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

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.

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.

Weekend Magic: Team Grixis Burn

This weekend I spent time playing a Team Grixis version of Flores' Grixis Burn deck.

Here's my build:

2 Sorin Markov
1 Chandra Nalaar
1 Jace Beleren

2 Courier's Caspule
4 Blightning

3 Cruel Ultimatum
4 Sedraxis Specter
2 Mind Spring
2 Earthquake

4 Burst Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Grixis Charm
4 Terminate

4 Crumbling Necropolis
4 Drowned Catacomb
3 Dragonskull Summit
4 Island
2 Mountain
4 Scalding Tarn
4 Swamp

sb:
2 Sphinx Of Jwar Isle
2 Malakir Bloodwitch
2 Vampire Nighthawk
4 Countersquall
4 Double Negative
1 Nicol BOlas, Planeswalker

This deck is an absolute blast to play. Although Nicol Bolas and Liliana are missing in this build, the deck has so much - and I realise Michael would hate me saying this - synergy. There is really nothing like pulling an opponent down from 20 to 0 with an active Chandra and a newly played Sorin. Or protecting your Cruel Ultimatum turn with a Sorin Ultimate (instant concession, right?). Or even something simple like drawing off Jace, and then blasting away the draw with Blightning.

What does this deck lose to? Random jank you don't know how to play around. But once you've learnt, nothing really. Unlike Flores' terrible build you have terminates against Baneslayer and Earthquakes against Boros and a couple of Grixis Charm against weird stuff that needs bouncing. Also, on the play, Grixis Charm makes for a nice Time Walk, bouncing an opponent's lands just for the hell of it and getting mana domination on by turn 4.

Would I play this deck competitively? At an FNM, sure. At a PTQ? With tuning for the metagame, I think so. There's not a deck this doesn't have game against, and the only things it fears is Flashfreeze and Mind Sludge. And even then it can recover nicely, drawing of Mind Spring and Jace into a dominating position again.
And then, of course, you're playing Cruel Ultimatum.

MY favourite play of the weekend was a sequence of events where I managed to ultimate Sorin, use my opponent's turn to turn his spells against his own creatures, returned to my turn, drew off Jace and then Cruel'd him. How many decks do you get to feel in such total control in Standard? None moreso than this. Give it a try.

Bushwacked Podcast Episode 1: Mr. & Mrs. Lorthos



In which the following cards are discussed:



Made in conjunction with Baz and Jay.

Labels: bushwacker, podcast, spoilers, worldwake

Bushwacked Podcast Episode 0: World Awaking



In which the following cards are discussed:



Made in conjunction with Baz and Jay.

Labels: bushwacker, podcast, spoilers, worldwake

MtG Design Space: Redesigning the Magic Card Template

I recently posted about a new philosophy for the design of Magic cards, "Full Art, Whenever Possible". I believe that full-art cards make for a more wonderous play experience than cards bogged down by text - especially flavour text.
In that post I raised the prospect of the card design itself being updated and, crazily, that I might have a crack at doing so. Now, full disclosure: I Am Not A Graphic Designer, nor that great of a photoshopper. However, I wanted to get across some ideas, and so have mocked up some graphics and cards that I hope convey the spirit of my ideas, if not a perfect execution of them.
This post has taken a fair bit longer than I expected to put together. Clearly, when I started this mini-project, I bit off far more than I could chew. I leapt straight into redesign without giving due consideration about what I was attempting to do and the reasoning behind it.
As such this post has kind-of grown and grown and made me groan, but I hope you get something out of it.

Why Redesign At All?

