Schools of Magic, v.3.1
Robert S. Hahn
I know it's soon after v.3.0, but I had some extra time, so... some rather
significant changes from 3.1, but no new schools.
-rsh
[Version 3.1: Last modified, Dec. 16, 1995]
*Some changes to the Chang deck, as per Warren Chang's thoughts, to make it
more competitive with other tournament decks. Also, some comments on the
Weissman School from Warren Chang.
*Some changes to the Kim deck as well, based on my own observations from
playtesting it, as well as Warren Chang's comments. Warren Chang, by the
way, played John Kim in the most recent NY Magic tournament and won in
straight sets.
*Also, random changes and further comments sprinkled throughout.
-rsh
Schools of Magic: General Philosophies
---------------------------------------
Magic: The Gathering has become a relatively mature game since its
introduction. As someone who got into the game very heavily just during
The Dark, I have been forced to think about a number of issues in
competition play. I have also been fortunate enough to have observed very
good players and their decks, and privileged to get some insights into
various theories of Magic.
Judging by the posts on the Net and the various decks people build and
play, it seems to me that there are a number of deck archetypes. Most of
the players are familiar with the: Discard, Land Destruction, Weenie, etc.
etc. While the quest for original decks continues unabated, the decks
which rule the current Magic scene are those which have successfully
combined a number of different strategies in a complementary scheme. These
are superior decks, particularly in Type I play, which have different
theories of deck-building and game-playing.
I would like to thank those people who have replied to me and carried on
lengthy discussions about the merits of various strategies, exploring the
endless combination of factors, weighing flexibility, speed, and other more
advanced topics in Magic with me. In particular, I am grateful to Jeff
Kuta and Warren Chang. I would also like to thank those who have described
their own philosophies of Magic which have been successful, with the
knowledge that their secrets will be made public. These players and other
like them who were unselfish with their discoveries and insights are the
reasons why Magic has developed and will continue to do so.
I have classified some of the most dominant theories and resulting deck
types into "schools" of Magic. The analogy to martial arts, I think, is
not unwarranted as each school uses the same tools, but focuses on
different approaches to the game. These theories are the Weissman School,
the Kim School, the Handelman School, the Chang School, and the O'Brien
School.
One caveat is necessary here, which I should have explained earlier. A
deck or a particular insight about the game is not a "school".
Having an effective strategy alone does not elevate a deck to the
heights of being a "school of magic". Furthermore, I do not judge a
"school" by the percentage performance of its decks or by the record
of its founder -- though clearly, both are factors to evaluate.
Rather, a "school" is one in which a set of coherent principles about the
game which guides every phase of play, from deck construction, to general play,
to situational play, and combination plays. In exploring the concepts
embodied in these various schools, I think it is possible for the beginner
to gain practical deck designs, for the intermediate player to further
refine his own strategy, and for the advanced player to gain further
insight into the game which may ultimately allow him to create his own
school. Again, the analogy to martial arts is very appropriate.
In this memo, I describe my understanding of these schools and their
philosophies of deck design and play. It should be noted that a number of
very competitive decks exist, but their secrets and theories have not been
expounded by anyone. I welcome all suggestions and descriptions of
strategies, decks, and concepts -- but particularly if they are guided by a
set of effective principles.
Another caveat: All of these schools and these decks are in the Type I
environment. I personally do not understand Type II or Type III adequately
to know what the difference would be, although it is possible to theorize
about it. These particular decks may fare better or worse under Type II
situations. I will attempt to rectify this in the future -- probably by
playing in some Type II tourneys myself and watching them.
--------------------
The Weissman School:
--------------------
(Often referred to as "The Deck", originated by Brian Weissman, a top
player in the Bay Area.)
The basic philosophy of this deck is that defense wins games. It is
implemented through heavy white defense (StP and Disenchant, as well as
Divine Offering, Dust to Dust, and Moat) and countermagic (at least 6
Mana Drain/Counterspells). Its primary strategy is to achieve card
superiority through discard, but using Disrupting Sceptres (and one
Mindtwist), and through the use of card-drawing means (Jayemdae Tomes,
Library of Alexandria, Ancestral Recall, Timetwister) as well as recyclers
(Regrowth & Recall). The ultimate aim is to achieve a lock by stripping
the opponent of all useful cards, destroying all dangerous permanents, then
having a Disrupting Sceptre in play, with a couple of Counterspells in
hand. It then lays down one of two Serras and quickly reduces the opponent
to dust.
Some versions -- indeed the most dangerous -- include Blood Moon, at least
in the sideboard, along with CoP: Red (sometimes). This obviously
facilitates the lock, as opponents will have few spells they could cast at
all.
While having so few offensive threats makes the Weissman deck seem
vulnerable, it quickly becomes obvious that the strategy is very
effective in Type I play where the moxen/lotus and other power cards allow
the Weissman deck to get up to speed much quicker. One reason is that with
the limited card draw, there is only so much offense that a deck can muster
in a hurry. Most decks want a healthy amount of mana, particular in the
early rounds, which means that the threat cards are limited for the first
several turns. For example, to run a Juzam deck successfully, one would
probably not want three Juzams in the first hand with three land and a
counterspell. The optimal draw might be a Lotus, two moxen, a land, 2
Juzams, and a counterspell -- then draw at least two more land over the
next three turns, with more countermagic. That way, you could have a first
turn Juzam, and protect it, then another Juzam within two turns, with
another means of protecting them.
What this means, of course, is that 2 StP with countermagic in the opening
hand (or soon thereafter) is adequate to deal with the good Juzam deck
draw. Or, a Maze + 1 StP with counterspells. They're all inexpensive to
cast. With Disenchants, the Weissman deck could also get rid of a mox,
slowing the opponent down even more.
Another point to be made is that with the global anti-creature spells
(Moat, or in some versions, The Abyss, as well as Balance and Wrath of God
in many versions) the Weissman deck can upset the "offensive balance"
strategy -- explained infra under the Handelman school.
With a longer game, the Weissman deck can begin to build its environment to
an extremely creature-hostile and artifact-hostile one, then begin to
achieve card superiority, ultimately ending in a lock-down.
I believe its vulnerabilities are: extreme speed, anti-artifact decks,
other card-superiority decks. Of course, a good amount of luck is involved
in any of these succeeding. But a lightning fast land
destruction/weenie/blaster deck _may_ be the Weissman deck's greatest
threat. Another U/W with artifact-destroyers may be another one, as it
deprives the Weissman deck of its key cards for card superiority:
Disrupting Sceptre, and Jayemdae Tome. Other card-superiority decks, using
Jay Tomes or Necropotence, may also be successful (although this remains in
doubt, as neither card could survive for long with the Weissman deck,
unless they are protected).
Archetype Deck -- (Keep in mind that this is only one version, and many
versions with subtle differences exist.) I'd like to thank Paul Callis for
providing this example.
U/W/b/g/r
----------
Black Lotus
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Sol Ring
3 City of Brass
4 Island
3 Plains
4 Tundra
2 Volcanic Island
Plateau
Underground Sea
Library of Alexandria
2 Strip Mine
Demonic Tutor
Mind Twist
Ancestral Recall
Braingeyser
2 Counterspell
4 Mana Drain
Recall
Time Walk
Timetwister
Regrowth
2 Red Elemental Blast
4 Disenchant
2 Moat
2 Serra Angel
4 Swords to Plowshares
2 Disrupting Scepter
Ivory Tower
Jayemdae Tome
Sideboard:
----------
Plains
Disrupting Scepter
Jayemdae Tome
Tormod's Crypt
2 Control Magic
Counterspell
2 Blood Moon
3 Circle of Protection:Red
2 Divine Offering
Moat
Further discussions with Brian Weissman, the originator of this school, have
revealed interesting insights. Basically, he suggests focusing on the one
thing that all decks must do -- survive. By focusing on survival, you play
only half the game, and are not vulnerable to all of the cards which
counter offensive strategies. In his own words:
What I believe really sets "The Deck" apart from its competitors
is its overall objective: survival. "The Deck" virtually forgets about
its opponent, and concentrates only on establishing itself and building
card advantage. Since it is only trying to survive; a goal that every
deck has to achieve, it only has to do half the work and is not
vulnerable to the billions of cards that hose offensive strategies. I am
not going to lose to Moat or Abyss or Blood Moon like Handelman's deck.I
am not going to lose to Blood Moon, Moat, and COP Red like Kim's Deck. I
am not going to lose to Ivory tower and COP Red like Chang's deck. All
these decks suffer the same problem that if a threat arrives that is
beyond their measure to deal with, they are finished. To me, it seems
that Magic is very inclined in the direction of defensive/card advantage,
and that is why I chose that path when building a competitive deck. You
simply concentrate on survival and drawing cards, and winning, through
two angels or a braingeyser, takes care of itself.
