Schools of Magic: General Philosophies
*Chang and O'Brien decks are back in Type I since the unrestriction of the
Vise.
*Expect to see a Necropotence school very soon; I have written it, but it
is due to come out in the next issue of The Duelist. There are some
copyright issues here that need to be resolved, but it should be in the
next major revision of SoM.
*One personal note: I am a law student, and VERY VERY busy with all kinds
of crazy stuff. I apologize to some people who have written me with
questions and suggestions and did not receive a reply. It isn't because I
just felt like ignoring you; it's because I have major papers due and exams
to prepare for and articles to write. If I have the time, I will respond,
but please understand. Thanks!
-rsh
[Version 5.4: Last modified, Apr 10, 1996]
--------------------------------------
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. Furthermore, since I began this project, I have
received comments and suggestions from some of the best players in the
country. In the hopes that other players, particularly those who are now
reaching the intermediate levels of play, might benefit as I did from the
insights of more experienced players, I have compiled in this article
many of the most important principles I have learned.
Most players begin with a fascination for the big heavy-hitters. Think
back to the first time you saw a Lord of the Pit or a Force of Nature and
you might dimly recall that feeling of awe and excitement that ran
through you. Beginners often stuff every useful card into a 150 card
deck and play two hour games ending with a massive creature rush. This
newbie phase ends quickly as they keep playing and realize the power of
a tightly-focused 60 card constructed deck. Sometime during the first
tournament experience -- or playing against others' tournament-quality
decks -- most beginners graduate into the intermediate level as they
begin to run into others who have a deeper understanding of the
complicated rules which guide timing issues and other arcane subjects.
These intermediate players begin to explore the various strategies in
Magic, trying mono-colors, trying the various hand-destruction,
land-destruction, fast-resource, weenie, etc. etc. To graduate past
this stage is an extremely difficult process which involves understanding
the nuances of the various rules, experience with many different types
of decks, and the ability to see the synergy between certain cards. At
this level, a certain amount of theoretical knowledge is helpful to the
intermediate player, and the exploration of the concepts contained in
this document might be useful to those who wish to go beyond a specific
deck or a specific strategy and see the strategies and the philosophies
of Magic at a higher level.
One phenomenon I observed was that the best decks do not rely on a
single theme or strategy. Discard is a very strong strategy, but
a mono-black discard deck using every card that could make the
opponent discard a card (Mindstab Thrulls, etc.) is not as strong
as some mix of discard and other elements. Those decks which have
successfully integrated different archetype strategies into a
complementary scheme are the ones which seem to dominate play and win
consistently against a wide variety of opponents. Many of these decks
operate on a coherent philosophy about the game -- a philosophy which
guides every phase of game-play.
I present here some of those decks and their philosophies as a "School 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. And like martial arts, some are easier to learn than others and
some may be more effective than others as well.
One caveat is necessary here. 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 her to create her own school. Again, the analogy to
martial arts is very appropriate.
Another point to note is that the schools are named after those who have
come to be identified with a particular strategy because of their advocacy
of it or because they have first described it. They are not necessarily
the first to come up with a particular strategy (particularly apropos of
the Handelman School, which Garry Handelman readily admits is not _his_
original thought but collaborative with others in his area). I apologize
sincerely to those who may feel slighted or overlooked, but since I do not
belong to the Convocation and do not generally participate in the Regional
or National tournament scene, I am limited in my contacts with the top
players.
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.
In the original Schools of Magic, I confined the discussion to Type I.
One of the biggest reasons was my personal inexperience in Type II play.
But with the help of those who are more experienced in Type II, as well
as my own participation and observation of many Type II tournaments, I
hope to gradually make this section as strong as the Type I section.
I hope to initiate the process of branching out into Type II with this
version. The difficulty is that Type I and Type II present radically
different environments for play -- to the point that successful
strategies follow philosophies which may or may not be successful in the
other environment. However, the theories are still applicable in Type II
and I hope to show examples from my own experience and analysis which
will be useful for others.
As you will notice immediately, playing a Type II deck based on a certain
school does not mean trying to replace Type I cards with their Type II
substitutes. The Type II Kim deck I post, for example, is G/W without a
trace of red or blue -- but it incorporates a number of the insights of
the Kim school. The Type II Weissman deck, a project that many people
have been working on, does not attempt to use Island Sanctuary as a
substitute for Moat. I hope this entire project will inspire others to
look to the central _principles_ as opposed to the simple deck contents
of a particular school.
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, Warren Chang, Eric Reitz, Brian Weissman, Adam Maysonet, Michael
Nickoloff, and others whose comments were invaluable. 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.
--------------------------------
Definitions and General Concepts
--------------------------------
This section is new in v.5.1 and is the result of a reader suggestion (so
keep them coming). The idea is to standardize the vocabulary for
higher-level discussions, at least within this document, by defining some
of the more difficult concepts. If you have issues with any of these
definitions or wish to include others, please email them to me.
Resource: Something which allows you to play the game. In Magic,
there are the following resources: life, cards in hand, cards in
library, cards in graveyard, permanents in play (which is further
divided into creatures, artifacts, land, enchantments). In tournament
situations, you must add _time_ as a resource. In higher level play, I've
found that only three resources really count -- life, cards, and mana.
Most of the effective strategies work on one of the last two areas -- the
Kim school is a prominent exception.
Speed -- Actually a rather complicated concept which is explored in my
series on Theories of Deck Speed. Its components are briefly broken
down into Resource Speed, Offensive Speed, Defensive Speed, and
Strategic Speed. Please refer to the Theories of Deck Speed document
for further comments.
Offense -- Relates to those elements which will make it possible for a
deck to win.
Defense -- A surprisingly nebulous concept which I describe as
"disruption". Obviously, staying alive despite opponent efforts is
disruption of their game. But things like card-denial or a first-turn
Black Vise or Strip Mining their crucial color lands are also disruptive,
and therefore defensive. Note that defense often incorporates huge
offensive (i.e., wins the game for you) elements.
Efficiency:
Cards -- A concept which covers the effect and utility of a
card given its casting cost. Lightning Bolt, therefore, is more
efficient than an Incinerate.
Decks -- The ability of a particular deck to utilize every card
as soon as it is drawn. A weenie/blaster deck has high efficiency
as it can bring out just about every card drawn, while a blue
permission deck with Mahamotis cannot be said to have particularly
high efficiency.
Strategies -- The ability to implement primary goals compared to
the time and resource cost of implementing those goals.
Flexibility:
Cards -- The ability of a card to be useful in multiple situations.
Disenchant if more flexible than Divine Offering, for example, since it
can handle enchantments.
Decks -- The ability of a particular deck to deal with multiple
opposing strategies. To me, this is more of a defensive concept,
perhaps taking the cue from the Weissman school. The issue is,
can a deck defend against different offensive strategies
(weenies, blaster, big dudes, offensive discard, etc.) and
disrupt their game, while remaining able to implement its offensive
strategy against a variety of defensive measures.
Strategies -- Because deck flexibility deals with the idea of handling
many different types of opponents, I associate the concept of
strategic flexibility with the ability to have multiple ways of
implementing deck flexibility, if you will. That is, in terms of
defense, a pure permission deck that tries to counter every spell
of the opponent may have greater deck flexibility but a combination
U/W deck that can either counter or disenchant/stp later has greater
strategic flexibility. Also goes to concepts like a varied offense,
non-reliance on key combos, etc. although those are not dispositive.