Firstly, I believe that a picture truly does paint a thousand words, and that the art on Magic cards should be maximised wherever possible. Most players would recognise the picture of a Baneslayer Angel on sight. But can you recognise which card the following flavour text is from: "When the earth shudders, the sky overflows"? Flavour text currently steals valuable space from where the focus of a playing card should be - the art.
Secondly, Magic is moving in various ways away from a paper medium. Although the paper medium will never disappear (I hope - it's my favourite way of playing, across the kitchen table) Wizards future certainly lies in embracing the digital. Unfortunately words & text are terrible ways to communicate visually. Can you imagine playing World of Warcraft if every icon was represented by text instead? it would be virtually unplayable. Magic card design must adapt to the digital medium in order to maximise it's opportunities in that space.
Thirdly, Magic has been around for over fifteen years, and in that time proved itself to be adaptable to its environment - this is what has allowed it to persist through overwhelming competition and changing economic climates. When you inspect other CCGs and LCGs in the market, none are presented as beautifully as MtG. Yu-Gi-Oh looks like it's drawn by fifteen year olds with manga hard-ons, and I continue in my inability to tell any Pokemon apart from any other. MtG is in the unique position of stamping it's total authority over CCG art for years to come. However, this will not take place unless there is a willingness to bite the bullet and overhaul the base card template that Magic has been clinging to.
With these three points in mind, and the fundamental belief that in order to achieve a philosophy of "Full Art, Whenever Possible" a redesign is required, the next step is to inspect what needs to be redesigned.

So What Needs To Be Redesigned?"

A Magic Card is conveys a significant chunk of information in a tight package. Making that package even tighter is no easy task, and no doubt my first stab at this will be off the mark. Regardless, here's all the information you can find on a Magic Card:



Certain elements of the above are already represented visually & numerically:
* Mana Cost
* Set
* Rarity
* Power
* Toughness
* Card No.
Certain elements can not be represented visually or numerically:
* Card Name
* Mechanics (Abilities, etc)
* Artwork
* Artist
* Flavour Text
* Copyright
This leaves the following open for design exploration:
* Card Type
* Card Subtype
* Keywords
Then there is also the necessity of some sacrifices. I propose the following:
* Flavour Text
So this leaves me with some static information that is unlikely to change how it's presented, some room for improvement, and a small amount of dataloss. Let's get into redesigning.

How Might We Resign The Template

In maximising artwork and minimising waste, it's important to knowledge that Card Space is premium. Anything that wastes it should go. When looking at the base, original template, it became clear that there was one, constant, misuse of card space; the Keyword/Mechanic/Flavour Text box. This was the one area of the card that existed regardless of whether it was used or not. For instance, if a card has no mana cost (eg. Hypergenesis) the casting cost simply disappears. The same is true for Power/Toughness on a instant or sorcery.
However, even on the most vanilla of creatures, the Text box generally takes up 40% of the card space. And it's the ugliest 40% of the card.
Here are the major types of text found in the text box:
1. Short Keyword Text (eg. Flying, First Strike)
2. Long Keyword Text (eg. Morph, Kicker)
3. Short Mechanic Text (eg. Lightning Bolt)
4. Long Mechanic Text (eg. Hive Mind)
5. Flavour Text
I was (eagerly) prepared to kill off Flavour Text entirely, so (5) went immediately. (2), (3) & (4) were clearly too difficult to template into graphics (after all, what graphic on earth could quickly explain Warp World visually?) and therefore had to stay. But (1) was ripe for the picking.
I took my cues from WotC's best exploration of the template, the Future Shifted cards from Future Sight. Here's a reminder image:



Although the redesign didn't nearly go far enough, it sensibly provided cues for future redesigns by bringing the icons from Magic Online across to the paper format.
As such I removed the Card Type and replaced it with the Future Sight icons. I then set forth and took a look at a number of keywords to see if I could make some moderately passable icons to represent them, based on the Future Sight style.
I then used the visual cues around the mana graphics to create a space for representing the icons on the card.
But what to do about that huge text box?
After thinking about it some time, I realised I really didn't want it to be there if at all possible; taking from online and digital mediums, I really only wanted it to be there when I hovered over it, like a popup box. And out of that came the idea of a pop-up Text Box.



This model means that cards that require a small amount of text could use the "quarter text box" template, and cards that required the usual amount of text could use the "half text box" template. Either way, this maximises the amount of art real estate available.
In the end, here are three examples of cards under the new design:



Now, clearly I'm not the worlds best photoshopper or icon designer, but I hope they give the impression of what I'm trying to accomplish. All the necessary information to play the game has been communicated by the new template, but the cards have a much higher visual impact. The art, for which so much effort has been put into (well, not the 2nd photoshop effort for the lightning bolt), really shines, as well it should.