Two things must be noted here, however. One, the Weissman deck does not
build "card advantage" per se -- that would be a misnomer. It builds card
denial -- it would be insufficient for the Weissman strategy to draw 2
cards to the opponent's 1. The opponent must have no cards in hand, and
the Weissman player must have a Disrupting Sceptre in play with a couple of
Counterspells as backup. Two, I believe that the Weissman deck is also
vulnerable to certain strategies. For one thing, if a Jester's Cap is
successfully cast and used (assuming that the Capping player has adequate
countermagic to allow this to happen), then the Weissman deck cannot win.
Also, discussions with Brian Weissman reveals that he at least considers a
deck with inadequate counterspelling ability to be ultimately inferior to
his deck. This is tied to the skill of player involved, of course, but the
point is clear -- any deck which focuses so heavily on defense must be able
to get its key spells through while denying the opponents their key spells.
The difference, of course, is knowing what is key and what is not.
Discussion with Warren Chang suggests that there are additional
improvements that could be made. Other versions of the Weissman deck
utilize some of these suggestions.
1) No life gaining ability. Because the Ivory Tower is insufficient, some
other way of gaining life (tied to the goal of survival) may be useful.
Warren Chang recommends 2 Fountains of Youth in the main deck.
2) Use of Serra Angels. Chang suggests that there is no reason to allow
the opponent the opportunity to use anti-creature cards *at all*. He
advocates using 2 Racks instead, as the Serras wouldn't come out before the
Sceptre/Counterspell lock anyway. The change would also help lower the
overall mana cost, and help reduce the white-mana content. One note here
is that the Serra Angel also functions as anti-creature defense
(particularly Hypnotic Spectres and other small but dangerous flyers), but
the point is well-taken.
3) Use of Moat for creature defense. Chang suggests using The Abyss, as it
would kill flyers as well -- obviously, the Serras (above) would have to be
replaced. As for artifact creatures, Chang points out that the Weissman
deck has no problems destroying artifacts.
4) Inadequate damage sources. This goes to the comment about Jester's Cap.
Chang suggests using at least a couple of Millstones, which will disrupt
the opponent's game, as well as make the Weissman deck less vulnerable to
being Capped.
These comments may improve the Weissman design to the next level, depending
on the milieu in which one hopes to compete.
The Weissman deck, perhaps more than any other, tests the playing skill of
the opponent. Ultimately, the ability of the opponent to overcome the
defensive edge of the Weissman strategy, as well as denying the key cards
necessary for domination, may play a large part in the duel. It should
also be noted that the Weissman deck also requires a great deal of skill
to play, as the near-instinctive knowledge of when to counter, when to
disenchant, when to hold back, etc. is essential.
-----------------
The Kim School:
-----------------
(An outgrowth of the now-defunct Balance deck, originated by John Kim)
This part is copied from my Theory of Deckbuilding, Part I. The following
represents my take on the theory of the Kim school. As such, they may
differ from what John Kim is currently doing. If he starts playing a
totally different strategy, then I will feel free to call this my school.
:) But the following represents what I learned from him.
In general, in any deck design, there are three overriding principles:
1. Every card must be maximally useful. This means that it can't be just
useful, or useful against certain type of decks, but be the MOST useful
card against MOST types of decks. For example, Shatter is a useful card,
but Disenchant is maximally useful. Spirit Link is useful in many
situations, but Swords to Plowshares is maximally useful as Time Elementals
don't hurt you by attacking you.
2. No reliance on combinations. You want to build in the possibility of
a combination (as you do with Rasputin Dreamweaver + BIG Fireball, or Mana
Drain into a Jade Statue or something like that) but you don't ever want
to be in a position to be relying upon it. E.g., Initiates + Drain Life
is a wonderful idea and a great combo if you could pull it off, but heaven
forbid someone should kill the Initiate.
3. Minimize mana requirements. That means that as many of your spells
should be the lowest casting cost possible, AND that as little colored
mana should be required. E.g., sometimes a Flash Counter is better
than a Counterspell (for example, against a pure red blaster deck) simply
because it costs 1 less blue mana.
Most of these are subtle points and experience, as well as individual style
of play, dictates what is maximally useful, which combos are reliance and
which are mere possibilities, and what mana requirements is the minimum
necessary for the effect you want.
However, certain results follow from the above. In playing a multicolor
deck, for example, you should try very hard not to have more than one
primary color. "Primary" in this case means spells which require more than
one mana of that color. For example, if playing a B/U/R deck, unless it is
central to your play, do not put in 4 Juzam Djinns, 4 Mahamoti Djinns, and
4 Shivan Dragons. Each of those cards require 2 mana of a certain color.
Even with full set of multilands and 4 City of Brass, you may find that
you're holding cards waiting for a certain type of land to appear. A
well-placed Strip Mine may send you spiralling into defeat. A better
strategy might be to go with (say blue is your primary, because you want to
use Counterspell) 4 Derelors, 4 Mahamoti Djinns, and 4 Fireballs.
The First Principle, of maximum card utility, has this corollary. Any
serious tournament deck must be able to deal with creatures, artifacts,
enchantments, and direct damage. Simply overwhelming their resources with
power is one strategy, and it is a way of dealing with all four of them:
offense is the best defense. But this means, for example, that a Chaos Orb
is superior to a Disenchant. Obvious, but not everyone understands why it
is obvious. (NB: Chaos Orb has been banned from play, which is a stupid
ruling, in my ever-so-humble opinion.)
The Second Principle, of minimizing combo reliance, has this corollary. Of
course, it goes without saying that each card you draw will be useful (see
First Principle) in and of itself. In addition, every serious tournament
deck must be able to pose multiple threats. The pure blaster deck poses
multiple threats in that overwhelming speed is a threat. Countermagic is a
defensive threat since it prevents the opponent from playing her game.
When combined, the multiple threats may form devastating combinations, but
independent of any combination, each threat is a credible danger. For
example, a Jade Statue by itself poses a threat, and a Wrath of God also
poses a threat in and of itself. Together, you have a combination which
deprives your opponent of any creatures while you still have a 3/6
nastiness. But each card is a self-contained threat. Contrast, for
example, a Hymn to Tourach and the Rack. Together, they cause grievous
injury and may win the game, but separately, the Hymn poses a minimal
threat at most (especially against a good tournament deck where every card
they draw thereafter is as useful as what they've lost) and the Rack by
itself does nothing. What this means is that the Hymn may be a threat, but
the Rack is not a true threat in and of itself.
One note: Defense is a threat. One very popular deck, the
so-called 'The Deck' or the Weissman Deck, has exactly three "offensive"
(meaning that it will lead to winning the game) cards: 2 Serra Angels
and 1 Braingeyser. Everything else is defense: countermagic, StP,
Disenchant, Divine Offering, Moat, etc. Its effectiveness lies in the
independent threat of each and every defensive card, as well as its ability
to combine the meager offensive threat with defense for a devastating
combination/lock.
The Third Principle is a special tenet of the Kim school of deckbuilding.
The idea is to keep the colored mana cost down, so you can cast most of
your spells even if you only have three or so land (and one of them is a
Mishra's Factory). In his own deck, the only spells requiring more than
one mana of any color are the countermagic (Mana Drain, Counterspell),
Serra Angels (only two of them), and Rasputin Dreamweaver.