Active/Reactive -- The concept covers the idea of how the deck plays.
Active decks try to take charge right from the beginning, while
reactive decks usually attempt to respond to opponent threats and wait
for the appropriate opening.
----------------------------------------------
A Note on Sideboarding: Some Advanced Theories
----------------------------------------------
Sideboarding is an art, a skill acquired by experience and insight and
frequently meta-game considerations that have to do mostly with what decks
are popular in the area. I would like to present and analyze a few of the
theories people frequently use -- I would love to hear of others principles.
1. Color-Specific Sideboards:
This is usually the place that most Magic players begin. Basically, the
idea is to have cards in the sideboard which shut down or hose a specific
color. For example, Gloom or Stromgald Cabal against White players, Karma
against Black players, Red Elemental Blasts for Blue players, etc. The
classic example is the sideboard belonging to a friend which contains TEN
Circles of Protections -- two for each color.
Most advanced sideboarding also retains some of the color-specific
strategies but we'll see how they differ in approach.
2. Strategy-Specific Sideboards:
This is generally the next level in theoretical complexity. The idea is to
counter a type of strategy which poses a threat. For example, one might
have 4 Psychic Purges in the sideboard for the Discard decks, or Wrath of
God for the weenie decks.
The complexity begins when one encounters a complex opponent. Suppose one
wants to build a sideboard that combats a Kim deck (listed below). What
would you select? Simply putting in a CoP:Red would be disastrous as the
Kim deck has 4 Disenchants and 6 counterspells and plenty of non-red
sources of damage. A color-specific sideboard would fare poorly. Simply
putting in anti-blaster cards would also be a poor decision as the Kim
strategy means more than simply direct damage. An anti-artifact strategy
might be more useful but again, that ignores the other threats -- the
countermagic, the permanent removal, the direct damage, etc.
I believe that the successful strategy-specific sideboards are those which
identify the vulnerabilities in a particular strategy and build a sideboard
to exploit those vulnerabilities. Against a complex multi-strategy deck,
it means choosing something which can affect as many of them as possible,
but if not, the most important one. Obviously, being able to identify
weaknesses and exploit them is an acquired skill which puts some players
into the finals while the others go home early.
But for example, against a Kim deck, the vulnerability of all of its
strategies is that they are all fairly mana-intensive. The blue defensive
component requires two blue at all times. The Mishras and Jade Statues
require powering, as does the Jayemdae Tome, Fireballs, etc. The sideboard
cards that one might look at, therefore, may be: Blood Moon, Armageddon,
Infernal Darkness, Strip Mines, Winter Orbs, etc. Obviously, some decks
cannot use these sideboard cards, but this is in the way of an example.
Strategy-specific sideboarding requires an understanding of the strategies
which you are attempting to defeat and their vulnerable points. It tends
to be defensive and reactive, but does not have to be.
3. Transformative Sideboards: (aka, "Surprise!" Sideboards)
This theory is not often seen or used, but when successful, it can be quite
deadly. The idea is to transform the deck completely through sideboarding.
The new strategy now implemented via sideboarding often catches the
opponent by surprise and unprepared.
The best example is from a game I played recently against an apparently
creatureless R/W Millstone deck with tons of permanent-removal via Bolts,
StP, Disenchants, Pyroclasm, Wrath of God, etc. In the second game, I
sideboarded out most of my anti-creature cards for more anti-artifact and
anti-blaster cards. Suddenly, I see Orders of Leitbur, Uthden Trolls,
Serra Angels, Shivan Dragons, etc. and no Millstone and no direct damage of
any kind. My Disenchants sat in my hand as I was being pummeled by two
Orders of Leitbur. Needless to say, that game was a lost-cause.
It turned out that the sideboard was composed almost entirely of creatures:
4 Orders, 4 Uthden Trolls, 2 Serras, 2 Shivans, and 3 Divine Offerings. By
transforming the deck from one strategy to a whole new one, the deck won an
easy victory.
The problem is that this type of sideboarding is a bit risky. Few decks
are designed to perform as well in two forms. Even a slight inefficiency
can cost a deck in a close game, so it becomes necessary to test the deck
in all of its forms. Plus, if the opponent does not play a reactive
sideboarding strategy transforming his own deck into something which cannot
handle yours, then you may have lost the edge. Nonetheless, transformative
sideboards are worth examining, depending on the main deck which you are
running.
4. Enhancement Sideboards:
This is often combined with Strategy-specific sideboarding principles but
color-specific sideboarding is also popular. The difference is subtle,
but useful to contemplate. The idea is not to try and "hose" a color
or a strategy but merely to enhance one's own main strategy's ability
to handle them.
For example, an Abyss hoses a weenie deck, whereas a Wrath of God merely
enhances the ability to deal with a weenie deck. Obviously, the comparison
is difficult to make and most people would pick the Abyss if the
opportunity exists. A strong case might be made, however, that the Abyss
belongs in the main deck and the Wrath of God in the sideboard to "enhance"
the anti-creature strategy.
The key difference seems to be for predominantly defensive decks whose
entire purpose is to take on all-comers, e.g. Weissman deck. Such decks
have the option of attempting to hose a strategy or a color, but sometimes
such hoser strategies can either backfire or make the deck less efficient.
For example, the Weissman deck could put in Blood Moon against a Kim deck.
That would hose the Kim strategy as much as it can be hosed. However, it
would also slow down the Weissman strategy. What _may_ happen instead is
that instead of Blood Moon, the Weissman deck may put in a couple of Divine
Offerings for plowshares, reasoning that Jade Statues can be taken care of
along with all other artifacts. Such a sideboard would be an enhancement
sideboard, rather than a "hoser" sideboard.
Enhancement sideboards seem to be more popular among experienced players
who are not comfortable with changing the basic character of their main
deck with massive sideboarding. The idea seems to be that the basic
strategy works and works well, so why change it completely? Instead,
merely enhance parts of the basic strategy to plug holes or counteract the
opponent strategy better. I personally do not yet grasp fully the
complexity of this form of sideboarding and I believe it takes quite a bit
of experience to approach the sideboard with this more flexible view.
As a way of experimentation, however, and this applies with special force
in the Type II arena, I looked at how my basic strategy (U/W
Weissman/Maysonet clone, listed below) handles the opposition. In Type I,
it is possible to have a dominant deck that really does not require much
sideboarding -- substituting plowshares for Divine Offerings merely
strengthens the ability of the deck to handle an opponent creatureless
deck -- but the basic operation (e.g., Mana Drain -- Amnesia -- Sceptre
Lock) remains the same. In Type II, however, the scheme seems to be much
more of a question of rock-paper-scissors. Mono-black Necropotence decks
usually run over U/W defensive decks which usually beat R/G Ernham &
Burn'em decks which usually beat the mono-black Necropotence decks. As a
result, my sideboard ignores burn decks completely. It has nine cards
against mono-black Necropotence decks, and four cards against other U/W
defensive decks. The other two cards are general enhancement cards:
Control Magic, and a Power Sink (arguably countermagic is the most
"enhancing" of any defensive strategy as it hoses nothing but enhances
everything).
