Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 23:05:54 -0500
From: raver efreet <treatr@sprintmail.com>
To: hahn@bway.net
Subject: RE: Control/Aggro and the mid-path.

It has been said that parts of Tzu's work can be applied to anything,
and once again there is wisdom in his words. I do agree with you that
there are extremly good examples of both offensive and defensive decks
in current type II. However I do see a trend towards decks that are
trying to reach that middle ground. Your 5CB is a good example of this.
Decks that are trying to capitalize on cards that have both an offensive
and defensive nature. Alot of these cards tend to be removal cards, wich
can also work towards defeating your opponent. Burn spells were the
original type of spell that fit this catagory. On the one hand the are
offensive in nature, as they can be used to damage your opponent and win
a game (hence mono-red decks) and yet defensive in nature, as they are
among the best types creature removal available, wich can be used from a
"citadel" type standpoint (hence u/r control). Basically working along
the same principal as burn spells are creatures such as prodigal
sorcerer and orcish artillary. Often overlooked by many people, orcish
artillery's allowed sligh decks to also have a control side that often
helped it make it through the mid-game, an aspect that I felt made the
standard sligh that extra edge over deadguy sligh. It also was a good
card that allowed you to make the switch in your path to victory, if the
need arose. Recently we have seen rise to another group of these types
of cards, that of all the "187" cards from the last few sets. Man-o-war,
Nekrataal, Uktabi Orangutangs, & Cloudchaser Eagles being the most
common. The work well from an offensive standpoint, as all can be used
as creature attacks against the opponent. However all of these types of
spells have a defensive posture as well, in that they can all serve as
removal spells from a defensive standpoint. As all of these cards have
come from the last few expansions, and with the most recent rotations,
we are now seeing these types of decks come out in more force. While
pure control and pure offensive decks still have there strong points,
any good perusement of the dojo will show these "mid-ground" decks have
gained an immense popularity. Much of the reason is for the extreme
flexibility of these decks. Anyone who has ever played mono-blue control
knows how bad it is to sit there and watch a player draw one land in his
first ten turns and not be able to kill him off. And the 6 land, 1
ironclaw draws are equally distasteful for the burn player. These decks
circumvent that by have the majority of there spells be able to fullfill
either an offensive or defensive nature. Looking at your 5cb report on
the 26th, 23 of the 38 non-land cards could work in either an offensive
or defensive deck. And looking at the other 15 cards, 7 are really
defensive/contorl oriented (disenchants/edicts). Consider also that of
the 6 spells that are offensive in nature, the black knights could
double as excellent blockers with both first strike and a protection
ability. Of course this deck isnt without its problems, most of these 5
color decks have a weakness in that their defensive posture is focused
around permanent removal, and against an opponent with little or no
permanents, the strategy can suffer setbacks. Like you pointed out,
these decks would suffer in an environment with more "true control"
decks. I fell the main reason for this is that the decks lose thier
flexibility aspect wich is the strong point for them. As you point out,
for these mid-path decks to work, their sideboards need to strongly be
able to help them verses these "permanent-light" decks, to allow the
flexibility and multiple paths to victory.

raver efreet

insert sig.txt here