With 12 to 14 sources of blue and white mana, the deck is rarely troubled
by color requirements. One corollary is that artifacts are good, and
artifacts are difficult to destroy. Therefore, given the choice between a
Hypnotic Spectre and a Disrupting Sceptre, the Kim school would recommend the
Disrupting Sceptre, despite its mana cost and lack of damage ability.
Another is that red should be limited to direct fire (bolts & fireball,
mostly), as most good red creatures require two red (Shivans, baby shivans,
Ali, etc.) -- unless you're playing with Kird Apes, of course. White is
good for the StP/Disenchant/Balance, all of which require little to cast,
and only one white. Black is similar to red, as few good black spells
require fewer than two black mana: Demonic Tutor and Mind Twist are two
clear exceptions, of course.
A couple of questions to think about in any deckbuilding exercise:
What will I do if a Blood Moon drops?
What about an Energy Flux?
What about a CoP: Black/Red/Green?
What about a Moat? Stasis? Black Vise? Strip Mines?
What is I'm facing a first-turn Juzam? A lot of weenies very early on?
Signature deck -- b/r/U/W (but mostly colorless)
-------------------------
(I have modified this deck from v.3.0 to allow it greater flexibility.
See note following)
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Emerald
1 Sol Ring
1 Jalum Tome
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Mind Twist
1 Balance
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Timetwister
3 Disenchant
2 Swords to Plowshares
4 Mana Drain
2 Counterspell
1 Recall
2 Jade Statue
2 Serra Angel
1 Rasputin Dreamweaver
4 Mishra's Factories
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Fireball
2 Red Elemental Blast
1 Library of Alexandria
3 City of Brass
1 Maze of Ith
3 Underground Sea
4 Tundra
3 Volcanic Island
2 Plateau
1 Strip Mine
----
61 cards.
(14 blue, 10 white, 9 red, 7 black, and 8 purely colorless not counting
Rasputin and 4 Mana Drains -- where most of the white spells require W,
all of the red spells require just R, and no blue spell requires more than
UU, and a number of spells/cards can use colorless mana. Also notice that
exactly 6 spells require more than 2 mana to cast.)
Side-Board:
----------
1 Disenchant
2 Swords to Plowshares
1 Dust to Dust
2 Fireball
2 Counterspell
4 Islands (anti-Blood Moon work -- replaces 2 Tundra, 1 Volc. Islands, 1
Und. Sea)
3 Plains (anti-Blood Moon work -- replaces Plateaus)
The change to the sideboard, to combat Blood Moon, was in recognition of
the danger that Blood Moon poses to this deck. A deck which incorporates
Blood Moon adequately may slow down the Kim deck and reduce its offensive
options to Jade Statues, Bolts, and Fireballs. The Kim deck would lose
most of its defensive options, which is disastrous. Therefore, more than
any other card, Blood Moon must be defended against with the Sideboard.
With 3 Plains and 4 Islands, along with Mox Pearl and Black Lotus,
the Serra Angels are viable options, as is some countermagic in a
long-enough game. The 4 Disenchants (kill the Blood Moon) will have a
chance of being successful. Fellwar Stones or Barbed Sextants may also be
options, but I am hoping not to have those cards counterspelled.
The mana distribution after sideboarding for Blood Moon goes to: 14 blue,
9 white, 5 red, 6 black, and 8 purely colorless. The low red is balanced
out by Blood Moon, as well as the low red-mana requirement.
The changes to the main deck are in recognition of the fact that the deck
is fast and defensive as well as mana-intensive. The Recall, a card I do
not generally like, allows for recycling of the key defensive cards -- as
well as the opportunity to go fishing for a Fireball late in the game.
Timetwister tends to help the Kim deck more than the opponent, often since
the opponent will be mostly tapped out from his turn, and the Kim deck can
replenish both the defensive and offensive (Lightning Bolt) spells. The 2
REB replacing the Counterspell assumes the opponent will be playing blue,
which is most likely to be true in Type I, and gives a slight speed
advantage as well as reducing the reliance on blue mana so much for all
countermagic.
The game-play of the Kim deck is to create a fast offensive environment,
while establishing extremely fast defense. In the spectrum of offensive
speed, it is probably a shade slower than the Chang deck, but
significantly faster than the the Weissman deck. In defensive speed, it is
equal, if not faster (because of Mishras) than even the Weissman deck.
In fact, both have equivalent anti-permanent abilities and countermagic
abilities. The difference is in the emphasis: Weissman emphasizes card
dominance as the means to achieving a lock, whereas Kim emphasizes a direct
route to the end -- killing one's opponent. Card superiority in and of
itself is merely a means to an end -- rendering one's opponent defenseless
and disrupting their game. But it does not kill one's opponent -- damage
does. The Kim deck, therefore, replaces the card-superiority in favor of
direct damage (4 Bolts alone can do 12 points of damage), uncounterable
Mishra's Factories, and Jade Statues (excellent ground defense, difficult
to kill -- can't be enchanted, can't be Terrored, can't be done away with
anti-creature sorceries, and must use an artifact-killer card). Instead of
trying to achieve a lock, the Kim deck attempts to reduce the opponent down
to a point where a final Fireball hammer will decide the game (with a
counterspell or a REB to counter any anti-Fireball counters), or a Serra
Angel could wipe the board clean. One note: Jalum Tomes are preferable to
the Kim deck than a Jayemdae Tome, because it is not concerned about card
superiority, by about cycling through the deck, looking for the hammer.
However, Jayemdae Tomes are more appropriate in a more defensive/slow game
environment.
Its threats are multiple, and finely woven together.
1. Creature-based attack: Mishras, Jade Statue, Rasputin, Serra Angel
2. Direct damage: Lightning Bolt, Firebal
3. Anti-permanent defense: Disenchant, StP, Balance
4. Countermagic defense: Mana Drain, Counterspell, REB
5. Speed: Mishras & Bolts are extremely fast damage sources.
They are finely woven together in that many combinations are possible: Mana
Drain + Jade Statue, Mana Drain + Fireball, Rasputin + Fireball, Rasputin +
2 white land = Serra, Mishras provide mana as well, etc. However, the deck
relies on none of these combinations for its effectiveness.
As Brian Weissman has pointed out, Moat + CoP:Red + Blood Moon will shut
down the Kim deck almost completely. But a three card combo is by no means
an easy accomplishment, and Stasis + Kismet + Time Elemental is also a
three card combo.
The most dangerous anti-Kim card is Blood Moon. The changes to the
sideboard reflect the need to deal with it.
---------------------
The Handelman School:
---------------------
(A Djinn/Discard/Counter deck. Its history is somewhat more complicated,
and Sam "Garry" Handelman attributes it to Frank Trollman (Ritaxis) for its
design. Many people know it as the Trollman deck.)
I had originally thought (in v.2.1 and earlier) that the Handelman School
favors a lightning-quick offense as its best defense. It turns out to be
not entirely true. In the words of the creator:
Speed, while nice if you can get it, is not the important thing. The
important thing is to keep your opponent defenseless over turns seven and
eight. The ideal draw is a mox jet, a swamp, a mox ruby, and a bunch of
hymns and red blasts. Never lost a game with that draw.
Clearly, offense is a bigger part of the design than the Weissman deck, for
example, but the main strategy is to render the opponent defenseless in the
mid-game through card-advantage, achieved both through discard and
having more offensive cards than the opponent has defensive cards. This
latter point is termed the "offensive balance theory".
The offensive balance theory suggests that if every defensive card takes
out one offensive card, then the defensive player has not advanced towards
winning as the game goes on but the offensive player will make strides in
that direction. Also, by outnumbering the defensive cards, the deck will
eventually get a creature out which will not be destroyed. Global
anti-creature cards, therefore, such as Moat/Wrath of God are the greatest
threats. It is a form of card advantage, which is reinforced by discard,
and hosed by efficient creature defense. The countermagic, therefore,
exists to deal with the global creature defense spells of the opponent,
thereby preserving the offensive edge.
There are some special assumptions, which are necessary for the Bay Area
Magic scene, such as the Blue Assumption Theory -- which posits that the
opponent is always playing blue, which makes REB standard in the deck. It
is particularly necessary to ensure that a key card, such as Mind Twist or
Necropotence, goes through. Other players may adjust this, of course.