In other words, I am using a color-specific sideboard strategy (Karmas,
White Knights, etc.) in order to enhance my deck's ability to deal with a
particular style of play: fast attack Necropotence decks. I attempt to
"hose" black because there is no other way for my deck to deal with it.
Contrast this subsection, however, with my approach to other U/W decks -- 2
Divine Offerings, 2 Disrupting Sceptres. My intent is simply to replace
the useless cards (such as Wrath of God) with useful cards -- i.e.,
enhancement. It is not a strategy-specific sideboard. I would use Winter
Orbs if I were attempting to "hose" the U/W defensive strategy. Yet, since
that would change the character of my own deck substantially, I choose
merely to enhance my ability to deal with U/W rather than try to hose it.
The difference, again, may be too fine but I believe it exists and that the
expert players take advantage of it in ways that less experienced players
should attempt to learn.
Note: The above attempts to cover the principles regarding the
_construction_ of sideboards. They obviously extend to making those
decisions as well. However, deciding which cards to switch out and which
cards to switch in is an important skill in and of itself. That skill,
unfortunately, cannot be adequately described in a written document -- at
least, I can't do it. If you have suggestions, please email them to me at
rsh9395@is.nyu.edu.
-----------
THE SCHOOLS
-----------
--------------------
The Weissman School:
--------------------
(Often referred to as "The Deck", originated by Brian Weissman, a top
player from California.)
The basic philosophy of the Weissman School is that defense wins games.
While most decks play both phases of the Magic trying to defend against
opponent threats and mounting an offense to kill the opponent, the Weissman
School plays only the former. One way to put it is in volleyball terms: It
doesn't matter how many points you give up as long as you only give up
fewer than 15. In the same way, the Weissman School will happily give up
19 points of life as long as the final 20th point is denied. Eventually,
the environmental control of the Weissman deck will take over and victory
will be all but assured via an invincible Serra Angel or a very large
Braingeyser.
The ironclad defense of the Weissman deck is constructed with maximum
efficiency and great flexibility in mind. In terms of efficiency, its
reliance on white defense (Swords to Plowshares and Disenchant) means that
it can afford to refrain from countering every card played by the
opponent. And the attention paid to group destruction, where one card
stops many others (e.g., Moat stops all ground attackers, Disrupting
Sceptre stops pretty much all countermagic, etc.) makes it extremely
efficient. In terms of flexibility, using countermagic (Mana Drains,
Counterspell, and Red Elemental Blast) assures the ability to deal with
all strategies. With sideboarding against particular deck types (red
blaster, Jester's Cap decks, etc.), the Weissman deck reaches close to
maximum flexibility without sacrificing too much of its efficiency.
Its offense is extremely limited -- two Serra Angels, one Braingeyser,
one Fireball in the sideboard, and one Mirror Universe in the most
recent post-Mind Twist version. The removal of Mind Twist does hurt the
Weissman deck, but it hurts every deck so the playing field remains
relatively level. The Mind Twist is replaced by Amnesia which slows the
deck down somewhat but nonetheless remains potent in a mostly blue deck.
The Weissman School, along with the Maysonet School, are probably the
most difficult school to run successfully. A game between two Weissman
players becomes an almost purely mental battle of bluffing, defense,
disruption, and waiting. Some would find this style of play
extraordinarily boring, and I believe that beginning players have no
business with the Weissman school -- they will only become frustrated
after losing to far inferior decks. It is a mentally demanding and
challenging deck to play. However, for intermediate and expert players
looking to improve their playing skills, the Weissman School is one of
the best training grounds. In the hand of a master, it becomes a
dangerous weapon.
One thing to be noted is that playing such heavy defense within DC
construction rules requires a certain amount of recursion since you can
only have 4 of any one card, and only 1 of each restricted card.
Assuming that one counters a good number of the opponent's offense in the
early game, by mid to late game, it becomes necessary at times to recycle
the countermagic that has been spent. Feldon's Cane, Recall, and
Regrowth and Timetwister (in T1) are important, if not completely
essential, part of the Weissman School. Card advantage via Jayemdae
Tomes, Library of Alexandria, and Ancestral Recall is crucial as well to
get to the cards one needs.
The Weissman School's primary strategy is to achieve a sceptre lock
where the opponent has no cards in hand. The only way to get out of the
sceptre lock is to disenchant the sceptre and hope that the Weissman
player is not holding a counterspell -- it is not a good thing to hope
for in my opinion. Once the lock is achieved, the offensive strategy
can kick into gear and a Serra Angel will decimate the opponent
very quickly. The Angel, of course, will show up via the Tome and other
card-drawing means if normal methods are insufficient.
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 the artifacts and the basic lands in the Weissman deck makes it
possible to function normally. In Type II versions, obviously, there are
other more useful cards than Blood Moon which hoses so many Type I decks.
One point regarding defense is that the Weissman deck strives to have a
key card neutralize an enire offensive strategy. Moat, Balance, Abyss in
some versions, all hose creatures. Ivory Tower poses serious problems
for the blaster decks and weenie decks until a stronger countermeasure
(Moat, Wrath, etc.) shows up. This style of deckbuilding attempts to
neutralize the Offensive Overkill theory under which a number of the more
offensive-minded schools (e.g., Kim School) operates.
The Weissman School has few identifiable vulnerabilities because of the
power of blue -- the ability to counterspell is the basis of any defense
in tournament play. Given that fact, and assuming that the opponent can
overcome the counters (by throwing everything but the kitchen sink at it,
by REB, by its own countermagic), the Weissman deck has one key
vulnerability: Jester's Cap. Because of its cost, the opponent will have
to wait to bring out the Cap -- by which time, the Weissman deck will
have adequate countermagic and Disenchants to deal with it. However, if
it does go off, the offensive strategy of the Weissman deck is hurt
badly. In some situations, the defensive strategy can be wrecked by
taking out 3 of the 4 Disenchants or 3 of the 4 Swords to Plowshares.
Obviously, removing the key cards (Jayemdaes, Disrupting Sceptres, etc.)
will be rather painful as well.
Brian Weissman, however, says that while being Capped does cause serious
strategic problems for the Weissman deck, the countermagic & the
anti-artifact spells make it exceedingly difficult for any Cap to be
used. Furthermore, the Tormod's Crypt with Timetwister is almost as
dangerous in the long-run as the Angels & Braingeyser as the opponent
will run out of cards earlier. Obviously, in the second and third games,
the sideboarding will play a major role (more Divine Offerings, the
Fireball, the Tormod's Crypt all enter). The other factor is that many of
the key cards may already be in hand and out of the way of harm via the
Cap.
In response, Adam Maysonet and others believe that no one worth his salt as
a player would ever play a Cap without six mana on the board, which makes
the Disenchant and other anti-artifact spells useless. Furthermore,
against the Weissman school, the Maysonet school and other Cap-based
strategies will focus on getting the Cap off safely as it plays havoc with
the offensive strategy. As for the cards already in-hand, being Capped
means that the Maysonet/Cap player only has to focus on neutralizing that
one card (or maybe two) that could win the game for the Weissman player.
Obviously, there is no practical evidence of one deck's superiority over
another, but the competing theories make it evident that the Jester's Cap
does pose a significant threat to the Weissman deck -- perhaps
necessitating a couple of Caps in the Weissman deck itself (possibly in the
sideboard) to defend against them. This is my current view.