Pros and Cons

Any change brings both benefits and downsides. Here's some I've considered and had twittered at me.
PROS:
* Higher Visual Impact: The new design certainly has a higher visual impact than the old design with no loss of necessary data. Unlike the promotional textless cards that WotC produces, these cards retain all the necessary play information, simply in other forms than they originally appeared. This gives both the advantage of maximising the art, as well as providing the information used to play the game.
* Improved Digital Useability: By using icons and maximising pictures the cards are better suited for an online medium, where image recognition is much faster than text recognition. With multiple cards on the battlefield online there is a higher chance of recognising a card in the new template than the old. This provides the cards a better ability to transition from paper to online medium, while still retaining a great look in the real world.
CONS:
* Steeper Learning Curve: All of a sudden there's a bunch of new information for new (and old) player to process, which can be simply put as "what do these icons mean?". Luckily those already familiar with Magic Online will be familiar with the Card Type icons. I think that the new icons would be able to be explained as quickly as text, and with a decent enough graphic artist (ie. not me) icons that clearly mean the keywords they represent could be developed. Yes, players will need to remember what the icons mean, which is another level of mental play over text; but people have an inherent ability to better remember images than text, so this should work to players' advantage in the long run.
* Loss of Flavour Text: I'm sure this is going to frustrate the Vorthos' of the community, and those others who like flavour text, but I'll reiterate; a picture paints a thousand words - and you can't fit a thousand words in that little text box.

What Next?

There's certainly room for massive improvement on what I've started. For instance, ideas that I didn't attempt to develop include individual icons for card subtypes (eg. Angel, Goblin, etc), or icons for long keywords (eg a Morph Icon), but they are probably viable. And although I pretty much followed the basic card template, a complete overhaul is entirely possible.
I'd be interested to hear your feedback on this little experiment in the comments - yay or nay, either to the philosophy of "Full Art, Whenever Possible", or to the use of icons instead of keywords, or anything in this article. If you wish you can email me or hit me up on twitter.

Labels: cards, design, full art, philosophy

Predicting M11

Everyone loves predictions, right? Mainly because they make a fool of the ones making them. I was taught never to make a prediction, lest I become one of those fools.

However, sometimes it's worth putting your balls on the line a little, even if only to see how well you're on your game.

Over the next few months all eyes will be on Worldwake. But with M11 coming out later this year, now's the time to put a stake in the ground (preferably through the heart of a sparkly vampire) and make some predictions as to what will be in and what will be out of M11.

So here's my prediction for what Rares and Mythic Rares will be in and out of M11, based on the totally unsubstantiated notion that 50% of current cards will stay, and 50% will go.

OUT	IN
Mythic Rares
Bogardan Hellkite Darksteel Colossus Platinum Angel Protean Hydra Sphinx Ambassador Time Warp Xathrid Demon	Ajani Goldmane Baneslayer Angel Chandra Nalaar Garruk Wildspeaker Jace Beleren Liliana Vess Master of the Wild Hunt Vampire Nocturnus
Rares
Captain of the Watch Capricious Efreet Cemetery Reaper Coat of Arms Djinn of Wishes Elvish Piper Gargoyle Castle Guardian Seraph Haunting Echoes Hive Mind Indestructibility Kalonian Behemoth Lightwielder Paladin Lurking Predators Magma Phoenix Magebane Armor Mesa Enchantress Might of Oaks Mirror of Fate Planar Cleansing Polymorph Royal Assassin Sanguine Bond Shivan Dragon Silence Traumatize Warp World	Ant Queen Ball Lightning Birds of Paradise Clone Elvish Archdruid Earthquake Great Sable Stag Goblin Chieftain Honor of the Pure Howling Mine Hypnotic Specter Manabarbs Merfolk Sovereign Mind Shatter Mind Spring Nightmare Open the Vaults Pithing Needle Siege-Gang Commander Twincast Underworld Dreams Dragonskull Summit Drowned Catacomb Glacial Fortress Rootbound Crag Sunpetal Grove

Points of note:

* I think the new Rare lands are a lock until at least M12. WotC have declared them the new pain lands, and I believe they're here to stay.
* With the Planeswalkers taking up a full five of seven/eight mythic slots to stay, it means either seven or eight of the remaining ten mythics will cycle. I think this is a good thing, with WotC mixing it up with iconic cards from the past (eg. Time Warp) and new mythics (eg. Master of the Wild Hunt). As such I think those iconic cards will likely only get a single season before cycling away again.
* Yes, I think Baneslayer Angel will stay. I think WoTC have no desire to garner the bad will of the people most invested in the game by cycling the Mythic Beast too soon.
* I am unsure if this is really a list of what I think will be in M11, or what I'd like to see in M11. Though they may well be one and the same. After all, why would WotC keep around the cards I don't like?

