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:

"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