Other vulnerable points may be a fast black weenie deck with protection
from white, combined with anti-Moat and anti-permission work (which
basically requires Disenchant and countermagic of its own, or maybe
Tranquility and REB, or some mix of those). Another U/W defensive deck
may cause problems only insofar as the skill of the two players and the
luck of the draw will become far more important than the content of the
decks. Those duels usually build up to a counterspell-duel over some
critical resource (Sceptre, Jayemdae, Amnesia, etc.) then one gets the
upper hand and eventually cruises to victory.
Archetype Decks:
Type I (Many thanks to Brian Weissman and Michael Nickoloff for
providing this example.)
U/W/b/g/r
----------
Non-Mana Producers
------------------
4 Disenchant
4 Swords to Plowshares
2 Moat
2 Serra Angel
4 Mana Drain
2 Counterspell
2 Red Elemental Blast
2 Disrupting Scepter
1 Jayemdae Tome*
1 Regrowth
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Mirror Universe*
1 Amnesia*
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Timewalk
1 Timetwister
1 Braingeyser
1 Recall
--------------------
Total Non-Mana Producers: 32
Mana Producers
----------------
4 Tundra
2 Volcanic Island
4 City of Brass*
3 Strip Mine*
1 Library of Alexandria
4 Islands
3 Plains
5 Moxes
1 Sol Ring
1 Black Lotus
-----------------
Total Mana Producers: 28=47%
Sideboard
-----------
2 Divine Offering
2 Cop Red
2 Blood Moon
1 Ivory Tower
1 Jayemdae Tome
1 Disrupting Scepter
1 Moat
2 Red Elemental Blast*
1 Fireball*
1 Tormod's Crypt
1 Feldon's Cane
The entries marked with an asterisk are changes in the deck. Although the
reasons for these changes will become clearer as the new version goes
through the intense tournament-level testing, at first glance, I believe
the changes confirm much of what I and others have been thinking about the
Weissman School.
The removal of Mind Twist means that the games will be longer than before
as the Mana Drain-fueled Mind Twist for six in turn three will no longer
be possible. The substitution of the Mirror Universe for the Ivory Tower
makes sense in that respect, since the Weissman player can expect to take
a good deal more damage. It is also another path to victory for
the offense-poor Weissman deck. However, I believe the Ivory Tower
remains in the sideboard as it is one key defense card against certain
types of decks. The 4 City of Brass may be necessary now, despite the
pain, because of the UUU in the casting cost of Amnesia. 3 Strip Mines are
more efficient to get rid of the opponent's Library of Alexandria (aka,
the Library of Victory, or "I Win"), as well as interefering with
opponent countermagic ability at crucial moments. The Fireball in the
sideboard may go in for the Jester's Cap decks to provide another path to
victory.
The puzzling change is using only one Jayemdae Tome, but with the Library
and Ancestral Recall, it may be necessary to use just one Tome.
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. This makes the Amnesia or Mind Warp a critical
card for the Weissman deck in the mid-game when there's enough mana to be
driving the Sceptre while maintaining adequate counterspell ability.
One note: Many people have suggested some changes to the Weissman
deck -- Warren Chang is one who advocate an Abyss/Rack version
that many consider superior. Brian Weissman argues against them
as below.
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.
[This one may have been taken as the Mirror Universe is a "way
to gain life" in a way.]
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.
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.
On the other hand, Brian Weissman most strenuously objects to these
changes. His reasons are very strong and the arguments against these
changes are persuasive. In his own words:
I totally disagree with Warren Changs suggestion of removing the Angels
from "The Deck", to completely render my opponent's creature defense
innefective. He has totally missed the point. I NEED creatures in my deck
to prevent this from happening, as I give my opponent far to great of an
advantage if he gets to sideboard out all of his creature defense.
Contrary to popular belief, the "only play the serra in the lock" rule is
far from an absolute. Around here we have a name for an early Angel,
called the "The Deck Gambit". I don't know how many hapless opponents I
have killed with this. They figure that once an Angel hits the table they
are dead anyway, so they sideboard out all their plowshares and die
miserably when I summon an Angel on the second turn.
The Rack does less damage then an angel, cannot ever block or be
plowshared for life, and the last thing on earth I want to do is let my
opponent's extra sideboard artifact defense act as damage prevention. The
Serra is vital not only as a creature-based threat, but as a 4/4 flying
blocker in times of emergency. Knowing when to play an Angel is just as
vital a skill as knowing when to counter something; there are never
absolute rules for either. I have found time and time again that two
angels are often excessive, and I will very often let one or both be
plowshared to maintain a positional advantage. In the control-lock game
that "The Deck" plays, the Braingeyser and the Tormod's Crypt are just as
potent weapons as the Angels.
Since the Angels are important, the Abyss is inappropriate to the deck.
It may make sense, however, to use a flying artifact creature (e.g.,
Tetravus) if one really desires the use of The Abyss. Some other
variant strategies (e.g., Scott Wilson's Weissman-clone with Titania's
Song) will shortly be available on my web page listed at the end of this
document.
Archetype Deck: Type II (U/W)
-----------------------------
This deck, as I find, has become a popular stable at Neutral Ground -- the
gaming place in New York City where most of the Magic playing community
gathers regularly. With the changes announced for 4/1/96, the deck has
evolved to the version below.
4 Adarkar Wastes
7 Plains
7 Islands
2 Svyelunite Temples
4 Mishra's Factories
2 Felwar Stones
3 Land Tax
3 StP
4 Disenchant
1 Wrath of God
1 Balance
4 Counterspell
2 Powersink
2 Serra Angels
2 Control Magic
2 Jayemdae Tomes
2 Disrupting Sceptres
2 Jester's Cap
2 Icy Manipulators
1 Serrated Arrows
1 Aeolipile
1 Ivory Tower
1 Zuran Orb
1 Recall
1 Feldon's Cane
Sideboard:
2 Control Magic
2 Orders of Leitbur
2 Circle of Protection: Black
2 Divine Offering
2 Serrated Arrows
2 Sleight of Mind
1 Wrath of God
1 Merchant Scroll
1 Swords to Plowshares
I had previously believed that the Weissman strategy is not viable in
Type II play because of the extreme speed of the Type II environment and
the inability to set up the blue defense quickly enough. However, with
the restriction of the Black Vise, the quick offense decks must resort to
creatures and blast, and the multiple early Vises are not a concern
anymore. Given that delay, the U/W Weissman strategy is perfectly
viable. Not only does the extra time strengthen the Type II U/W strategy,
it also allows U/W to hold more than four cards without paying a huge price
for it. Therefore, I believe that U/W is not only possible in Type II, but
a strong contender in that environment as well -- an assertion proven by
the victory of a U/W Millstone deck at the Pro Tourney in NYC. The example
deck above combines features of the Weissman and Maysonet schools
but the essential principle is the Weissman school -- play defense and
control the environment.
The Moat's job is replaced by Wrath of God and Serrated Arrows -- which
kill the Protection from White Orders and Knights. The Control Magic and
the Sleight of Mind (Gloom) replace StP against the black weenie decks.