Labels: analysis, m11, predictions, speculation

Weekend Magic: Terrible Casual Combo In Extended

Dear lord, I love trying out some janky, terrible decks in the casual room on MtGO. It's someowhat of a Sunday-morning hobby of mine while the kids are busy destroying each other.

As such I thought I'd post on a Monday whatever terrible brew I'd been giggling about over the weekend, starting with today's deck, one that abuses the Best-Worst Casual Combo in Extended.

Here's the deck:

// 24 Creatures

4 x Merrow Witsniper
4 x Silvergill Adept
4 x Stonybrook Banneret
4 x Lord of Atlantis
4 x Merrow Reejeray
4 x Merfolk Sovereign

// 8 Spells

4 x Spell Snare
4 x Sage's Dousing

// 4 Artifacts

4 x Cloudstone Curio

// 24 Lands

4 x Izzet Boilerworks
4 x Misty Rainforest
4 x Scalding Tarn
4 x Mutavault
8 x Island

Here's the combo: With a Cloudstone Curio and a Merrow Reejeray in play you can effectively keep replaying two Witsnipers over and over again, using the Reejeray to untap the land you paid for mana and the Cloudstone Curio to rebounce the Witsniper. In this way you get to mill your opponent one card at a time. What a terrible, horrible, and hilarious way to kill your opponent.

Here's the problem: I very, very rarely got the combo online. Not because it was impossible or imporobable to do so, but more often than not having multiple Lords on the battlefield meant the deck was beating down far more effectively than 'going off'.

Which is sort of a shame, because there's little more satisfying than killing your opponent with a Witsniper.

Labels: deckbuilding

Magic As A Game of Negotiations

Yesterday I said the following:

"Magic is, in a sense, a game of negotiation, where resources are traded depending on the skill of each of the players."

And I thought I'd elaborate on that a little today.

In Magic both players start with a set of resources built under a particular set of rules. Throughout the game resources are built up, lost, re-gained, until a win condition is met (ie. a life total is zero, a card cannot be drawn, a 'I win' card is played).

The resource trading process is, in a way, a series of negotiations, where resources are won or lost on the back of your trading position. For instance, you may choose to trade your Terminate for your opponent's Baneslayer Angel. Your opponent, as part of that negotiating process, may want to change the terms of that negotiation and play a Flashfreeze in response, and so-forth.

Unlike negotations in the real world, where most often the wisest thing to do is seek the "win-win" outcome where both parties walk away happy with the contract, the Magic the goal is to seek the "win-lose" negotiation, where one party comes out definitively worse.

However, in order to be successful in any negotiation you need to prepare properly. In order to do this you need to understand what 'currency' you have.

The concept of 'currency' in negotiation theory is, simply put, all the things you have to trade away. In Magic these are known as resources. However, there is a scale of resources not immediately apparent from the game rules. Here's a list of resource tiers you may find interesting:

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

Yesterday's story of cracking a Terramorphic Expanse to fetch a Swamp on Turn 1 when I was playing a White/Blue deck, was an example of trading a Meta Resource (Knowledge of own deck) in order to mislead my opponent in future negotiations.

Another example from the same draft was in a game where I had led with a Turn 1 Elite Vanguard, and my opponent had responded with a Turn 2 Runeclaw Bear. Knowing that my deck would do better the more time (a Meta Resource) it had to negotiate, I was happy to swing into the bear with my Elite Vanguard. My opponent had the opportunity to either agree to a trade or reject a trade. He agreed, we traded creatures, and the negotiation went better for me: I came out one mana spent ahead and was given more time to find my Baneslayer Angel.