The basic premise, however, remains the same -- its peripheral features are
modified to combat the dominant/popular deck in vogue -- but the main
thrust is death by large creatures.
Signature deck -- B/U/r/g/w
Black Magic- 16
Demon Tutor x1
Mind Twist x1
Hypnotic Spectre x4
Juzam Djinn x4
Hymn to Tourach x4
Necropotence x2
Blue Magic- 6
Mana Drain x4
Ancestral Recall x1
Timewalk x1
Other Magic- 15
Birds of Paradise x4
Disenchant x4
Red Elemental Blast x3
Erhnam Djinn x4
Mana- 23
Moxen x5
Library of Alexandria x1
Black Lotus x1
Sol Ring x1
City of Brass x4
Underground Sea x4
Bayou x2
Tropical Island x1
Scrubland x1
Badland x1
Volcanic Island x1
Tundra x1
Sideboard varies considerably, but it general had dark rituals, control
magic and some white land to deal with blood moon, naturally it varied
depending on what I was expecting to face.
Essentially, the basic theory is that every deck is configured to stop
creatures. If you know what those anti-creature strategies are, then you
can modify and adapt to deal with them. Then, the offensive strategy of
"I'm coming to kill you with these right here" will take care of the
opponent if they are unable to deal with your creature defense strategy --
which was specifically designed for their anti-creature strategy. In
Handelman's words:
The theory is that damage sources win the game if your opponent
can't stop them. It's like Brians deck, only it wants to win on turn
eight by attacking constantly, and it doesn't defend it's life total.
Weissman's deck must counteract and destroy an attacking Kurd Ape, I try
to avoid doing that in favor of attacking my opponent. I'm defensive in
that I defend against my opponents efforts at self strengthening.
So, as I wrote in earlier versions, the Handelman strategy is still
dependent on the idea that fast, large creatures win the game with
proper protection. Discard helps with the protection by removing global
anti-creature cards, and also maintaining the offensive balance by removing
other non-global anti-creature cards. Countermagic also defends against
global anti-creature cards.
The deck has no significant anti-permanent abilities, relying on discard
and permission for defense.
The deck runs with 4 Juzams and 4 Ernhams, as well as Spectres. Control
Magic is also in the sideboard, as I understand it. Hymns and Mindtwist
are essential, as are Mana Drain & Red Elemental Blasts.
It has several points of vulnerability, all stemming from the reliance on
creatures, which are vulnerable by the nature of the game, as well as
its lack of anti-permanent spells.
Enchantments and artifacts, I believe, would cause severe problems
for this deck. The deck in the Handelman/Ritaxis/Dolor version (as above,
designed specifically to combat the Weissman decks) does have 4 Disenchants
in the sideboard, which can be cast with City of Brass or with
Birds of Paradise, Mox Pearl, one of 2 white multilands, or the Black
Lotus. However, that takes the deck to using 5 colors, with 4 of the
mana sources well-known for their vulnerability. (One joke around here used
to be, "What's the life expectancy of a Bird of Paradise? Speed of
lightning.")
Moat and the Abyss are the most significant problems, with Drop of Honey
also being an issue, along with Meekstone, Island Sanctuary, Ice Floe,
Icy Manipulator, Maze of Ith, etc. Regenerating blockers may also cause
problems, and a Royal Assassin or even King Suleiman may cause headaches.
Global creature destruction, such as Wrath of God, Balance, Jokulhaups,
Inferno, etc. are also significant threats as well -- as they destroy
the mana birds along with creature threats. They also disrupt the idea
that one defensive card can only remove one offensive card.
In addition, the 4 Spectres are well-known for their vulnerability. It's
a well-known fact that "spectre" is just another word for "lightning rod".
A Serra Angel or a Serendib, or any other large flyer could ruin the
Spectre's day as well.
On a more subtle point, all tournament decks have anti-creature measures,
but the best have not only measures but well-planned strategies on dealing
with them. They also have well-planned counter-discard and
counter-permission measures. As such, the Handelman deck requires
extraordinary speed and some luck to overwhelm the opposition with brute
force. It may be a vulnerability that experienced players may be able to
exploit, for example, by taking away the speed element (killing birds,
countering moxen, etc.). Furthermore, the idea of offensive balance makes
sense theoretically, but in practical implementation, it is difficult to
see how it could deal with some of the more sophisticated anti-creature
measures. Even assuming that the Handelman deck could be tuned to counter
the biggest anti-creature threats, it is questionable whether its strategy
of offensive balance will be successful without extreme speed.
There is some question as to the adequacy of mana resources as well. It is
a predominantly B/U deck with some Green, White, and Red. But the
black component is heavily structured towards needing BB and the blue
almost consistenly requires UU. Without the mana-birds, there is
some question as to the reliability of getting the right mana combination.
Also, as Brian Weissman pointed out, the offensive nature of the deck means
that it has to play with a low mana/spell ratio to make sure that the
offensive cards come up. Land destruction will be more successful against
it, and Blood Moon would be disastrous. Also, the draw may be less
friendly in the Handelman deck to getting early mana resources.
I would believe that the Weissman and Kim decks have well-thought-out
strategies for creature control, as well as discard and permission,
and can control the game environment effectively. As such,
they should be superior to the Handelman deck. On the other hand, the
Chang deck is weak against fast big creature decks, and its anti-creature
abilities are less well-developed, so Handelman should be able to deal with
the speed and disruption of the Chang deck. But I have no playtest
evidence to support such conclusions. (Again, I would welcome
contributions regarding the relative competitiveness of the decks.)
One important deckbuilding note from Sam "Garry" Handelman is that one
should play the percentages in a tournament setting. In other words, build
a deck to beat the popular deck, rather than the dominant deck. In his
words, the idea is this:
I do have this little tidbit to offer those who
wish to win tournaments: play the percentages. Don't worry about beating
the best deck at the tournament you are going to. Chances are
significantly less than 25% that any particular deck is making it to the
finals, numbers outpower skill every time. If there is an army of land
destruction decks there, and one of the best editions of the Deck you've
seen (lets say it's Brian himself), don't worry about beating Brian.
Chances are excellent that he'll get unlucky and eliminated. Worry about
beating the land destruction decks instead.
-------------
Chang School
-------------
(A R/U/b Blood Moon/direct damage/counterspell deck)
This school is taken from the deck and the ideas of Warren Chang, an
experienced player from MIT. The guiding principle is that the best
defense is a good offense, but structured in such a way that the offense
forces the opponent to change his game.
In the words of Warren Chang:
My basic philosophy in most of my decks is not only that the best
defense is a good offense, but that multiple threats should be employed
to force your opponent to play your game. That is the key, I believe to
winning tournament magic. There are generally two types of decks,
reactive, and proactive. If I'm playing a reactive deck, I will
basically adopt a more defensive strategy, reacting to what my opponent
does, and trying to prevent it or minimize its impact. The best example
of a reactive deck is the Weissman deck, which stops offensive decks
until it can lock the game. A proactive deck is generally offensive.
It forces an opponent to react to your threats, to become reactive. If
you're playing a proactive deck and force another offensive deck to
respond to your threats (double bolt a juzam, toss to get under vise,
etc...) then you're halfway to your goal, you've disrupted your
opponents game plan.
The idea is to turn the opponent's deck into a reactive one, which takes it
out of its element, or to mount so many offensive threats along so many
lines that a slow, reactive deck cannot deal with all of them at once.
Possibly the major weapon of the Chang strategy is speed. The majority of
the damage comes from Black Vise and direct fire, such as bolts and
psi-blasts. With Strip Mines, the deck is also able to mount a
quick, early-round mana deprivation threat. In the mid/end-game, the
deck can kill through Timetwister/Wheel (with vises in play) and
hope for some direct fire to come up (which is more than a little
likely), or with -- in the words of one frequent opponent -- "invincible
Jade Statues."