The Wraths and the Balance are also a measure of protection from Autumn
Willow and Ihsan's Shade (for whom the standard Control Magics comes in
handy) as well as any weenie strategy. The standard Icy Manipulator means
you generally don't have to worry about one creature in play, unless that
creature is Autumn Willow.
The Jester's Caps are used primarily to destroy the opponent's defensive
strategy (e.g., remove Disenchants -- they defend against the Sceptre lock)
and to look through his deck. In addition, they can be used to destroy
the opponent's offensive strategy. They prove particularly useful if a
deck contains a few elements which SERIOUSLY threaten my own
strategy (e.g., Armageddon in white weenie).
Regular readers will notice that I have changed 2 Strip Mines into 2 more
Mishra's Factories. The reason is that the weakness of this deck is not
another countermagic deck, but a weenie deck. As such, it is more
important to be able to block weenies, particularly those protected from
white, than it is to strip mine a land. Also, because of how slow the deck
works, strip mine does not really add much to the threat of the deck in
most cases.
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, when to play a Serra, when to play global
positional strategy, etc. is essential. Nonetheless, in the hands of an
experienced player, the U/W Weissman strategy proves to be versatile,
consistent, and extremely dangerous.
-----------------
The Kim School:
-----------------
(An outgrowth of the now-defunct Balance deck, originated by John Kim.
For an excellent example of a Balance deck, please refer to the article
by Adam Maysonet [leech@gate.net] who is widely credited as the creator
of the Balance deck strategy though I have no way of verifying such
information.)
The section on deckbuilding is largely 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. :)
I ran into John Kim at the most recent NY Magic tournament where I noticed
a couple of changes in his deck -- he did not wish to publicize the
exact contents, so the changes are my guesses based on what I saw. I
hope he will forgive me for publicizing his strategy, but I know that one,
his deck is already well-known, and two, he's a great player which overcomes
a good deal of "fore-knowledge". Anyhow....
Deckbuilding -- 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, as a simple errata to make it work
like a Desert Twister would have been adequate.)
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. The Weissman Deck has very few
"offensive" (meaning that it will lead to winning the game) cards, but
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 John Kim's 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 activation cost and lack of damage
ability. At the least, the opponent must use an anti-artifact card on
the Sceptre, as opposed to using one of the numerous anti-creature cards
available.
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. [Note: Mind Twist is
banned from tournament play as of 2/1/96.]
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 if I'm facing a first-turn Juzam? A lot of weenies very early on?
Archetype decks
---------------
Type I -- b/r/U/W (but mostly colorless)
(This deck is my guess from the latest version I saw John Kim play.)
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Sol Ring
1 Jayemdae Tome (Was Jalum Tome)
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Timetwister
1 Balance
1 Demonic Tutor
4 Disenchant
4 Swords to Plowshares
4 Mana Drain
2 Counterspell
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
2 City of Brass
4 Tundra
4 Volcanic Island
4 Plateau
2 Strip Mine
----
61 cards.
(12 blue, 12 white, 12 red, 4 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 7 spells require more than 2 mana to cast.)
Side-Board:
----------
4 Islands (anti-Blood Moon work -- replaces 1 Tundra, 3 Volc. Islands)
3 Plains (anti-Blood Moon work -- replaces Plateaus)
4 Blue Elemental Blast
[guessing below]
2 The Abyss (against creature-heavy decks, since most of the Kim decks
creatures won't be affected by the Abyss)
2 Divine Offering
The changes to the deck reflect the banning of Mind Twist, as well as the
problem of Blood Moon.
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 now-defunct Chang deck
which relied on Black Vise too heavily, but significantly faster than
any other represented here. 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: In previous versions, I wrote that Jalum Tomes are preferable
to the Kim deck than a Jayemdae Tome, because it is not concerned about card
superiority, but about cycling through the deck, looking for the hammer.
However, Jayemdae Tomes prove to be maximally useful compared to the
Jalum when it is necessary to draw faster -- and the mid-game mana tends
to be plentiful even in the Kim deck which uses up a good deal of mana in
Mishras and Jade Statues.
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.
One thing that I have come to believe is that it takes a great deal of
skill to play the Kim deck properly -- even more skill, perhaps, than the
Weissman deck. The reason is that the Weissman player only needs to play
defense until the lock comes along. The Kim player, on the other hand,
must play the fast offense which sets the tone of the game while
maintaining adequate defense. As a result, it often takes skill,
experience, and insight to decide whether to spend the mana to attack with
a Jade Statue, or to hold back with countermagic. Another way to look at
it is to think of the Kim deck as being less consistent than the Weissman
deck. The principles, however, seem more at par in type II.
The one very serious threat of the Type I Kim deck is Blood Moon. 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. As I've noted in previous Schools of Magic, there
should be basic lands in the sideboard -- apparently, John Kim has
also gone with this idea, and though I'm guessing on the exact mix of
basic lands, I know that he has radically modified the sideboard to
deal with Blood Moon.
In Type II, it is difficult to implement many of these principles. What I
have found unique about Type II play is that speed does matter tremendously
-- even with the restriction of the Vise. Offensive speed is easier to get
up to speed than defensive speed in the absence of fast mana and card
drawing means of type I. However, offensive speed must be balanced with
the ability to control the environment and the ability to put the final
hammer down.
Kim School's lessons, therefore, can be explored in the following deck.
Archetype Deck: Type II -- G/W
-----------------------
I credit this deck to Sean Fleischman, the #5 ranked player in the
Duelist's Convocation and another regular at NY Magic tournaments. Many
readers will notice that it is similar to Bertrand Lestree and Preston
Poulter's decks from the Pro Tourney. This deck, however, represents Kim
principles better, imho, because it relies on very few combinations and
wants to establish a quick-kill as soon as possible. Again, as I do not
know the exact contents, the below represents my version
based on his deck. Other examples are always welcome.
4 Brushlands
5 Forests
2 Havenwood Battlegrounds
5 Plains
2 Ruins of Trokair
4 Strip Mines
4 Felwars
26 mana
2 Land Tax
4 Mana Elves
3 Elvish Archers
4 Ernham Djinns
1 Autumn Willow
1 Serra Angel
3 Blinking Spirits
3 Armageddon
2 Hurricane
4 Disenchant
4 StP
1 Balance
1 Zuran Orb
1 Feldon's Cane
60 cards
Sideboard: (no idea, except for the Divine Offerings)
2 Divine Offerings
2 Land Tax
4 Stormseekers
3 Whirling Dervish
2 Serrated Arrows
1 Armageddon
This G/W deck represents some key Kim school principles. First, it sets up
an awfully fast offensive regime via green weenies: Elves, Elvish Archers
(which can block other X/2 creatures without hesitation). Then, it uses
difficult to kill creatures (4 Blinking Spirits and 1 Autumn Willow) to
harass further. When the opponent is reduced to within a certain range,
the deck can use Hurricane as the knockout punch. It is flexible
defensively because of the white element, although it cannot counterspell
as the Type I Kim deck can.
One key element of the Type II deck, since it doesn't have any countermagic
of its own, is to put in multiple "must-counter" spells. The Blinking
Spirits, the Autumn Willow, the Armageddons, and Hurricanes/Stormseeker
are all "must counter" spells for the blue player. The Elves and
Ernhams will end up doing a good deal more damage in that case. The
Blinking Spirits in particular are impossible to deal with after it's
in play.
