Subject: Re: War College: Good Initiative (+ Control/Aggro start) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 20:52:53 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert S. Hahn" To: "Ir. J.C. van den Broek" On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Ir. J.C. van den Broek wrote: > You said you wanted definitions for the classic control and aggro decks > in the standard environment. Although I know you emphasize to always > look at the current environment I'd like to go back a bit in time. The > standard sets in my example are 5th, IA,AL,HL,MI,VI,WL. This mix gave a > great example of control and aggro decks and even then already the > blends inbetween. As a classic control deck in this environment I'll > take the Counterpost deck running no Rainbow Efreets but does have > Gerrards wisdom. As the classic agrressive deck I'll take the > conventional Sligh deck (the red one). However these weren't the > strongest decks around. The control deck had little or no agrression in > it (hence the name) and tended to take very long in matches. The Aggro > deck had little or no control over the opponent if he did something that > didn't invlolve creatures. The Sligh deck usually dies of one Wrath of > God followed by a Wisdom. In my opinion the control deck was stronger in > this environment. First of all, I do not believe that a deck which takes a long time in matches is therefore weaker. Does it matter how long it takes to win or how you win, as long as you do win? I've seen VERY effective defensive decks with had exactly one way to win: one Soldevi Digger. It could take ten years to win, but eventually, the opponent ran out of cards. But second, I do agree that control decks _generally_ are stronger simply because it does not have to expend resources at the rate of aggressive decks. Of course, speed changes the equation dramatically. [Wonderful numerical analysis of the 1997 World Championship decks deleted for space.] > too diverse and I had too many threats to deal with. If we now look at > the U/R decks from the Worlds and US Nationals, we see a lot more > creatures and a rating which is higher than mine. These creatures I had > to put in the Aggressive departement although they are in the beginning > of the game nothing else than powered walls. How many goblins did a > Ophidian kill? Propably more than cards he drew against a red weenie. > How often did Gary's Wildfire block, again propably more than it > attacked. These redblue deck try to seize control is a far different > way, by being more aggressive in their defense. Now the question is, how > did the offensive decks respond to this change of character? They did by > being more versatile in their offense (and as you justly say, > versitality is a thing for control decks: it costs speed). This is the most interesting and most important part of your reply, imho. Your point is very well taken that the elite decks from the 1997 WC are mostly mid-path decks which combine offense with defense. Not having the decklists in front of me, it's difficult to analyze the specific decks that people used. However, let's take this time to talk about the Middle Path (to paraphrase Buddha :) ). Raver Efreet wrote me, saying: > While > pure control and pure offensive decks still have there strong points, > any good perusement of the dojo will show these "mid-ground" decks have > gained an immense popularity. Much of the reason is for the extreme > flexibility of these decks. Anyone who has ever played mono-blue control > knows how bad it is to sit there and watch a player draw one land in his > first ten turns and not be able to kill him off. And the 6 land, 1 > ironclaw draws are equally distasteful for the burn player. These decks > circumvent that by have the majority of there spells be able to fullfill > either an offensive or defensive nature. Looking at your 5cb report on > the 26th, 23 of the 38 non-land cards could work in either an offensive > or defensive deck. And looking at the other 15 cards, 7 are really > defensive/contorl oriented (disenchants/edicts). Consider also that of > the 6 spells that are offensive in nature, the black knights could > double as excellent blockers with both first strike and a protection > ability. > Of course this deck isnt without its problems, most of these 5 > color decks have a weakness in that their defensive posture is focused > around permanent removal, and against an opponent with little or no > permanents, the strategy can suffer setbacks. Like you pointed out, > these decks would suffer in an environment with more "true control" > decks. I fell the main reason for this is that the decks lose thier > flexibility aspect wich is the strong point for them. As you point out, > for these mid-path decks to work, thier sideboards need to strongley be > able to help them verses these "permanent-light" decks, to allow the > flexibility and multiple paths to victory. I belive that discussion of the "middle path" is the next step in this series of the War College. The reason is that "Control" and "Aggro" are categories of deck strategy/design, but not truly categories of warfare. Let's pick up on my original analysis of pure control as a citadel, a la the Weissman school. Pure