Yesterday's post also included an example where I was happy to trade card after card so long as I could maintain a positive trade advantage in terms of time, knowing that time was fast becoming my opponent's most valuable resource. My opponent did not realise this series of negotiations was going on until far too late, by which time he could not extract himself from a negative trading position and lost the match.

Understanding all the resources available to you, how to access them, how and when to maximise your resource expenditure, and how to ensure a series of 'win-lose' negotiations throughout the game is critical to winning in Magic. Over the next few weeks I'll explore these topics in terms of deckbuilding, gameplay and negotiation strategy. I'd also be very interested in your feedback in regards to this, especially around and resources that I may have missed, or holes in the philosophical approach. Feel free to comment, hit me up on wrongwaygoback@yahoo.com or on Twitter.

Labels: analysis, magic, theory

Thinking Originally vs Playing by Rote

There are lot of articles floating around at the moment that teach you Magic playstyle 'best practice'. These are the types of tips such as "crack your Terramorphic Expanse at the end of your opponents turn", "make sure to crack your fetchland to thin your deck", "never Lightning Bolt your opponent in your own main phase turn 1", "always wait to the last possible moment to do something".

These tips - which are usually quite servicable play styles - help you to learn how to play by rote.

Here's the funny thing: playing by rote is a terrible way to play.

For example, let's examine our pieces of 'best practice' above.

1. 'Crack your fetchland at the end of your opponent's turn".

In a Standard environment, where Stifle does not see play, there is no possible way of preventing the activation. Therefre the theory here is that by waiting you deny your opponent information until the past possible moment.

Here are two reasons why you may like to crack that Terramorphic expanse as soon as you get it.

(a) You wish to give your opponent misleading information.
(b) You wish to give your opponent the impression you don't know how to play 'well'.

In terms of (a), here's a real-world example. In a recent draft I was playing a WUb deck. My deck had a single Swamp with which to splash Doom Blade. My starting hand was Plains, Island, Terramorphic Expanse, Stormfront Pegasus, Palace Guard, Pacifism, Horned Turtle. With no turn-one play, the Terramorphic Expanse is exactly the right play - but what to fetch? With a Plains and and Island in hand, the only missing colour was a Swamp. Now I was running a number of double-white costed cards, but I knew I was going to fetch the Swamp. This would give my opponent I was playing a completely different build to what I was actually running. Yes, I would reveal White on turn 2, but the information about blue would certainly wait until turn 3 or 4. My player would firstly think I was running Black, then think I was running BW, and would not know I was really WU until much later.

In terms of (b), I don't mind giving my opponent the impression I play worse than I really do. If that makes him play a little looser, whether by overcommitting resources, or running his best creatures into removal unnessarily, that's fine by me. And if it puts my opponent on tilt when this 'bad player' beats them in game 1, thereby making game 2 an easier game to win, that's fine by me as well.

2. Make sure to crack your fetchland to thin your deck

The advice here is that my cracking your fetchland, you can thin your deck and "draw more gas" (a terrible turn of phrase, if you ask me). The necessary counterexample is when you actually want to draw more land.

Every time you crack a fetchland you reduce the chance you'll draw another land. That's all fine and good unless you want to be drawing into lands.

For instance, I play a semi-casual deck (all my decks are only ever 'semi'-casual, coz I want to win, goddamnit) called 'Team Grixis'. Team Grixis has two issues; big spells and complicated mana costs. Often I run a couple of fetches out in the first two turns, but I don't crack them. This way I increase my chances of drawing into lands. Once I have then lands I need, then I crack the fetches. I only crack a fetch when I need to cast something with urgency, or to enable the drawing of more spells and find land that way.

3. Never Lightning Bolt your opponent in your own main phase turn 1 (wait until the end of their turn)

Ah, how we mock the "T1, Mountain, Lightning Bolt - go" play. Until you witness the following scenario.

P1: Mountain, go.
P2: Island. At EOT, P1 plays Lightning Bolt and P2 responds with Spell Pierce.

Now, you might argue that P1 now can get two mana open and play a better spell without worrying about P2 countering it. Sure, if that's P1's plan. But maybe it's not. Maybe P1 only has a three drop after that. Maybe P1 only intended on playing another Lightning Bolt, and intends to use that on his opponent's next End Step anyway. Whatever the reason, P1 is able to make a decision that gets a very early, uncounterable, three-damage in. That 3 damage may end up deciding the game.