Note also that few spells rely on each other in a combination, though
combinations are left to exist. Because of the Hurricanes, the deck uses
Elves instead of Birds -- also, Elves can attack and do damage. There are
no Giant Growths or other creature enhancers. The Armageddon is itself a
dangerous lock-card in Type II, but in conjunction with Felwars and Elves,
it's devastating.
---------------------
The Handelman School:
---------------------
(The "Handelman" School originally began as a group-project to fight the
Weissman decks, and should be attributed to Frank Trollman (Ritaxis), Sam
"Garry" Handelman, and dolor@netcom.com. It is essentially a U/B discard
deck with a twist. I have modified it in v.5.0 to reflect some of the
advances that have been suggested by the readers.)
The Handelman School can be summarized in one statement: "I'm going to
come kill you right now with this thing right here unless you do
something about it." It is an offensively-minded school which seeks to
achieve card advantage early in the game through discard followed by a
offensive-lock which utilizes the "Offense Overkill Theory". It
was previously termed the "Offensive Balance Theory" but that is not at
all what it is about.
Offense Overkill Theory posits 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 reduce the
number of defensive cards available to the opponent. By playing active
card advantage, counterspelling of the global defensive cards, and
outnumbering the defensive cards, the Offense Overkill hopes to
eventually get out a creature which will not be destroyed or cannot be
destroyed in time. Global anti-creature cards, therefore, such as
Moat/Wrath of God/The Abyss are the greatest threats. The Handelman
decks will have to counter those global defensive cards or get rid of
them before the opponent has an opportunity to engage in environmental
engineering.
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.
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.
Archetype Deck: Type I -- B/U/G/w
Black Magic- 15
Demonic Tutor 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- 16
Birds of Paradise x4
Disenchant x4
Ernham Djinn x4
Red Elemental Blast x4
Mana- 23
Moxen x5
Library of Alexandria x1
Black Lotus x1
Sol Ring x1
City of Brass x4
Underground Sea x4
Bayou x3
Tropical Island x1
Scrubland x2
Tundra x1
Sideboard varies considerably, but it generally 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.
Reports from the Net and my own playtesting show that the
Handelman deck lacks the consistency and the reliability that
distinguishes the top-level designs. Its brute strength in offense is
undeniable, and its ability to disrupt the opponent with the Hymns (and
thereby drawing countermagic) is also undeniable. However, with a poor
draw, it often takes too much time to get up to speed for the Handelman
offense and the defending deck can have countermeasures out.
The ideal situation seems to be when a few Hymns and early play leaves
the Handelman deck with a few cards in hand (and 20+ life from having
Juzams, Spectres, and Ernhams plowed). It can then lay down the
Necropotence and establish huge card-dominance. If the Library of
Alexandria is in play, the Necropotence fills the hand up to 7, then the
Library gets another card -- essentially bypassing the loss of the draw
phase.
The deck has no significant anti-permanent abilities, relying on discard
and permission for defense. The 4 Disenchants serve when necessary, but
with only multilands (and only 8 sources of white mana, not counting birds
who tend to get sucked into the Abyss), the deck is extremely vulnerable to
Blood Moon.
The deck runs with 4 Juzams and 4 Ernhams, as well as Spectres. Control
Magic is also in the sideboard, as I understand it. Concordant Crossroads
may be a good idea for the sideboard if The Abyss is a popular
anti-creature card in the area, and if the opponent is creatureless
(allows Juzams, Spectres, and Ernhams to attack the turn they come into play).
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.
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. A City in a Bottle means the end of just about all sources of
damage for the Handelman deck. 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 Offense Overload 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, and 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.
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.
In Type II, the Handelman deck is best represented by a B/U discard
deck. I cannot give credit to someone I do not know, but this is based
on a version I saw at NY Magic.
Archetype deck: Type II B/U
4 Hypnotic Spectres
4 Hymns to Tourach
4 Order of Ebon Hand
2 Sengir Vampire
2 Necropotence
4 Powersink
1 Spell Blast
1 Recall
2 Zur's Weirding
3 Fountain of Youth
1 Ivory Tower
2 Despotic Sceptres
2 Nevinyarrl's Disk
1 Zuran Orb
4 Dark Rituals
4 Mishra's Factories
4 Underground Rivers
10 Swamps
5 Islands
23 mana (27 with Rituals)
Sideboard:
1 Ihsan's Shade
2 Nevinyarrl's Disk
2 Serrated Arrows (for prot. from black decks)
4 BEB -- for burn decks
1 Feldon's Cane
2 Knights of Stromgald
3 Gloom
In the slower developmental arena of Type II play, this B/U deck seems to
fare well in its diversified attack. The early orders will take a toll
on (especially) a predominantly white defense player. The Hymns take out
cards in the earlier rounds when they are especially critical.
The Zur's Weirding goes down either as soon as the advantage can be seen or
when one is holding a Necropotence (or in play). With even a single
Fountain of Youth out, the Zur's Weirding alone can decide the
game. Necropotence is pure card-drawing power, and it bypasses the penalty
of the Zur's Weirding. It goes without saying that the Fountain of Youth
also helps the Necropotence along.
The Despotic Sceptres exist for the early Necropotence (drop one turn three
or four, draw six cards, then Despotic Sceptre it) or for situations where
the opponent Control Magics one of your creatures.
It preserves the notion of Offense Overkill Theory: the deck contains
sixteen sources of damage (including the Weirding) which are well
diversified. It keeps the discard element of Type I as the premier
disruption/defensive method which also leads to the Zur's lock.
The above version was modified slightly with insights from the Pro Tourney
-- particularly the power of Necropotence. It is necessary to use it with
care, but properly used, it is a devastating card. As such, this deck uses
two cards (Necropotence and Zur's Weirding) which are both double-edged
swords. It has some resemblance to the straight black Necrodeck presented
elsewhere, but its approach is somewhat radically different.
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
-------------
[With the unrestriction of Black Vise to the Type I environment, the
archetype deck for the Chang School may be brought back. I do not know
what other changes might exist, but I have included the former Type I deck
for the 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
4 x Incinerate
1 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 Warp
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:
4 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
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 primary role
of the Vise as I see it is as a counter to card-superiority decks which
hold a large number of cards in hand (Weissman, Necropotence, etc.).
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. A good mana-destruction/Nether Void deck may be 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, may be the draw. With a good draw -- early Vise,
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.
In Type II play, the Blood Moon's role in mid-late game disruption is taken
by Armageddon. The fast offense provided by a weenie deck, coupled with
the disruption of Armageddon provides an illustration as to how Chang
principles might be applied in Type II play.
The White Weenie deck, long maligned, is a vicious contender in Type II
and should be accorded the status which it deserves.