A sub-theme of the deck, but a very important one, is attacking mana
resources. The deck is built around Blood Moon, as it hoses so many
other decks in Type I. Most Blood Moon decks have the problem of merely
slowing down the opponent until a Disenchant or a large Fireball shows up.
The Chang deck utilizes the Vise and the speed advantage to kill
the opponent during that delay.
Vice and Blood Moon both serve disruption purposes as well, and forces the
opponent to play reactively and defensively. Again, in Warren Chang's own
words:
I play with black vises, a strategy which some type 1 players consider
to be useless. However, when employed with strip mines, which are
useful cards on their own, indeed invaluable cards, they can be deadly.
And what if my opponent decides to disenchant or counter one of my
vises? That's one less disenchant for my jades, or blood moon, or one
less counter for my timetwister, mindtwist, wheel, fireball, or blood
moon. Strip mines disrupt my opponents mana, often creating openings for
slow effects by disrupting untapped blue mana. Bolts and damage can
kill creatures, or be used to make an opponent consider survival above
anything else. Blood moon is the ultimate disruptive strategy. A card
that has minimal impact on me, completely alters the way my opponent
plays his game, EVEN IF I NEVER CAST IT.
One very interesting insight of the Chang School is that forcing the
opponent to sideboard will disrupt their game, and provide additional
opportunities since few people are as comfortable playing their deck in its
basic form as they are playing it with different elements emphasized.
Since the Chang deck itself is designed to provide multiple threats
(Jades, blast, and vice w/ Timetwister and Wheel), it attempts to take
advantage of gaps in the opponent's deck created by sideboarding.
After the first game, after my
opponent sees a blood moon, he will reach into his sideboard for
sextants, disenchants, hydroblasts, etc... Some might say that this is
effective sideboarding...but what is he taking out for these? he might
be taking out useless cards, but in most tourney decks, there are no
useless cards, so...for the cost of 3 cards in my starting deck, ive
forced my opponent to become reactive. The multiple threats come into
play here too. In the first game, my opponent saw vises, strip mines,
mana drain, mind twist, blood moon, bolts, psionic blasts, and jade
statues. Does he sideboard the COP Reds to stop the direct damage? or
the disenchants and offerings for the blood moons and jades? or the
sextants for the blood moons? or the blue blasts for my damage and red
blasts for my permission, or psychic purges against my mind twist? or
whatever... Maybe he will sidebaord 11 cards like the average
tournament player did against me at the last NY Magic tournament. In
any case, 11 cards have to leave his starting deck. No tournament deck
i've ever played can change 11 cards without changing its character.
Obviously, in deck construction, the Chang school advocates speed over
anything else. Flexibility is not its concern here, as the opponent's game
will be disrupted by the pure speed of the Chang deck's multiple threats.
There are few combinations in the deck, save the Black Vise/Wheel/Twister,
but all three cards are useful standing alone. There are only 4 cards in
the deck that cost 4, 9 that cost 3, and 22 cost 2 or fewer mana. In mana
content, it is mostly U/R with a small amount of black for Tutor and Twist.
It provides for some long-game flexibility with Fireballs and Jade
Statues, along with Jayemdae Tomes, but it will be vulnerable in the
longer, control-games.
Signature Deck -- R/U/b Blood Moon (Revised for v.3.1)
----------------------------------
Red:
4 x Bolt
3 x Incinerate
2 x Fireball
3 x Blood Moon
1 x Wheel of Fortune
Blue:
4 x Mana Drain
4 x Psionic Blast
1 x Time Walk
1 x Timetwister
1 x Ancestral Recall
Black:
1 x Mind Twist
1 x Demonic Tutor
Artifact:
3 x Jade Statue
4 x Black Vise
1 x Zuran Orb
5 x Mox
1 x Lotus
1 x Sol Ring
Land:
1 x Library of Alexandria
4 x Strip Mine
4 x Volcanic Island
4 x City of Brass
6 x Island
Sideboard:
3 x Psychic Purge
2 x Pyroblast
2 x Abyss
1 x City in a Bottle
2 x Shatter
1 x Fountain of Youth
1 x Hurkyl's Recall
1 x Sleight of Mind
1 x Fireball
1 x Incinerate
One interesting change is the substitution of a Library of Alexandria for a
Jayemdae Tome. The overall benefit of the switch seems to benefit the
deck, as the Jayemdae Tome requires a good deal of mana to use, while the
Library is more useful in a deck with Timetwister and Wheel of Fortune.
The Library also provides colorless mana. One issue, of course, is that
Blood Moon will ruin it, but post-Blood Moon, the Jade Statues and direct
damage is most likely a better use of the mana than a Jayemdae Tome.
The most significant changes are in the sideboard. The anti-creature
ability of City in a Bottle (now that Ernhams are back in
print) are far superior in Type 1 (particularly against the Djinn decks)
to the Meekstone, Icy Manipulator, and Forcefield. There is also a bit
more direct-damage in the sideboard.
The anti-discard (Psychic Purges) requires some commentary.
In my view, the Psychic Purges are not useful against most offensive
discard decks (which will ignore the Purges since a Rack or two will
kill most opponents before the Purges can really hurt), but against
a defensive discard deck such as Weissman or Handelman decks, they are a
rather large increase in damage potential. (Keep in mind that the damage
from the Purge cannot be countered, and with 3 Purges, it is a threat to
make a Weissman player think twice about using the Sceptre -- again, this is
in-line with the basic principle of the Chang school, which is to make a
deck reactive.)
Combined with the other direct damage, which cannot _all_ be countered, the
Chang deck hopes to overwhelm the Weissman deck which lacks significant
life-gaining ability. Countering Brian Weissman's comments, Warren Chang
argues that a single Ivory Tower v. 4 Black Vise is not a viable
life-gaining strategy, and using a Zuran Orb for the Weissman deck is a
last-minute measure (as it requires a good deal of mana to run properly).
One interesting theoretical note here is that Warren Chang is adopting the
"offensive balance" theory in effect. The number of direct damage in the
Chang deck outnumbers the number of countermagic in the Weissman deck.
However, this makes a CoP: Red a major hoser that the Chang deck cannot
ignore. And with a single Sleight of Mind and 4 Mana Drain to prevent a
CoP: Red from coming out, it seems doubtful that the Chang deck can always
prevent being hosed by the patient Weissman player or a Kim player
utilizing CoP: Red.
The deck's vulnerabilities are fast big creature decks, like the Handelman
deck, and its reliance on Blood Moon to do most of the disruption work.
It's lack of significant countermagic as well as its inability to deal with
permanents may also be a serious vulnerability against U/W control decks
(like Weissman) unless they are completely hosed by Blood Moon. Brian
Weissman points out that his own deck is built around Blood Moon as well,
which makes is less vulnerable to that strategy. The Kim deck, on the
other hand, would have significant problems with Blood Moon.
A mostly red deck poses problems for the Chang strategy of disruption, and
it becomes a question of card-draw & luck for the outcome. The
counterspelling in the Chang deck does provide something of an edge, but it
is not enough of a disruption to be truly effective. Therefore, in those
games, luck of the draw plays a heavier role.
Black Vise is effective in this deck, but its utility in Type I might be
questioned early on, especially if the early Strip Mine does not show. It
may be more useful after a later-game Wheel/Timetwister.
The Chang deck's ultimate vulnerability, however, seems to be a deck which
could take away the speed advantage -- such as a deck based on Nether Void,
or Winter Orb. The Nether Void deck such as the O'Brien deck is a major
problem. A Lightning Bolt that costs R3 is not fast enough, and the Chang
deck lacks anti-permanent abilities. The Hurkyl's Recall helps it a
bit, but it is hardly adequate in those situations, and an enchantment will
wreak havoc against the Chang design.
Another interesting note is that a deck with significant life-gaining
abilities (Spirit Link, Fountain of Youth, etc.) may neutralize the Chang
deck's speed advantage. The reason is that the damage from the Chang deck
is almost exclusively one-shot: bolts and blasts. If the opponent can stay
alive long enough, the shift in momentum is significant.
