archives.
Everything on this site Copyright Neale Talbot 2009.