Archetype deck: Type II only - W
----------------------------------
4 Savannah Lions
4 Order of Leitbur
4 Order of White Shield
2 Icatian Javelineers
4 Disenchant
4 Swords to Plowshares
1 Balance
3 Crusades
4 Armageddon
3 Land Tax
1 Zuran Orb
1 Black Vise
1 Feldon's Cane
2 Sleight of Mind
4 Strip Mines
14 Plains
4 Adarkar Wastes
60 cards
Sideboard
3 Divine Offerings
2 Wrath of God
2 CoP:Red
2 CoP:Black
2 Serrated Arrows
2 Sleight of Mind
2 Islands (against Black w/ Gloom)
Though most players have considered white weenie to be a "boring"
strategy, and it is certainly predictable in play, this particularly
version is effective because of its overwhelming speed. From the very
start, the opponent is forced to play defense to some degree. A single
Lion can be ignored perhaps, but not a Lion and an Order (which can be
pumped). Because the deck runs on very little mana, it can afford to use
the Armageddon with abandon -- and that is what gives the white weenie its
particular advantage. The ability to lock a game by destroying all lands
in play (and in type II where you don't find moxen, it is a very effective
anti-mana strategy) is a key to long-term efficiency.
The Land Tax is one of the most powerful cards in Type II and the example
in v.5.2 abandons the Jayemdae Tomes with its expense for the multiple
Land Taxes.
It is not a flexible deck. And it will die horribly if it runs up
against a R/W deck with pyroclasms, bolts, incinerates, plowshares,
wraths, etc. But in Type II, it seems that every deck has an enemy and
no one deck is dominant. One thing that can be said is that it is an
EFFICIENT deck whose strategy is simple, straightforward, and dangerous.
As the original Chang deck had a problem with an opponent deck with
significant life-gaining abilities (Spirit Link, Fountain of Youth,
etc.), the type II Chang/WW also has problems with the life-gainers as
the extra time gives the opponent the ability to turn the game around.
To be successful, the Chang school decks must strike FAST and hard so
that even after the opponent pulls of a Wrath of God or a Pyroclasm, the
Chang deck can prevail either through Armageddon plus a couple of land
and orders, or through the Weirding lock. In a long game, however,
the Chang deck will find it difficult to win.
---------------------
The O'Brien School
---------------------
[Again, with the unrestriction of the Black Vise in Type I play, there have
been requests to return the O'Brien school. Although some have criticized
it as being a poor representative of the mana-denial strategy, I want to
include it until something better comes along. In Type I play, as far as I
can tell, the principle and its implementation is strong; in Type II play,
however, it may require a different implementation strategy for
mana-denial.]
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 O'Brien deck is a simple, straightforward land destruction deck in Type
I. It lays down an early threat -- a Juzam, a Juggernaut, Black Vise, or
Mishra -- then tries to put down a Nether Void as quickly as possible. The
result is that defense against the threats becomes virtually impossible, as
a Swords to Plowshares will cost W3. Since the O'Brien deck keeps on
destroying land and artifact mana, it becomes rather difficult to climb out
of the hole.
Type 1: Mono-Black with a touch of Blue
---------------------------------------
4 Juzam Djinn
4 Black Vise
2 Juggernauts
4 Mishras Factories
14
4 Sinkholes
2 Icequakes
4 Stripmines
10
3 Nether Voids
1 Xenic Poltergiest (kills Moxen, primarily)
3 Mana Vaults
2 Arenas
9
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Timetwister
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Zuran Orb
1 Underworld Dreams
5
1 Sol ring
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Emerald
1 Black Lotus
10 swamps
2 Underground Rivers
4 Underground Seas
21
SIDEBOARD
----------
4 Glooms
1 Arena
2 Xenic Poltergeists
2 Sengir Vampires
2 Dry Spells
4 Evil Presence
O'Brien credits the Xenic Poltergeist to a local player named Joe Mimm who
used the Poltergeist to kill Moxen and artifact mana (in the Arena -- Sol
Ring v. Juzam Djinn, etc.).
The O'Brien deck is a very proactive deck. It has no defense save land
destruction and mana deprivation. As O'Brien puts it:
this deck is almost entirely
proactive it basically cares little about the other side of the board
except with respect to land. To sum it up, I am putting my opponent in my
world, I am going to put down this void NOW, on my first turn if possible,
and we are going to play on my terms. I have had it with counters,
fireballs etc. etc. JUST DIE!!!
The basic operation is simple. Strip Mines, Sinkhole, Icequake, 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.
There is no Type II version yet, because the key card in the O'Brien deck
is Nether Void. I hope to have something by the next major revision.
---------------------
The Maysonet School
---------------------
[A U/W control deck based on Jester's Cap and recursion, originated
by Adam Maysonet, the Southeast Regional Champion.]
The Maysonet school takes the basic premise of the Weissman school -- card
denial and card dominance -- then adds another element to the equation.
One might call it "card removal". Where the Weissman design focuses solely
on the cards in hand and the cards in play (permanent destruction), the
Maysonet school also works on the cards in the library.
The basic insight is that Magic is a card game. Luck plays a big factor in
all of the games. It doesn't matter that you have every single spoiler
ever printed, if you don't draw them. So many of the power T1 strategies
depend upon reducing the element of luck as much as possible. Deck
manipulation, via Jayemdae Tomes, Library of Alexandria, Demonic Tutor,
Timewalk, Ancestral Recall, etc. is at least one secondary element in the
most competitive decks. The Maysonet school contends that by disrupting
the content of the opponent's library itself, you can decrease not only the
effectiveness and the strategy of the opposing deck but ultimately destroy
the strategy itself.
Jester's Cap is the card which makes it all possible.
The Maysonet deck runs with three Jester's Caps standard in the main deck.
Though its casting cost is fairly high at 4, in a U/W power T1 deck, 4 mana
is not very difficult to manage at all. With Mana Drains, Moxen, Lotus,
and other fast mana, the Jester's Cap could be in play and used by the
second turn. More likely, however, it will be introduced into play about
the fourth or fifth turn when the Maysonet player is able to ensure that
it will go through past countermagic.
If used, the Cap is used first to remove all of the crucial cards if the
opponent relies upon a particular card or a particular combo-lock to win.
Against the Weissman deck, the Serra Angels and the Braingeyser are
removed. It is now extremely difficult for the Weissman deck to win --
hvaing to rely on a Timetwister/Tormod's Crypt combo or on hurting
himself to 0 with City of Brass then Mirror Universing with the Maysonet
player. Against the Handelman deck, the Zur's Weirdings might leave, or
the Hymns might exit. One of the key skills in playing the Maysonet
style is to understand what cards to remove from the game first as that
is likely to have the greatest impact.
Second, the Cap is used to remove cards which will disrupt its own
strategy: anti-artifact cards, countermagic, discard are just a few
examples.
Third, it is used to remove power cards from the opponent's deck. In
this way, the Maysonet deck achieves the kind of dominance that power T1
decks enjoy over most T2 decks, but over other power T1 decks! (After
all, what happens to a power T1 deck without Ancestral Recall, Timewalk,
and its Mana Drains or Library of Alexandria?) With four Jester's Caps,
plus recursion, it is entirely feasible that the Maysonet strategy will
_completely_ remove all of a decks' defensive or offensive scheme from
the game. Winning, then, is just a matter of time -- which is made
shorter by use of Millstones. The opponent often simply concedes the
game -- hence the nickname, "Concede or Bleed".
Sideboarding is pointless against the Maysonet deck unless they are
specifically to combat the Jester's Caps -- i.e., more countermagic, more
anti-artifact cards, etc.