4. Always wait to the last possible moment to do something

Again, another trope repeated endlessly but not necessarily correct.

For instance, your opponent is playing UW and gets down a Baneslayer Angel with no further mana open; do you wait until your opponent untaps and declares attackers before you Terminate it? Your UW tapped out last turn; do you wait until the end of their next turn to Flash in your Teferi, just because it's the last possible moment you can do so?

Immediacy counts for a lot in Magic, as does the freedom to perform an action unmolested. A good player may wait until the last possible moment, but a great player will sieze the opportunities presented.


The UWr draft I was playing was on Magic Online. Although my deck was fine - Baneslayer Angel is not a bad card, apparently - I was having a lot of trouble against my Round 2 opponent. The first game went long - about 30 minutes - due to my opponents RUg deck with an endless supply of removal and a Merfolk Looter I could do little about (Pacifism won't help me there). Eventually my opponent won Game 1, and we moved onto Game 2. Slowly the board built up, me with Baneslayer, him with Entangling Vines, me with Captain of the Watch, him with Magma Phoenix. We were totally stalemated, but without Baneslayer I was destined to lose. That's when I noticed the time. I still had about 13 minutes on my clock, while my opponent only had 7. I decided that my win condition lay not on the board, but on my opponent running out of time. This is not a win strategy available in paper Magic. It was also clearly not a strategy my opponent had picked up on.

I decided to play well enough to stall, but not well enough to win or take board control - anything to stop my opponent conceding and moving onto game 3. This included some ludicrously bad plays like Unsummoning my Captain of the Watch rather than the Baneslayer to keep the board stalled. But replaying the Captain would buy me 4 life of a Soul Warden, as opposed to making my opponent concede. As the minutes ticked down I got closer and closer to winning the match - online, the player who runs out of time loses not just the game, but the entire match.

My opponent hit the four minute mark and played his second combo piece; Prodigal Pyromancer with Gorgon Flail on the board. I had held back a Doom Blade the entire time. That was too much, and was forced to Doom Blade it, and my opponent finally conceded, but it was too little to late.

With three minutes left on his clock, and 8 on mine, he need to kill me fast. I kept a perfect control hand - two plains, an island, a Horned Turtle, a Pacifism, a Solemn Offering and a Holy Strength. My opponent apparently had the god hand. T2 Gorgon Flail. T3 Prodigal Pyromancer. T4 Borderland Ranger. T5 Goblin Artillery. And a Seismic Strike in there somewhere. However, between my Solemn Offering on his Gorgon Flail, a Horned Turtle with a Holy Strength on it, and a timely Negate for his Seismic Strike, I accomplished what I needed and ran my opponent out of time. It wasn't a winning hand for beating my opponent in the red zone, but it was for beating my opponent with the clock.


Magic is, in a sense, a game of negotiation, where resources are traded depending on the skill of each of the players. Spells are one of these resources, but so is information. You can use the judicious trading of information to both inform or mislead your opponent. You can use it to lead your opponent down a path from which they cannot recover. But you cannot do this if you play as your opponent expects you to, by rote, predictibly. Sometimes the best thing you can do is to unlearn your play habits and start to think about why you play the way you play, and how you might play differently.

Labels: analysis, magic, strategy

Building the Wall

Being short of ideas myself, I was scrapping around on Twitter today for ideas on what to write about. @rtassicker suggested I write about Walls, and if I can figure out how they're costed.

So here goes.

I guess the first reference point are the original walls. Here are the main ones:

Key Alpha Walls

Wall of Wood - G - 0/3
Wall of Ice - 2G - 0/7
Wall of Air - 1UU - 1/5
Wall of Water - 1UU - Waterbreathing - 0/5
Wall of Bone - 2B - B to regenerate - 1/4
Wall of Stone - 1RR - 0/8
Wall of Fire - 1RR - R Firebreathing - 0/5
Living Wall - 4 - 1: Regenerate - 0/6

Although the costing of these Walls feels a bit all over the place, the first two give a good example of comparative costing.

Wall of Wood - G - 0/3
Wall of Ice - 2G - 0/7 (Should a Wall of Ice be blue?)

