Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 14:50:33 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert S. Hahn" Subject: Re: War College: Good Initiative (+ Control/Aggro start) Therefore, those who are not thoroughly aware of the disadvantages in the use of arms cannot be thoroughly aware of the advantages in the use of arms. -Sun Tzu On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Ir. J.C. van den Broek wrote: > This will propably show that the classic control deck is dead. However > the majority of the decks seen were control decks. About one third of > the decks seen were those blue decks with Ophidians, ManoWars, Suqata > Firewalker and Tradewind Riders. I could be wrong in my assumption that > these are control decks but since it can control the entire game by just > leaving some mana untapped I suppose its a control deck. However these > decks were seen throughout the field. At the top there were two Sligh > decks, some splashed White Weenies and a Black Weenie deck (as far as I > know the only one). > From this tournament I can conclude that the classic control > deck is dead but the "standard" aggressive deck is as well. The trend > will propably be a way inbetween. With more and more weenie decks > running Man O Wars and Tradewind Riders and more and more control decks > running those same cards, I think all the deck types begin to melt into > one form. Of course no ideal deck will be formed but with all the > rainbow lands around I predict a lot of cards will be splashed in for > both their aggressive as well as their defensive character. (i.e. Man O > War, Tradewind Rider, the Black and Green Guildmages, Incinerate, > Propaganda, Uktabi Urangetang, Cloudchaser Eagle etc). After this > weekend I've prepared two Type II decks ( one WU Propageddon deck and > one WUR Weenie deck). Both deck share about a quarter of the cards > (Tradewind, Ophidian, ManOwar and armageddon) even though the > Propageddon deck is defenitly a more control stressed deck than the Wur > weenie deck which is a far more aggressive deck. What Victor is pointing out is the classic struggle in Magic between offense and defense. Now, on the one hand, I disagree with his analysis because of one reason: what exactly is a "classic" control/aggro deck? Without that baseline defined, it is difficult, if not impossible, to say that the new T2 environment is going one way or another. For the sake of discussion, let us redefine 'classic' by assuming each to be at the extremes of aggro and control. For example, one extreme of Aggro is a pure burn deck with only Ball Lightning and Sandstalkers as creatures. The extreme of control is a library depletion deck with only one victory condition (let's say a Feldon's Cane) and multiple layers of defense: countermagic, mass removal, targeted removal, life gain, etc. From this standpoint, I think the Type 2 environment, if anything is veering towards the extremes. The best 'control' deck I've seen in the environment so far is either a R/U CounterHammer with only 4 Disks as the only non-land permanents or a U/B Lobotomy deck with 4 Walls of Air, 4 Nekrataal, 4 Edicts, and 1 Grindstone, along with Lobotomy's. The former wins with burn, protects with massive countermagic, and achieves mass removal through Disks. the latter wins with creatures and with library depletion (Lobotomy + Grindstone), removes with Edicts, Nekrataal, and Capsize, and defends with massive countermagic (12 or more). Both decks rarely do anything until total control is achieved. On the other hand, we have the aggro decks, the best representative of which is modern mono-red Sligh in which every non-land card deals damage to the opponent (and in a hurry). In other words, every single non-mana card is a victory condition for the aggro deck. There is no card dedicated to removal alone (burn is not a dedicated removal card, though Edict, Terror, Disk, etc. are). So then, in my view, T2 environment is actually dividing along extremes. What that does, however, is open up the vast middleground where new developments can and will happen. And this is what Victor is pointing out. The majority of his observation yields a critical insight into the nature of the game. He notes that the two decks types (control and aggro) seem to be "melding" into one where many of the cards are shared. His view is that aggro decks will adopt a defensive posture with "defensive" creatures like Man O War and Tradewind Riders while control decks will adopt an offensive posture with "offensive" creatures like Man O War and Tradewind Rider. That statement above gives away the true nature of what's going on here. How can it be that the same two cards yield such a different "nature" when in different decks? The reason is that at the heart of each deck is a particular strategy, and each strategy is attempting to take over the middle ground between extreme aggression and extreme control. Is this a good strategy? Before I answer that particular question, I'd like to refer to what Sun Tzu has to say about this topic. Sun Tzu says: When you do battle, even if you are winning, if you continue for a long time it will dull your forces and blunt your edge; if you besiege a citadel, your strength will be exhausted. If you keep your armies out in the field for a long time, your supplies will be insufficient. How