In addition, the Cap allows the Maysonet player to examine the opponent's
deck for any upcoming surprises, and remove them from the game if
necessary. "Oh, I didn't see that Underworld Dreams combo. I guess I'll
remove the Underworld Dreams, along with the Braingeyser." It is of
significant benefit, of course, to an experienced player to know what to
expect from the opponent. "I see a Hymn and some Racks. Gee, could this
be discard? Okay, well, go ahead and cast that Throne of Bone -- I'll
hold on to my counterspell until I see a Rack or a Hymn." As Maysonet
points out, one side effect is that you can guess at the opponent's cards
in hand with a fair amount of accuracy. For example, if you saw Timewalk
in game one, and you don't see it in the library while you're searching it
using Jester's Cap, you can safely assume that it's in their hand and
prepare for it.
Because the Cap's effect is a long-term one, and permanent for that
particularly game, this strategy is particularly well-suited to the general
Weissman strategy of patience and survival. It is similarly hostile to
creatures and artifacts, with the added threat of removing them entirely
from the game if need be. StP automatically removes creatures, but the
deck runs with 2 Moat and 1 Abyss standard to deal with creatures as the
two cards together create a virtual creature lock. Creatures no longer
have to be a concern, so the counters can focus on disrupting other
parts of the deck/play.
How does the deck win, you might ask? With continual Capping, the opponent
usually concedes. After all, if all of your offensive threats were
removed, why would you continue with the "game"? What fun would it be for
you to play land after land, turn after turn? Plus, since your library is
now short anywhere from 9-64 (the theoretical limit as far as I can tell,
and that's the game as well) cards, you'll run out faster and lose that
way. Millstones (originally sideboarded) help the process.
Archetype Deck: Type I
----------------------
"Concede or Bleed" -- U/W/b/g
Main Deck:
2 Moat
3 Disenchant
2 Swords to Plowshares
1 Balance
1 Regrowth
1 Amnesia
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Abyss
4 Mana Drain
3 Counterspell
1 Timewalk
1 Timetwister
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Recall
1 Braingeyser
1 Copy Artifact
2 Jester's Cap
1 Millstone
1 Tormod's Crypt
1 Zuran Orb
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Pearl
1 Black Lotus
1 Sol Ring
2 Jayemdae Tome
2 Disrupting Sceptres
1 Mirror Universe
1 Library of Alexandria
1 Maze of Ith
2 City of Brass
1 Tropical Island
2 Underground Sea
4 Tundra
1 Adarkar Wastes
5 Islands
1 Plains
60 cards.
Sideboard:
2 Circle of Protection vs. Red
1 Feldon's Cane
1 Abyss
1 Moat
1 Disenchant
1 Swords to Plowshares
1 Jester's Cap
1 Millstone
2 Plains
2 Relic Barrier
2 Mana Short
Some changes to the deck were made in v.5.2. The most trivial, yet
important, is my error in v.5.1 -- I left out the 2 Disrupting Sceptres
which made the main deck 58 cards, and forgot the permanent move of 1
Plains to the main deck, which made the sideboard 16 cards. Many thanks
to readers who reminded me. :)
The other changers are there essentially to combat Blood Moon.
With the new land distribution of 5 basic islands and 1 basic plains (plus
the moxen & Lotus), the Maysonet deck is less vulnerable to Blood Moon than
before. It will slow the deck down some, but particularly after
sideboarding (when 2 extra Plains come in), it should be able to do most of
what it needs to do. At this point, it is similar to the Weissman deck in
resisting Blood Moon which strengthens it a great deal in my view.
Also, the addition of the Millstone improves performance dramatically --
Adam Maysonet claims that he can now finish games in under 20 minutes each.
This is no easy feat considering that he's playing a SLOW -- even slower
than the Weissman deck -- deck. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the
Type I archetype is stronger as a result.
I also added a Mirror Universe to this archetype because I believe it helps
the performance of the deck dramatically. It is fully possible to use the
City of Brass + Mirror Universe combo to win against a fast damage deck.
Fast creature decks get another Moat, StP, and an Abyss. With countermagic
support of the global creature hosers, the deck can survive a very long
time against creature-based attack.
The biggest vulnerability, however, is another Jester's Cap. In a
strange way, the Maysonet deck is just as reliant on its key cards as the
Weissman deck. The lack of Jester's Caps means that only Braingeyser,
Tormods Crypt (with Timetwister) exist to win. That could be a rather
heavy weakness. Against other Jester's Caps, the Maysonet deck sideboards
1 Millstone and the other Jester's Caps. Even under that setting,
the continual Timetwister & Tormod's Crypt may win the game in the long
run which is the only run that counts in this strategy.
One practical note: In some tournaments, the Maysonet style is
inappropriate while effective. The reason is time-limits. Unless the
opponent is gracious enough to concede, an average game may take
forty-five minutes to finish up. If there are time-limits imposed, then
the Maysonet strategy may take too long to implement. Plus, there is the
phenomenon of adjudication -- if the opponent managed to score a few hits
on the Maysonet deck, even if the opponent is helpless after three or
four Caps he will be ahead in life. Oftentimes, a judge may adjudicate
against the Maysonet player (who is FIRMLY in the driver's seat) anyway.
Depending on the draw and play, I think the deck is vulnerable to a Kim deck.
Mishras and Jades are immune from the Abyss, and Moat can be
countered/Disenchanted. The direct damage and the Mishra rush usually put
the Maysonet deck within range of a fireball -- if it goes through. But
draw is important. An early Cap could swing the balance the other way, by
taking out 3 of the 4 Mishra's Factories, then slowly leaching away the
Disenchants and direct damage. It becomes imperative, therefore, for the
Kim deck to counter the Cap -- except that there are other threats which
need countering as well.
The Weissman deck is solid enough to win in any situation, depending on the
draw, but against the Maysonet deck, many of its cards become worthless --
StP, Moat, Abyss, etc. are less than useful. Post sideboarding,
with Blood Moon in effect and more artifact killers, it may be able to even
the odds a bit -- but it is also likely that the Maysonet deck will
sideboard out the Moats and anti-creature cards for even more artifacts
(more Millstones & Caps) and more of its own anti-artifact spells.
For the Type II version of the Maysonet school, please refer supra to the
archetype deck under Weissman school. It's my own take on things in Type
II which lacks Moat and Abyss (so needs some creatures for blocking at
least). The deck preserves the basic features of the Maysonet School,
however.
In my experience of playing the Type II version, I know that the Jester's
Cap is an extremely powerful card. It is expensive, but in the
slower-developing Type II scheme, it is not impossible to get one off.
With a singel Cap, the momentum shifts very often not because of what one
removes, but because of what one learns about the opponent's entire deck.
There are few surprises after the first Cap (unless there's only one
particular card and he's holding it). Having the Caps adds to the
flexibility and efficiency of the Weissman design as I can remove all the
cards that threaten the Sceptre lock in any way.
There are a number of insights to be learned from the Maysonet school,
but the key is control not only of the immediate game environment but of
the future game environment. That is, as much as the Weissman deck
controls the immediate game environment by being unfriendly to permanents
in play and cards in hand (via the Sceptre), the Maysonet deck attempts
to control the future game environment by one, removing cards from play,
and two, letting the player know what to expect in the future.
--
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
Return to the School - Index
Return to the Dojo!
Comments to hahn@bway.net /
Last modified Thu Feb 29 1996