Subject: Shaping vs. Controling the battlefield Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:26:56 -0700 From: Jason Arnold To: fkusumot@ix.netcom.com I think that it is safe to say that the current thread on Aggro vs Control can be sublimated into a broader category: battlefield strategy. Specifically, how best to approach a magic duel: BATTLEFIELD SHAPING or BATTLEFIELD CONTROL. Modern military thought generally employs ch'i and cheng to achieve an unexpected battlefield (read as tactical) advantage; controlling the time, place, and scope of an attack is considered a decisive factor in defeating an enemy. This approach can be likened to the red burn/sligh agressive approach to magic. Stated simply, if I can force my opponent to take early damage, to block with creatures intended for attack or strategy, and to expend resources on threats instead of on me, I have successfully SHAPED THE BATTLEFIELD to match my deck strengths. The advantages of this approach should be clear, and are quite nicely illustrated by the overwhelming success of sligh and stompy. The problems not immediately apparent with this approach are threefold. "If you abandon your armor and heavy equipment to race forward...the Three Armies' generals will be captured." The bonzai attack plan favored by fast decks generally relies on creatures with power and toughness ratings between one and three. Cards in hand are not chosen for support; rather, they are chosen to multiply the effects of early damage (giant growth, blood frenzy, blood lust, etc). Creatures are generally one dimensional. That is, they generally have no special ability or have a negative special ability that the caster hopes to overcome or avoid with a fast kill. Against a 'citadel' deck, a single 1/3 blocker can often blunt the initial attack--either by knocking off weenies one by one, or by absorbing some of that pump/blast damage early on. If the initial attack stalls for as few as two turns, thru luck or thru the aforementioned blockers, the chance to shape the battlefield is lost, and with it the game. Against a similar overrun deck, the problem is different but no less deadly. By attacking without regard for or consideration of the enemy's strategy, you have opened a corridor of attack. Sun-tzu recognizes this when he says that when your force advances, so can the enemy (badly paraphrased, sorry). Horde decks leave little or nothing back for defense. If the other player recognizes the danger in adopting a defensive posture with and essentially offensive deck, he will attack in hopes of killing his enemy before he dies himself. By turn two or three, the match will have degraded to a vast melee of creatures attacking both players. Battlefield shaping is lost, replaced by luck of the creature draw. Against a mid-road deck, the bonzai strategy is most dangerous. In this case, you are facing an opponent with the ability to not only counter your initial thrusts, but also to counter-attack with deadly, unstoppable force. I'm exaggerating slightly here for effect, but believe me, it's true. How often have you seen one of the variations of weenie horde be stymied by someone whose deck produces a propaganda or two, and then drops an Djinn to commence beatdown? I won two local tournaments last weekend in just that manner. I see victory/loss conditions in the above cases in terms of draw: There are three draw conditions: Great, good, and crap Great: My deck is doing what it is supposed to, and my top-deck is in peak form. Good: I am casting spells regularly, but not necessarily getting the best cards at the right time. Crap: Mana screw, etc. Case 1: Aggro vs Citadel Great Great Citadel victory Great Good Citadel if game goes to turn 8+ Great Crap Aggro (duh) Case 2: Aggro vs Aggro Great Great Coin flip Great Good Aggro player one Great Crap Aggro Player one Case 3: Aggro vs Mid-road Great Great Mid-Road, decisively Great Good Mid-road beyond turn 5 Great Crap Duh I have deleted some possible draw combinations. Any time an Aggro has the same type of draw that Citadel or Mid-road gets, it will lose. Anytime that it matches the draw of another aggro, it is a coin flip. Feel free to comment. I am a fan of the second option: BATTLEFIELD CONTROL. This does not mean that I play straight control, as the name may imply. Rather, I play heavy control with a solid leavening of damage potential for use in the end-game. Anyone who knows me will probably object to my self-description, as I always play blue/X and I always play with scads of counter-magic. They are entitled to their opinion, and I would probably concede that, depending on my draw, they are correct. Back on track. Battlefield control enables one to sit back and observe the development of the board, while simultaneously eliminating untenable threats and hordeing resources for later use. I will use blue as my example, because it is my strongest color. The blue battlefield controller will allow early creatures and damage to get thru, both to get a feel for opponent's strategy and to build mana resources to whatever flashpoint is necessary (typically three). After reaching flashpoint, the controller's methods shift from passive observation/infrequent counter to achieving parity. Out come the Man-O-War's and ophidians. At this stage, the blue 'general' will never overextend his resources--i.e. tap out. Every person who comes up against blue knows to wait for that critical point of vulnerability. He/she will also only react to the game-breaking threats--ignore 3/3 creatures to counter choke or tsunami, for example. Once parity is achieved--creatures are stopped/blocked/tapped--the controller reaches for TEMPO and thus control. Toss down the disk and follow it with a rainbow efreet; wrath of god and pull the ivory-gurgler out of the graveyard; etc etc ad nauseum. At this stage, countering is less important than establishing the basis for the kill, although you typically have enough mana to do both. Next turn, commence beatdown. I apologize for the brevity of the BATTLEFIELD CONTROL section--I have to go run errands. If this thread gets any interest, I will be delighted to engage in dialogue with everyone. Thanks for the opportunity to contribute. Jason Arnold JPAX jpax14n1@aol.com "I had control of the game, and then he swamped me with permanents"