| |
|
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 16:54:25 -0500
From: "Robert S. Hahn" <rsh9395@IS.NYU.EDU>
Subject: Schools of Magic, v.2.1
This is the latest version of the article, and has been posted on the
Net, but I thought it would be appropriate to this list as well.
-rsh
Robert S. Hahn rsh9395@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?
--
[Version 2.0: Last modified, Dec. 1, 1995]
*In this version, I would like to introduce a new school of thought -- the
Chang School, articulated by Warren Chang of MIT. Also, I have further
comments on the Handelman School, which is closely related to the strategy
I came up with. Essentially, both are more vulnerable than the others, and
should be looked upon as great decks/strategies with fatal flaws.
[Version 2.1: Last modified, Dec. 1, 1995]
**A signature deck for the Kim school added and described. I forgot to
include that.
-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. 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 the most dominant theories and their 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, and the Chang 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 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.
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.
3 City of Brass
4 Island
Library of Alexandria
3 Plains
Plateau
2 Strip Mine
4 Tundra
Underground Sea
2 Volcanic Island
Black Lotus
2 Disrupting Scepter
Ivory Tower
Jayemdae Tome
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Sol Ring
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
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
-----------------
The Kim School:
-----------------
(An obvious 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 the theory of the Kim
school.
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.)
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.
John Kim is a top tournament player in the New York City area who has the
uncanny ability to win with almost any design, but also understands the
inner dynamics of Magic. 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 or so sources of blue and white both, the deck is rarely troubled
by mana 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 player would choose 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. Green has little to offer, and black is like red --
requires a lot of black mana.
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 -- R/U/W
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Emerald
1 Sol Ring
1 Zuran Orb
1 Jalum Tome
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Mind Twist
1 Balance
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
3 Disenchant
1 Dust to Dust
3 Swords to Plowshares
4 Mana Drain
4 Counterspell
2 Jade Statue
2 Serra Angel
1 Rasputin Dreamweaver
4 Mishra's Factories
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Fireball
2 City of Brass
1 Library of Alexandria
1 Maze of Ith
2 Underground Sea
4 Tundra
4 Volcanic Island
3 Plateau
2 Strip Mine
(14 blue, 12 white, 11 red, 5 black for one spell, and 34, count em, 34
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
1 Swords to Plowshares
1 Dust to Dust
4 Red Elemental Blast
2 Fireball
1 Jayemdae Tome
1 Implements of Sacrifice
2 Barbed Sextant
2 CoP: Red (obviously, against blaster decks only)
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 Handelman deck, but somewhat
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.
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
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.
---------------------
The Handelman School:
---------------------
(A Djinn/Discard/Counter deck, originated by Garry Handelman,
another player from the Bay Area)
The Handelman School posits that a quick offense is the best defense, but
backs it up with heavy defensive support of its fast creatures. Its idea
of card superiority is not strict card superiority, as the Weissman deck
is, but actually functions as a defensive measure focused on creature
protection.
Essentially, the theory is that fast, large creatures win the game with
proper protection. In addition, using black discard 1. removes
anti-creature threats, and 2. interferes with permission strategies.
Countermagic also defends against global anti-creature cards, which pose
significant problems for the deck. The deck has no significant
anti-permanent abilities, relying on discard and permission for defense.
It is not an original concept; in fact, it's the basic concept of
Magic -- creature combat. But its execution is elegant and blends a
number of strategies together.
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 & Counterspell.
The deck is entirely focused on protecting its big creature assets. The
idea can be summed up like this: a first turn Juzam wins the game in 4
turns if it gets through. All the other cards, then, can be seen as
support for this idea.
Discard works towards card superiority, but not for the sake of a lock.
Instead, it strips anti-creature cards from the opponent's hand.
Counterspells again are used primarily to prevent the global-effect
anti-creature spells, such as Moat or Wrath of God. Of course, the added
flexibility of countermagic is a plus.
It has few 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 (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. However, that takes it to using 4 colors, with 4 of the
mana sources well-known for the 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. The Handelman deck
can overcome these problems, as it could attack with flying Spectres, but
they are also extremely vulnerable. It's well-known 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.
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.
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.).
There is some question as to the adequacy of mana resources as well. It is
a predominantly B/U deck with some Green and sometimes White. 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.
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.)
-------------
Chang School
-------------
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. The Handelman deck also operates
along this general principle, but plays more defensively with the idea of
protecting its creature assets.
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 most 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
wait for some direct fire to come up (which is more than a little
likely), or with Jade Statues.
A sub-theme of the deck, but a very important one, is attacking mana
resources. The deck is almost 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 they could Disenchant it or find a big
fireball. The Chang deck utilizes the Vise and the speed advantage to kill
the opponent during that delay. The Strip Mines are also useful in the
early game.
Also, Vice and Blood Moon 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 openins 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 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 minimum of 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/B/U: 60 cards
Red:
4 x Lightning Bolt
3 x Incinerate
3 x Blood Moon
1 x Wheel of Fortune
2 x Fireball
--
13
Blue:
4 x Mana Drain
4 x Psionic Blast
1 x Timetwister
1 x Time Walk
1 x Ancestral Recall
--
11
Black:
1 x Mind Twist
1 x Demonic Tutor
--
2
Artifact:
1 x Jayemdae Tome
3 x Jade Statue
4 x Black Vise
1 x Black Lotus
1 x Mox Sapphire
1 x Mox Emerald
1 x Mox Jet
1 x Mox Pearl
1 x Mox Ruby
1 x Zuran Orb
1 x Sol Ring
--
16
Land:
4 x Strip Mine
4 x Volcanic Island
4 x City of Brass
6 x Island
--
18
Sideboard:
2 x Pyroblast
2 x Hydroblast
2 x Fountain of Youth
2 x Hurkyl's Recall
2 x Abyss
1 x Forcefield
1 x Icy Manipulator
1 x Blood Moon
1 x Jade Statue
1 x Meekstone
--
15
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.
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 dominating.
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. Its 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 in particular makes a bolt's cost R3, and the Chang deck
lacks significant anti-permanent abilities. The Hurkyl's Recall helps it a
bit, but it is hardly adequate in those situations.
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.
--
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
------------------------------
|
|
|