does this apply to Magic? As every mono-red Sligh player knows, if the opponent has too much time, the chance of victory virtually disappears. Drawing six lands and an Incinerate might possibly be the worst thing for a Sligh deck. Also, a mono-red Sligh deck has virtually no chance against a totally dedicated defensive deck with Walls, Counters, Gerrard's Wisdoms, CoP:Red standard, etc. This is like besieging a citadel, and Sligh simply does not have the staying power to overcome. Eventually, it will run out of cards in an effort to swarm over the defenses -- which is analogous to having insufficient supplies. In Magic, each card represents a resource. Run out of those resources, and you will lose in the long run. It's fairly simple. The defensive decks, whose first incarnation was the Weissman Serra-Scepter deck, realize that no matter what the offense, a citadel is difficult to take down. One must use up cards, use up resources, to overcome defenses. On the other hand, defense is much easier in many respects: first, the opponent ends up holding a lot of dead cards most of the time since his defense basically becomes useless; second, defense ends up taking fewer resources. If the opponent has to throw out three creatures to get around your Wall of Air, you end up spending less as of that moment. A mass removal spell later, you have achieved huge resource advantage, which then plays into running the opponent out of "supplies" while you sit behind your citadel and eventually beatdown a helpless opponent. This is one of the basic truths about Magic as a game, and it is parallel to the basic truth about war. Then how do aggro decks win at all? Well, Sun Tzu was not advocating lack of aggression or offense; rather, he is pointing out the proper way to attack. As quoted at the beginning of this article, you cannot properly attack unless you are aware of the disadvantages of attacking. Because defense is inherently easier than offense, the Art of War counsels speed in the attack. As Sun Tzu puts it: Therefore I have heard of military operations that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen one that was skillful and lasted a long time. It is never beneficial to a nation to have a military operation continue for a long time. An offensive deck _requires_ speed, and enough speed to overwhelm whatever defenses might exist in a rush. Even if the attack is not skillful, it can succeed if it is fast enough. On the other hand, no matter how well-tuned and skillful an attacking deck might be, it cannot win if it is slow. Mono-red Sligh, Senor Stompy, Black Weenie, etc. are all successful not because they are complex decks requiring skill and intelligence but simply because they are fast. Multiple paths to victory become important only to an offensive deck. The reason is similar to the above. A single channel of attack can be neutralized too easily, and too much resource dedicated to one focal point could spell disaster if the opponent can and does put up a solid defense on that point. With multiple channels of victory, if one path is finally blocked by the opponent somehow, an offensive deck can (and must) SWIFTLY exploit the other open channel of victory, and go back and forth until the citadel crumbles. The best example is Weenie Burn decks, where the first focus of offense is creature-based. Through extreme speed, it brings the opponent down to a level where the second channel -- direct damage -- can start being a path to victory. At that point, even if the opponent finally establishes massive creature superiority with Maros and whatnot, the burn can swiftly take over and end the conflict. Having understood this fundamental consideration of Magic, we can finally answer the question of whether the "middle path" is a good thing or not. In my view, a deck which is basically offensive in nature which goes to the middle-path weakens itself because such defensive measures blunt the edge of the attack. Sacrificing speed for flexibility in an offensively minded deck is a possibly fatal mistake. A deck which is basically defensive in nature, however, can go the middle-path in order to mislead the opponent and to exhaust the opponent's supplies. A basically defensive deck plays an Ophidian with the intention of using it to draw cards, yes, but often with the intention of having the opponent Incinerate it ("It's a Healing Salve on wheels!" to quote Hammer). An offensive element in a basically defensive deck can draw fire away from the main "citadel" and distract the opponent. Nonetheless, the defensive mid-path deck runs into trouble when the opponent is a dedicated defensive deck. IF one is inclined to go the middle path, I believe that the sideboard must make the difference. Unless an offensive mid-path deck can suddenly put out unexpected threats, or a defensive mid-path deck can put out unexpected threats, the more specialized attack decks and defense decks will have a strategic edge from the start. Winning and losing then comes down to luck -- and that is the lowest point of a strategy. -The Sophist Robert S. Hahn hahn@bway.net http://www.bway.net/~hahn Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy, But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy; For the apparel oft proclaims the man - Polonius, to his son Laertes Hamlet, Act I, Scene III.