Also, as pointed out by Brian Weissman, the Chang design may not have
adequate countermagic ability to deal with a dedicated defensive deck --
like his own design, or a Millstone deck, or a Kim deck. If the
opponent has adequate mana, the Strip Mines will not be a major threat
unless the opponent also suffers from a poor draw. If the opponent can
defeat Blood Moon, then the advantage swings the other way.
It is also vulnerable to a Jester's Cap, as Blood Moon can be said to be
the key card in the strategy. With limited countermagic and limited
anti-artifact ability, it is questionable how the Chang deck would fare
against a well-designed defensive deck with Jester's Cap.
The key to the Chang deck, as is the case with the O'Brien deck, may be
the draw. With a good draw -- early Vice, Strip Mine, Blood Moon --
the mana-denial strategy can be put in place early and the
opponent may be eliminated while trying to get out from under the
mana-denial strategy. With a poor draw -- some land, a Jade Statue, a
couple of Bolts -- the Chang deck could die a horrible death.
In conclusion, I believe that like the Handelman deck, the Chang deck is an
extremely effective strategy which gives up a slight advantage because of
its emphasis on offense and offensive speed. Its success relies heavily on
the initial draw plus the first few rounds, as well as being able to
implement its anti-mana strategy.
---------------
O'Brien School (New in v.3.0)
---------------
(A Land Destruction/Nether Void deck, as articulated by Sean O'Brien of
Georgia Tech.)
The O'Brien deck is related to the Chang deck in that mana-denial is an
important strategy for its success. However, it takes the idea to the
maximum competitive advantage, employing land destruction as its main
principle.
Quite simply, as the Weissman and Handelman decks operate under the
principle that "If you don't have any cards, you can't play," the O'Brien
deck operates under the principle that "If you don't have any mana, you
can't play."
The basic operation is simple. Strip Mines, Shatter, Crumble, Stone Rain,
Ice Storm, etc. take out opponent's mana sources. Nether Void increases
the mana gap, which the continuous land destruction maintains. In the
meantime, the Mana Vaults provide the O'Brien deck with the ability to cast
its spells (every other turn, at least) and the Mishra's Factories can
pound away without fear. The Black Vise adds huge early round damage
potential, and possibly game-ending combo with Nether Void, and the
Stormseeker provides the late-game hammer.
The key to this deck is the luck of the draw. With the proper
draw, the O'Brien deck becomes ugly very quickly. With a poor or average
draw, the slight breathing room may be enough for a permission deck to get
its countermagic defense up quickly enough to deny the Nether Void --
though the Strip Mine may disrupt this strategy as well.
If the initial mana lock can be overcome, the rest of the strategy is
relatively easy to deal with. The deck possesses no countermagic ability
and very insignificant anti-permanent ability. It has no real long-game
strategy that stands out, which suggests that a deck with significant
life-gaining ability might be able to climb out from under the Nether
Void/land destruction strategy.
Signature Deck: B/G (Another version uses large creatures, such as Juzams
and Ernhams, instead of Mishras and Stormseekers)
5 Moxen
1 Black Lotus
4 Bayous
5 Swamp
4 Forest
1 City of Brass
2 Mana Vault
1 Dark Ritual
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Regrowth
3 Drop of Honey
2 Storm Seekers
4 Nether Void
4 Strip Mine
4 Sinkhole
4 Ice storm
2 Ice Quakes
4 Crumble
4 Black Vise
4 Mishras Factories
---------------
total 60 cards
SideBoard
---------
3 Scavenger Folk
3 Paralyze
2 Dry Spell
4 Gloom
2 Tranquility
1 Ice Quake
Drops of Honey come out for creatureless decks for the Scavenger Folk and
the Ice Quakes.
Against a U/W permission/control deck (Weissman, Kim) the Drops and others
leave for Scavenger Folk and Gloom.
Against a large creature deck, the Stormseekers are replaced by Paralyze.
In adapting this strategy, it is essential to keep the goal in mind: mana
denial early on in the game when it makes the most difference. I suspect
that the support cards can be varied for more defense and disruption (using
white instead of green, for example), but the main focus is to deny mana
resources. If that can be accomplished, then the deck has a very good
chance of winning.
Note that the version above does not include the power cards in blue. The
addition of an Ancestral Recall, Timewalk, and Timetwister will most likely
improve the deck, if the mana distribution can be accomplished properly.
Problems for the deck include a fast counterspelling strategy, a fast big
creatures strategy, a Blood Moon based strategy, and even Land Tax. Again,
the luck of the draw plays a bigger part in the O'Brien deck than in others
in this article, but it is undeniably an extremely effective resource
denial strategy that either wins big or loses big.
One thing to watch out for is the reliance on combinations. Although they
are not very difficult to pull off, without a Mana Vault, the O'Brien deck
faces the same Nether Void gap as the opponent. Unless the land
destruction strategy is working well, the extra time may allow the opponent
to climb out and win.
By the way, a caveat from the creator of this strategy:
... it's pretty fun to play and when you win
it's outstanding, Land Destruction is not fun to play against so don't
keep it around too long or no one will play with you...
--
Again, I would ask for suggestions/guidelines, other deck strategies and
principles, etc. Perhaps the collected wisdom of the various schools would
allow fruitful collaboration between the principles for the next generation
of dominant decks.
-rsh
--
Robert S. Hahn rsh...@is.nyu.edu
NYU Law School, '97 http://pages.nyu.edu/~rsh9395/index.html
Politics, Pool, Magic, Jyhad, Anime, Film, Literature, Poetry....
Who has time for work?
Todd W Powell
I have greatly enjoyed your essays, especially on the schools of Magic. I
believe they have helped me develop a better understanding of the inner
dynamics of Magic. Unfortunately, I play type II, and the schools you listed
have type I signature decks. Have you considered writing an essay dealing more
with type II schools of Magic? Are they different, or can the principles still
be applied to type II? My initial belief is that most of the underlying
principles of the various schools can, in fact, be used to construct winning
type II decks, such as achieving card superiority. However, the means to these
ends may be different without the type I spoilers. Perhaps you or someone else
could give their insights on how to go about modifying these schools for type
II, or maybe even discuss possible new schools and principles.
Thanks,
Todd
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I have seen the true path.
I will not warm myself by the fire -
I will become the flame." - Lim-Dul, the Necromancer (Magic: The Gathering)
Robert S. Hahn
: Robert,
: believe they have helped me develop a better understanding of the inner
: dynamics of Magic. Unfortunately, I play type II, and the schools you listed
: have type I signature decks. Have you considered writing an essay dealing more
: with type II schools of Magic? Are they different, or can the principles still
: be applied to type II? My initial belief is that most of the underlying
: principles of the various schools can, in fact, be used to construct winning
: type II decks, such as achieving card superiority. However, the means to these
: ends may be different without the type I spoilers. Perhaps you or someone else
: could give their insights on how to go about modifying these schools for type
: II, or maybe even discuss possible new schools and principles.
Well, I was hoping that the SoM article would yield insights into the game,
rather than simply showing deck types. For example, Weissman is all about
simply surviving and letting offense take care of things once the opponent
is completely helpless. I'm not sure that it could be duplicated card for
card in T2, and most of the T2 Weissman deck designs have gone about it the
wrong way, imho. The THEORY and the PRINCIPLE are the important things to
be gained.
For example, the Kim school isn't just about Mishras and Jades. It's about
the three principles -- no reliance on colored mana, no reliance on
combinations though making them possible, and using the most flexible, most
useful card for every slot. The Chang school isn't simply a blast 'em
deck, but one which uses offensive threats in such a way to make the
opponent reactive. The O'Brien school -- whose signature deck is the
weakest in the group, and may be improved [perhaps when I have time] -- by
applying its central principle of mana denial. Handelman is about the
offensive balance theory, as well as counter-anti-creature (whoa there,
hyphens!) strategy, based on card counting -- and the idea that big
creatures win games if protected.
I think these are applicable to T2 perfectly well. For example, if I were
making a T2 Weissman deck, I'd probably use Hymns and Pyroclasm/Wrath of
God and drop Blood Moon as it has zero effect in T2. Card advantage and
defense is what counts. And achieving that lock is important. Perhaps
even Will O' Wisps have a place as a purely defensive anti-creature card.
