Philosophy Behind the Game

Hey, this is Michael Hood-Julien and today I want to bring up the discussion of the the philosophy behind Mtg. I've been playing Magic for a little over two years, (when my college roommate re-discovered some decks he made back from the time of Invasion and Onslaught Block). Like most people, I was a bit reluctant to try out the game because of the nerdy reputation associated with it, but after giving the game a try a few times, found interest in the complexity of the game.

Certain Cards affecting the Game State

First, I found the cards interesting as I never played an interactive game where a good amount of cards actively altered the rules. It’s great to have cards that change the game state. Not only do those types of cards tend to be the most powerful cards in the game, but they change the way one approaches the game.  My first experience with this playing with an elf deck and being mana flooded. I thought the game was over for me because I really needed creatures and I needed many. However, a fortunate Ambush Commander changed my whole board, and it made it so I had a ton of elves to attack with to win the game in an “alpha strike”. However in another game, Ambush Commander ended up being a detriment when I considered payment to Magus of the Tabernacle’s ability. An effect, like Ambush Commanders, can be risky as (though it offers a huge advantage in creatures), it leaves you crippled to effects, like Wrath of God. 

Philosophy behind the Colors

I find the colors the most integral part of the game. Blocks have had all sorts of themes and yet the five colors have always found a way to attach different approaches.  Blue is usually associated with Control, while green is usually associated with Aggro. However, both Control and Aggro tend to be viable decks to play. Even when it comes to things like Tempo, both colors go about it in different ways. Blue tend to make things cost cheaper. Green tends to be the best at adding lands and mana to your mana pool. They are two solutions to the same problem.

In the most recent set released (MirrodinBesieged), I remember hearing a big debate on which one of the Crusaders were better. Although you can make several arguments for each one on what kind of threats they have invasion from, which is easier to build with, and whether double-strike matches the power level of infect + first strike, most regard them as similar in power level despite the fact that they approach the game from two different angles; they are the “poster child” for two different decks. Mirran Crusader takes full advantage of the plethora of mono-white knights, like Knight Exemplar and Student of Warfare. White also works strong with the great equipment in Standard. On the other hand, Phyrexian Crusader takes advantage of the strong infect creatures, like Plague Stinger and Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon. Black also utilizes strong disruption cards, like Inquisition of Kozilek or Go for the Throat. So how do you judge two knights that fall into two different archeytpes?

Philosophy behind the Game Play

In a game I witnessed in draft, I watched as my friend has a 3/3 artifact creature. He plays an artifact and attacks for 3. The opponent, with one card in hand, responds with Into the Core. Essentially, he would have been better off if he hadn’t played the second artifact. I’ve seen people do similar moves when countering an Oracle of Mul Daya (triggering a Summoning Trap, choosing Emrakul, the Aeons Torn). The player does a move that actually does worse in his/her favor. 

Another occasion, I’m playing a game between matches (and since time is up), I leave to go to my next match. My opponent boasts on how he would have won next turn with White Sun’s Zenith (with X being 4-5), until I reveal the Massacre Wurm in my hand. Uh, Yeah….

For my final example, I was once playing draft, where essentially I had a 2/2 creature and my opponent had a 3/3. I attacked with the 2/2 and I had about 3 cards in my hand and my mana untapped. My opponent had a peculiar look on his face and found it strange that I would attack with a 2/2 and must have figured that I had some sort of combat trick in my hand. He decided to take the damage. The next two turns I did the same. Eventually, he did cast a card to win the game (though it was a close match), but after the game, someone who was watching the game was discussing with me how he felt I shouldn’t have attacked. I argued that I didn’t have anything better in my hand. Although it would have been a blow-out if he would have blocked, is it really a bad move that made? I was able to read that he felt his creature was valuable to him and also anticipated that he didn’t want to block. I mean, I did an extra 6 damage that normally wouldn’t have gone through. Did I make a bad choice?

Essentially, I’ve played many games where if I just did 2 more damage, if I had just attacked on turn 2 or 3, I would have been the victor. However, with the knowledge, presented in from of me, I took the conservative route.  Often people get into long debates on which kinds of cards are better, but to be honest, it depends on what a player wants to do. In most cases, there isn’t a card that is “better”, but just does something that works more cohesively with what an individual is trying to do with the deck. In a blue-black infect deck; is 4x Inquisition of Koziliek better than 4x Signal Pest? Depends if you want to approach the game in a more aggressive or disruptive angle.  Where in some cases, there is an obvious better or worse choice, sometimes in Magic, there is only what approach or strategy that a player chooses to commit to.