control, then, does nothing but defend until the enemy's resources are exhausted. This is a citadel in a true sense of the word -- there is no attack, no attempt to strike the enemy where he is weak, no attempt to take advantage of their vulnerabilities. You might say, "But a Sligh deck can't deal with CoP:Red!" Yes, that's true, and that is a "vulnerability" in the sense of deck design and strategy, but not a vulnerability in the sense of military strength. If anything, a CoP:Red v. a mono-red Sligh fortifies the walls of the Citadel with strength that cannot be overcome. The game will be decided after, and only after, the besieging army has nothing left but exhausted supplies, soldiers without morale, and a strategy that has gone nowhere. This is altogether different when two armies take to the field. When two armies fight, as opposed to one army besieging a citadel, the army with superior strategy and superior positioning will win (barring the ill-influence of luck, e.g., mana-screw, etc.). First, let us refer to the text of the Art of War and quote several passages. Regarding battles, Master Sun wrote: In ancient times skillful warriors first made themselves invincible, and then watched for vulnerability in their opponents. And commentary by Du Mu states: You see the inner conditions of opponents by means of their external formations. The inner condition of the formless is inscrutable, whereas that of those who have adopted a specific form is obvious. The inscrutable win, the obvious lose. Furthermore, Master Sun writes: Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent. Therefore skillful warriors are able to be invincible, but they cannot cause opponents to be vulnerable. That is why it is said that victory can be discerned but not manufactured. Invincibility is a matter of defense, vulnerability is a matter of attack. Now, what do these words mean for us? To me, these refer to the fine art of "positioning". When two armies square off against each other, the formation that each adopts reflects the relative strength of each army's position against the other. For example, an army which has higher ground (e.g., hilltop position, etc.) is in a superior position to an army on the lower ground. An army with fortifications is in a superior position compared to one without fortifications. What does it mean to be "invincible" in Magic? In my view, it does not mean having the citadel-like walls of impenetrability. Rather, it means that you are in a position to minimize your losses while maximizing your gains. For example, I have a 5CB deck and my opponent has a mono-red Sligh. I have a Black Knight on the table, 4 mana, Incinerate and a Diabolic Edict in hand. He has a Mogg Fanatic, three mana, and five cards. Am I invincible? In my judgment, yes. The reason is that I have creature superiority on board, and my inner condition (i.e., cards-in-hand) is difficult to assess. His inner condition, on the other hand, is easier to assess simply because I know how his deck works: it either burns or plays creatures. In this case, I would attack because trading one life from the Mogg is worth taking two of his. In the event that he takes the two, then casts a Ball Lightning, I can simply Incinerate the Ball. And in the event that he uses an Incinerate to kill the Black Knight, I have deflected three damage away from me. However, note how this simple example illustrates Sun Tzu's principle, that vulnerability is a matter of attack. By attacking with my Black Knight, I have opened up a gap for his Mogg Fanatic and his Ball Lightning/Suqata Lancer. If I had not attacked, but instead chose to cast a Nekrataal to kill the Fanatic, then my vulnerability decreases even further. In _that_ position, I have the strategic advantage. Let us go further. Du Mu commented that invincibility is a matter of inscrutability, and that the inscrutable win while the obvious lose. Although this is not always the case in Magic, due to luck, as a general matter, multicolor decks have an advantage over mono-color decks because their inner condition (i.e., whatever strategy it can deploy to make itself more invincible and/or to take advantage of whatever vulnerabilities arise in the opponent) are more difficult to assess. For example, 5CB can Disenchant a Propaganda or Uktabi Orangutan a Nev's Disk. Mono-black cannot do those things. That small difference, one where an element of surprise exists and the other where an element of surprise does not exist, spells superior positioning for one and inferior positioning for the other. Finally, then, we can discuss the power of the mid-path decks. They succeed because of superior positioning and they lose because of inferior positioning. When it comes to these mid-path decks, deck design becomes critically important -- far more so than either the extreme Aggro or the extreme Control decks. Why? Mid-path decks, whether oriented more towards beatdown or more towards control, typically aim to take a strategically advantageous position, then use momentum to defeat the opponent. For instance, the 5CB deck hopes to put out a threat, have the opponent respond, then systematically eliminate the response while sitting behind a wall of removal until a gap opens up in the defenses. 