Wall of Ice indicates that +0/+2 toughness could be added for each additional cost in colourless mana. Another interesting comparison is Wall of Stone and Wall of Fire. Wall of Fire gives up 3 toughness and gains firebreathing. However, the difference between Wall of Air and Wall of Water is far more subtle, giving up a single point of power for 'Water'breathing. This would mean that 1 point of power is equal to a special ability in the world of Walls.

Since Ice Age, there is another mana acceleration wall strictly better than Wall of Wood:

Tinder Wall - G - mana ability - 0/3

With Wall of Wood, Wall of Ice and Tinder Wall in mind, we can find two notable 1G Walls:

Wall of Blossoms - 1G - When ETB, draw a card - 0/4
Wall of Roots - 1G - mana ability - 0/5

Wall of Blossoms sacrifices a single toughness for a card - not a bad deal. Wall of Roots allows itself to shrink in order to mana accelerate, rather than outright sacrifice itself. Wall of Blossoms is from the Stronghold cycle of walls:

Stronghold Walls

Wall of Blossoms - 1G - When ETB, draw a card - 0/4
Wall of Razors - 1R - First Strike - 4/1
Wall of Sorrows - 1B - Deals dmg received to opponent - 0/4
Wall of Tears - 1U - Unsummon blocked creature - 0/4
Wall of Essence - 1W - Lifegain - 0/4
Shifting Wall - X - X +1/+1 counters - 0/0

This cycle establishes a 1X cost as a 0/4 wall with an on-flavour ability. If a vanilla 2CC wall should be 0/5 then it seems adding an ability meant the sacrifice of a single toughness during Stronghold.

There is also an established theme for 3CC cost walls:

Wall of Granite - 2R - 0/7 (Portal)
Glacial Wall - 2U - 0/7 (7th Edition)
Wall of Ice - 2G - 0/7 (Alpha)

All 0/7 vanilla walls, each following the +2 tougness rule/colourless mana. So lets take a look at some more 'Modern' Walls in comparison.

Modern Walls

Steel Wall - 1 - 0/4 (Mirrodin)
Wall of Reverence - 3W - Flying, lifegain ability - 1/6 (Conflux)
Wall of Denial - 1UW - Flying Shroud - 0/8 (Alara Reborn)
Wall of Frost - 1UU - Blocked creature 'sleeps' for a turn - 0/7 (M10)
Wall of Faith - 3W - W gain +0/+1 - 0/5

M10 saw fit to reprint two walls:

Wall of Bone - 2B - B to regenerate - 1/4
Wall of Fire - 1RR - R Firebreathing - 0/5

If you consider the +1 power for -2 toughness, then add regeneration, then Wall of Bone is slightly undercosted still. Wall of Fire seems appropriately costed. However, they are both probably included in the set as good Limited fodder and nother more.

My analysis leads me to believe the base costing of vanilla Walls is as follows:

X - 0/3
1X - 0/5
2X - 0/7
4X - 0/9

Two further rules apply:

1. A wall can sacrifice two points of toughness for a point of power.
2. A wall can sacrifice a point of toughness for an abilities.
3. A wall can 'buy' an ability by sacrificing a colourless mana cost for a colored mana cost.

This makes the following walls viable:

X - 1/1
1X - 1/3
1X - 2/1
2X - 1/5
2X - 2/3
2X - 3/1

or

X - 0/2 - Something
1X - 0/4 - Something
2X - 0/6 - Something
3X - 0/8 - Something

This makes sense for the calculation for Wall of Frost:

* Base 2U wall - 0/7
* Buying an ability for colored mana - 0/7, 'sleep' ability

And the calculation for Wall of Reverence:

* Base 4W wall - 0/9
* Sacrifice two toughness for a point of power - 1/7
* Sacrifice a point of toughness for abilities - 1/6

But the calculation for Wall of Denial shows it to be slightly undercosted:

* Base 2W Wall - 0/7
* Buying abilities with colored mana swap - 0/7, Flying, Shroud

I would hazard a guess that the extra point of tougness is for the dual-colour mana required.

The rules seem to go out fuzzy around 1CC walls, but otherwise seems to hold up okay. At any rate, it should give you a rough guide to what walls you may see in the future.