Having said that, I have recently begun to dabble in T2 but only in the
"giant-killing" context -- that is, how to fuck with T1 decks to maximize
the chances of winning. I hope to play in a few T2 tournaments over
Christmas break and come up with something for that setting. I may have to
play for a few months to learn something deeper, but hopefully I've learned
enough about the game in general to be able to distill things down to the
essentials faster than that by now. :)
Cheers,
Stil
: making a T2 Weissman deck, I'd probably use Hymns and Pyroclasm/Wrath of
: God and drop Blood Moon as it has zero effect in T2. Card advantage and
: defense is what counts. And achieving that lock is important. Perhaps
: even Will O' Wisps have a place as a purely defensive anti-creature card.
Blood Moon has zero effect in T2? I think not! Time for you to go to a
T2 tournament, Robert. The winning decks (with the exception of white
weenie) tend to have cities of brass, and appropriate ice age multis.
I've considered putting blood moon in some of my type 2 sideboards. I've
REALLY considered putting Primal Order in my T2 sideboards. I
whole-heartedly agree with the card-advantage/defense combination.
Hmm.
John
-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-
The contraction "You're" does not indicate possessive. It indicates a
state of being, or, more commonly, a description of the person being
addressed.
The word "Your" does indicate possesive. It does NOT indicate a state of
being, or a description.
-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-
Jacob Jost
tourney? Second, what happened to Ritaxis? Babar finally get him? Third,
do these decks represent the current dominant strategies in magic, or is
this doctoral discertation the result of a philisophically inclined clique
of Bay area magic gurus? Fourth, why do hot dogs come in packs of ten, and
hot dog buns in packs of eight? Huh? Well?
ICH BIN DAS WALROSS!
Robert S. Hahn (rsh...@is.nyu.edu) wrote:
: I know it's soon after v.3.0, but I had some extra time, so... some rather
: -rsh
: -rsh
: U/W/b/g/r
: ----------
: Demonic Tutor
: Mind Twist
: Regrowth
: 2 Red Elemental Blast
: 4 Mishra's Factories
: 61 cards.
: -------------
: Chang School
: -------------
: 4 Nether Void
: --
: -rsh
--
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together...
I am the eggman, they are the eggman, I AM THE WALRUS GOO GOO G'JOOB
jj...@freenet.columbus.oh.us= Jacob Jost, aka Yossarian
Robert S. Hahn
: First, who would win if these decks (played by their owners) had a
: tourney? Second, what happened to Ritaxis? Babar finally get him? Third,
: do these decks represent the current dominant strategies in magic, or is
: this doctoral discertation the result of a philisophically inclined clique
: of Bay area magic gurus? Fourth, why do hot dogs come in packs of ten, and
: hot dog buns in packs of eight? Huh? Well?
The only match I know of was between Warren Chang and John Kim, who met up
at NY Magic. Warren won in straight games because the Kim deck is weak
against Blood Moon -- though I suspect the new sideboard should help.
Brian Weissman told me that he has never lost to the Handelman deck, so I
assume he's played Sam, Ritaxis, and others.
I played the Kim deck against Augustine Chan (a frequent lurker here)
yesterday. He played a version of the Weissman deck. I would have to say
he won both games -- though I quit part way through the second game
because... well, each game took about 30 minutes. On the other hand, I
made some key mistakes. My playing abilities are not up to par with those
of John Kim, I'm afraid. :) For example, he had no cards in hand, but I
Timetwister'ed to look for 2 Lightning Bolts. Doh! :)
Between the Handelman and Kim decks, I suspect the latter would win as it
has good defense and excellent offense.
Between the Handelman and Chang decks... it's a toss-up, but I think the
edge goes to Handelman. Chang decks have trouble with a Juzam on-board
early.
The O'Brien deck is currently the weakest. I'm looking for an alternative
land destruction strategy, as I've been newly introduced to the whole line
of thought. Unless it gets a really good draw, it should lose quickly to
all of the others -- except maybe the Handelman deck which lacks adequate
mana sometimes.
As for your other questions, I have no idea what happened to Ritaxis, and
this dissertation for the MOM degree (Masters of Magic) is the result of a
single law student in New York City who has never been to the Bay Area.
And I would never call myself a Magic guru until I've won a major
tournament....
-rsh
James W Walden
Re: Schools of Magic, v.3.1 by Robert S. Ha...@is.nyu.ed
> God and drop Blood Moon as it has zero effect in T2. Card advantage and
> defense is what counts. And achieving that lock is important. Perhaps
> even Will O' Wisps have a place as a purely defensive anti-creature card.
While Hymns are nice for card advantage, depending on multiple colored mana
in Type II is dangerous, especially when you need it for multiple colors as
you'll also have Counterspells. While Pyroclasm and Wrath of God are good
anti-creature spells, it's also nice to have a continuous creature defences
like Meekstone and Icy Manipulators plus you'll surely need Swords to Plow-
shares. I've found that the most serious problem that defensive decks have
in Type II is not being able to deal with offense quickly enough. While
Hymns are nice initially, you'll still need the Sceptres in the late game
to prevent your opponent from building up spells to get them past your
counters, and I think adding a serious black component (obviously, Mind
Twist is too good to pass up, but 4 Hymns require a lot of black mana) in
addition to the essential blue and white overstrains your colored mana
production ability unless your Fellwar Stones give you the extra black
you need.
James (http://www-hep.phys.cmu.edu:8001/~walden/home.html)
"Truth decays into beauty, while beauty soon becomes merely charm. Charm
ends up as strangeness, and even that doesn't last, but up and down are
forever." - The Laws of Physics
Nicholas Benjamin Gold
In a previous article, jsh...@mason2.gmu.edu (Stil) says:
>Robert S. Hahn (rsh...@is.nyu.edu) wrote:
>: making a T2 Weissman deck, I'd probably use Hymns and Pyroclasm/Wrath of
>: God and drop Blood Moon as it has zero effect in T2. Card advantage and
>: defense is what counts. And achieving that lock is important. Perhaps
>: even Will O' Wisps have a place as a purely defensive anti-creature card.
>
>Blood Moon has zero effect in T2? I think not! Time for you to go to a
>T2 tournament, Robert. The winning decks (with the exception of white
>weenie) tend to have cities of brass, and appropriate ice age multis.
>I've considered putting blood moon in some of my type 2 sideboards. I've
>REALLY considered putting Primal Order in my T2 sideboards. I
>whole-heartedly agree with the card-advantage/defense combination.
>
>
>
>Hmm.
>
>John
>
>
>
>-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-
>The contraction "You're" does not indicate possessive. It indicates a
>state of being, or, more commonly, a description of the person being
>addressed.
>The word "Your" does indicate possesive. It does NOT indicate a state of
>being, or a description.
>-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-
>
>
I'm going to have to agree with John on this one, You should start to go to
T2 tournaments! My current T2 deck has _3_ basic lands, and it's not heavy
on artifacts and very successfull. The deck is W/g/r that goes like this...
4 Lions
4 Ernham
4 Bolts
4 Incinerates
4 StP
4 Disenchant
2 Sacred Boon(actually quite usefull!)
4 Icy's
1 Mind Twist
1 Balance
1 Zuran Orb
4 Fellwar stones
4 Cities
4 Brushlands
4 Karplusan Forests
4 Birds
3 Plains
4 Factories
JOSHUA
(not Nick)
--
Nick Gold/pezboy PPPP L U U RRRR disclaimer:
OFFICIAL HUGGER P P L U U R R "I 'yam what I 'yam" --Popeye
aj...@yfn.ysu.edu PPPP L U U RRR
P LLLL UUUU R R
Robert S. Hahn
: >Blood Moon has zero effect in T2? I think not! Time for you to go to a
: >T2 tournament, Robert. The winning decks (with the exception of white
: >weenie) tend to have cities of brass, and appropriate ice age multis.
: >I've considered putting blood moon in some of my type 2 sideboards. I've
: >REALLY considered putting Primal Order in my T2 sideboards. I
: >whole-heartedly agree with the card-advantage/defense combination.