5CB typically waits for either creature removal to run out or for the opponent to become vulnerable to direct damage. 5CG decks work similarly, except that its strategy hopes to have the opponent over-extend its resources in order to combat the early shock troops, then it devastates the resources, taking advantage of green's built-in resource-saving to rebuild quicker. 5CB decks focus on removal, while 5CG focuses more on resource interference. In either case, if the opponent somehow achieves a more strategically advantageous position -- either an offense which is so fast as to make either deck over-extend itself in defense, or a defense which is so solid as to make each over-extend in offense -- the momentum is lost and the mid-path deck could end up losing the battle. Or, take a more defensively focused mono-blue deck with Ophidians, Man O War, Disks, and so forth. Its aim is basically to make the opponent overextend offensively, thereby revealing its vulnerabilities, then take control of the battlefield through defensive momentum of counters, bouncy things, card-drawing (either Satan or Whispers), and the almight Disk. If the opponent is in a better defensive position, then the mono-blue deck has trouble creating an opening. Instead, its own proactive play (e.g., playing an Ophidian or an Air Elemental) makes it vulnerable to the opponent's return-strike. How might such a thing happen? Suppose that the mono-blue mid-path deck has 5 lands in play and 4 cards in hand: Counterspell, Dissipate, Man O War, and Ophidian. The opponent is a R/U counterburn deck without creatures. It also has 5 lands in play and 4 cards in hand. Both are in a very strong defensive position, and neither is truly vulnerable. Then, the mono-blue deck decides to act and casts an Ophidian, leaving UU for a counterspell. The R/U deck dissipates the Ophidian, which is counterspelled. Now, the mono-blue has 2 cards in hand (Dissipate and Man O War) while the R/U has 3 cards in hand -- but the mono-blue is tapped out. At this point, the R/U deck untaps, draws up to 4 cards, and lays a Disk. Now, even if the Ophidian does get through, resulting in gaining a card drawn, the mono-blue has lost its positional advantage (if any) since any other permanent will simply be destroyed via the Disk. In addition, the R/U can still Incinerate/Hammer the Ophidian, while keeping counters in hand to stop whatever non-permanent threats of the mono-blue. By giving the R/U deck the positional advantage in defense -- i.e., the ability to no longer care what permanent threats are played -- the mono-blue has lost the edge. Even if it outdraws the R/U deck 2-1 each turn, it might not be able to overcome the positional disadvantage -- which does not seem to make sense since card advantage is so critical in this game. Again, the reason is that card advantage in-and-of-itself does not lead to a strategic advantage. Rather, strategic advantage is often related to card-advantage but not necessarily vice versa. Having more cards in hand or more permanents in play usually means more resources, and that means more strategic advantage, but in the situation above, it can be seen that _positioning_ is of primary importance. There is so much that can be said about this particular topic, but for now, I limit it to these observations. > citadel. I will fully agree with you and him on the fact that a long > attack is a lost one and a swift one could well be victorious. But if > you decide to not attack your opponent/citadel as quickly as possible > but a bit slower it could well pay off. Attacking a bit slower will give > your opponent more time to respond. But because of your slower attack, > you had more resources available to attack in different ways. One could This observation here goes to the next step of the problem: flexibility. Mid-path decks specialize in flexibility, and as such as the model of military operation. The sacrifice, of course, is in power and speed which suggests that all mid-path decks which are successful are more defensive in nature -- following Sun Tzu's principles of establishing one's invulnerability first, then exploiting the opponent's vulnerability swiftly and inexorably by letting the momentum of the strategy roll over them. Let me just end this chapter by noting that slower attack against an army may be more effective than a focused attack, if the slower attack is multidirectional and approached from a position of strategic advantage. If, however, the slower attack is directed against a citadel, the story changes dramatically. And if the position of strategic advantage is lost, then no amount of flexibility can regain lost advantage for the mid-path deck. "Therefore the victories of good warriors are not noted for cleverness or bravery. Therefore their victories in battle are not flukes. Their victories are not flukes because they position themselves where they will surely win, prevailing over those who have already lost." -Sun Tzu, The Art of War -rsh Robert S. Hahn hahn@bway.net http://www.bway.net/~hahn Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy, But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy; For the apparel oft proclaims the man - Polonius, to his son Laertes Hamlet, Act I, Scene III.