I guess I must be going to more T2 tournaments. I've just built a T2 deck
for the first time and will be attending more of them to see what the scene
is like -- though I doubt I would be very competitive to be perfectly
honest with this current design.
I would have thought that playing with so many painlands as is necessary to
do 3 colors in T2 would be prohibitive. If it's not, then I take back the
Blood Moon comment.
Cheers,
Daniel Brickwell
>
>Also sprach Nicholas Benjamin Gold (aj...@yfn.ysu.edu):
>
>: >Blood Moon has zero effect in T2? I think not! Time for you to go to a
>: >T2 tournament, Robert. The winning decks (with the exception of white
>: >weenie) tend to have cities of brass, and appropriate ice age multis.
>: >I've considered putting blood moon in some of my type 2 sideboards. I've
>: >REALLY considered putting Primal Order in my T2 sideboards. I
>: >whole-heartedly agree with the card-advantage/defense combination.
>
>I guess I must be going to more T2 tournaments. I've just built a T2 deck
>for the first time and will be attending more of them to see what the scene
>is like -- though I doubt I would be very competitive to be perfectly
>honest with this current design.
>
>I would have thought that playing with so many painlands as is necessary to
>do 3 colors in T2 would be prohibitive. If it's not, then I take back the
>Blood Moon comment.
>
You can play 3 colors in Type II or even 4 and be competitive, but I wouldn't
say anymore that such a deck is inherently stronger than a focused one- or
two color Type II deck.
They are more fun though :).
Friendly Greetings,
Daniel
>Cheers,
Alex Firmani
Brickwell) wrote:
>In article <4c23vc$n...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, rsh...@is.nyu.edu (Robert S. Hahn) says:
>>I would have thought that playing with so many painlands as is necessary to
>>do 3 colors in T2 would be prohibitive. If it's not, then I take back the
>>Blood Moon comment.
>>
>You can play 3 colors in Type II or even 4 and be competitive, but I wouldn't
>say anymore that such a deck is inherently stronger than a focused one- or
>two color Type II deck.
Here is my five color, yes FIVE color type II deck that won second
place in a 64-person tournament recently. By all means I should've won
first place, as I had swept my opponent 2-0 in a previous round. I won
the first game handily.. In the second, his deck did what it was
supposed to- too many quick Mishras, and a lucky triple-bolt draw. In
the third, I drew one land in 14 cards (really I did shuffle very
well), and I resigned to defeat.
This deck is based on something that I've been playing for a few
months, with a healthy dose of advice from Ravi Prashad.
4 Hypnotic Spectres
3 Sengir Vampires
4 Birds of Paradise
4 Ernham Djinn
1 Sol’Kanar
4 Dark Ritual
4 Hymn to Tourach
1 Mind Twist
2 Necropotence
4 Control Magic
3 Counterspell
1 Deflection
1 Zuran Orb
1 Ivory Tower
1 Fireball
4 Cities of Brass
4 Underground River
5 Islands
5 Swamps
4 Forests
Sideboard:
4 Disenchant
3 Earthquake
3 REB
2 BEB
2 Binding Grasp
1 Counterspell (or Deflection)
>They are more fun though :).
I wouldn't exactly call this deck "fun." |-) You have to have 'nads
of steel to handle the deck- most often you will kill yourself instead
of your opponent killing you.. but if the win ratio is 85%+ (my record
at that tournament and others), it works! Not to mention, I don't
think I've ever dropped a match to another Discard deck.. the Control
Magics and Deflection take care of that. This deck takes the most
efficient, useful, and effective cards from the three main colors and
combines when with Cities and Birds to give you the colored mana to
cast anything you want. Rarely did I find myself being color-hosed. A
first turn bird or a first turn hyppie, two of the best starts in T2
can easily pop out of this deck. Second turn Ernhams are equally
probable with Rituals, but I almost want to replace the DR's with
Fellwar stones.
The weakest part of the deck is early creature destruction.. I
sideboard in Earthquakes for knight or weenie decks, and the extra
Binding Grasps for heavy creature decks. But what this deck does is
give you the advantage of surprise- no one expects a Control Magic to
come out of the same deck with Hymns! Of course, the game winner is
the Necropotence, which I only drop in the end game to fill my hand
once or twice. I had 10 people reading the card over my shoulder when
I first dropped a Necro- Ivory Tower combo a few months ago. The mana
demands are great, but just to show people it could work, I love to
finish with the one Fireball.
>Friendly Greetings,
>Daniel
Enjoy!
Alex
Wyrkham
>Daniel_Brickw...@ccmailer.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de (Daniel
>Brickwell) wrote:
>>Friendly Greetings,
>>Daniel
>Enjoy!
>
>Alex
I think you might be better off replacing the control magic and
counterspells with cards that do similar things with a casting cost of
one less U and concentrate on black mana. You'll probably have an
even better mana mix that way.
Daniel Brickwell
>
>Daniel_Brickw...@ccmailer.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de (Daniel
>Brickwell) wrote:
>
>
>>You can play 3 colors in Type II or even 4 and be competitive, but I wouldn't
>>say anymore that such a deck is inherently stronger than a focused one- or
>>two color Type II deck.
>
>Here is my five color, yes FIVE color type II deck that won second
>place in a 64-person tournament recently. By all means I should've won
>first place, as I had swept my opponent 2-0 in a previous round. I won
>the first game handily.. In the second, his deck did what it was
>supposed to- too many quick Mishras, and a lucky triple-bolt draw. In
>the third, I drew one land in 14 cards (really I did shuffle very
>well), and I resigned to defeat.
My 4-color deck just lost to a similar deck in the semi-finals of a
32-person tournament. I had thrown out my opponent in the first round
of the 128 people tournament the week before and proceeded to place
2nd. He told me that in several friendly games after his elimination
he never lost once. So he had prepared his deck especially for mine
and I think the card he took in would kill your deck too:
It was Manabarbs.
He proceeded to win the tournament btw.
>
>This deck is based on something that I've been playing for a few
>months, with a healthy dose of advice from Ravi Prashad.
Mine was inspired by advice from Garry Handelman. I have posted it before
I think, but here it is again:
The Stand
4 City of Brass
4 Karplusan Forests
3 Brushlands
5 Plains
3 Mountains
1 Forest
4 Mishras
2 Felwar Stones
1 Mana Vault
3 Wrath of God
1 Balance
4 Swords
3 Disenchant
3 Serras
1 Land Tax
3 Orggs
1 Fireball
4 Ernhams
1 Stunted Growth
3 Icy Manipulators
1 Winter Orb
1 Zuran Orb
2 Fountain of Youth
1 Zur's Wierding
1 Recall
Atleast that's one version. The sideboard contained especially
energy storms against bolt decks and disrupting sceptres against
permission decks. It hosed quite a lot of weenies, but in the
end it was too slow against the better blue-white decks.
>
>I wouldn't exactly call this deck "fun." |-) You have to have 'nads
>of steel to handle the deck- most often you will kill yourself instead
>of your opponent killing you..
Try fountains of youth, they are also great against bolt decks.
They were also great against vises. They suck against permission though.
Against permission you want either a better permission deck or pure
blinding destructive speed (can we say black weenie-discard).
> but if the win ratio is 85%+ (my record
>at that tournament and others), it works! Not to mention, I don't
>think I've ever dropped a match to another Discard deck.. the Control
>Magics and Deflection take care of that. This deck takes the most
>efficient, useful, and effective cards from the three main colors and
>combines when with Cities and Birds to give you the colored mana to
>cast anything you want. Rarely did I find myself being color-hosed.
Watch out for the better LD decks, especially ones with pyroclasm.
Land Tax is a good card by itself, but a great sideboard card even for
our decks.
> Of course, the game winner is
>the Necropotence, which I only drop in the end game to fill my hand
>once or twice. I had 10 people reading the card over my shoulder when
>I first dropped a Necro- Ivory Tower combo a few months ago.
The same happened to me with Zur's Wierding- Land Tax- Zuran Orb.
Though Zur's Wierding and an Orgg or a serra out is enough really.