After playing two whole Elder Dragon Highlander games I feel qualified to deliver a theoretical discourse on deck building. That’s sarcasm people, look at my screen name. However, you might want to read further since my lifetime record in EDH games is 2-0. I’m undefeated! Actually I just noticed a difference in strategy that might be worth noting. There are, I’m sure, many different philosophies that can undergird any multiplayer deck choice. I’ll talk about two general ones today; the first being a “Toolbox” approach, the second being “Generalist” approach.
I’m not saying that either way of building is superior (actually, I have a definite slant, as you’ll see later, but I really do believe that both views are potentially successful ways to build a multiplayer deck), and yep, there’s plenty of other ways of conceptualizing deck building too (anybody ever heard of “Recursion,” for example?). I’m just giving a bipolar framework for looking at EDH or any other multiplayer deck building. Maybe it will be useful the next time you sit down to build. Let’s start with the Toolbox approach. This term is ubiquitous enough within Magic writing that most of you already know what I mean. In EDH, you have 100 card choices which must be unique (yeah, yeah, except for basic lands, Whiny McWhinerson). Given that the number of different threats others will be playing will be quite diverse, why not include pinpoint answers to many different types of threats along with several redundant ways of searching out theses answers? We could be using Idyllic Tutor to fetch Oblivion Ring to get rid of an opposing Garruk, or Cream of the Crop in an otherwise creature-laden deck to put the Shriekmaw on top. Maybe it means transmuting Dimir Houseguard for Damnation, or Mystical Tutoring for Disenchant. You get the idea. Card advantage comes from dealing with threats (or, I suppose, making the most abusable threats) so efficiently that other players can’t execute their plans effectively.
On to the “Generalist” approach. This is not simply the converse of a Toolbox strategy. The two philosophies share similar core ideas about how games are won. Generalists also believe that the way to win in multiplayer is to deal efficiently with threats and provide the best threats of one’s own at the right time. The difference is in the execution. Oblivion Ring is a great card- the perfect card to get rid of a single planeswalker. But Apocalypse gets rid of every planeswalker, every scary enchantment and artifact, and every dude in play (and your hand, but hey, you can always suspend guys prior, right?). We know there will be many times when O-ring will be better, but Apocalypse is a more consistently useful way of removing things from the game, and that is more valuable to the Generalist. That is the essence of this strategy- no scalpels, only hammers. If any of you have read Anthony Alongi’s multiplayer stuff, this would be sort of a cross between Cockroach and Gorilla strategies. Keep your things around, affect as many permanents as possible, and hopefully the quality of your threats and answers will net you card advantage (and the win) long term. The Generalist wants every card to be as useful as possible in as many situations as possible. Konda, Lord of Eiganjo is a 3/3 for seven mana. That’s pretty much the antithesis of efficiency. But he also lives through 75% of your opponent’s removal (and your own board sweepers) so Konda is a lot better than his stats belie. Speaking of board sweepers, they all get in the Generalist’s deck, not because sometimes they would be the perfect answer to have when you’re behind on the board (that’s a Toolbox ideology) but because most of the time they’ll deal with most of the threats that most of your opponents throw at you.
To whit: You know what two card combo is really amazing? Triskelavus and Acadmey Ruins. Make the Trike, make dudes, kill stuff, rinse repeat. Some good. And they’re even okay cards on their own. That’s the scalpel approach. Here’s the hammer. Akroma, Angel of Wrath. Yes, Trike/Ruins combo will remove opposing creatures, chump block, and given enough turns and mana, win the game all on their own. And yep, Akroma will never kill that annoying Royal Assassin. But she will beat face. Most of the time, against most opponents, the better threat is Akroma. Hey, it’s good to be one of the best creatures in the game. Let’s try some more examples. Scalpel: Mystical Teachings. Hammer: Whispers of the Muse. Teachings is objectively better on the first (and even second, flashbacked!) use. But with the buyback Whispers only gets better the longer the game goes. Scalpel: Sundering Titan. Hammer: Armageddon. I know everybody really wants a 7/10 after binning all your opponent’s land and none of your own non-basics, but Armageddon does the job, every time, against all opponents. Suck it up and sandbag some lands prior to blowing up the world. One more. Scalpel: Cryptic Command. Hammer: Time Stop. “But wait, TooSarcastic! Cryptic Command gives a player all sorts of flexibility- it should be the epitome of a Generalist card!” Au contraire, voice in my head. You can counter exactly one spell. You may also bounce a guy (useful in multiplayer, but not usually backbreaking) or tap an opponent’s team (again, less useful since tempo is glacial in multiplayer games) and or draw a card (cantrips are only exciting if the original effect is good as well). Now look at the hammer. Time Stop ends the turn. It ends the freakin’ turn! No more Storm count. No more attack step. No nothing. See how the Cryptic Command is really a scalpel masquerading as a hammer? It deals with very specific needs, not general ones. It’s still a good card for multiplayer, but only if you buy into the Toolbox strategy to begin with. If you want to be a Generalist, just end the turn already.
And yes, in case you can’t tell, I am a Generalist. So come to Captain Bondage Goth’s place on Friday nights to beat me with your Toolbox EDH decks. I’ll have a hammer waiting for you!
5 comments:
I can't be there on Friday. I have observed that the more players you have, the more of a hammer approach you need. The scalpel is needed in one on one or team games. I had already planned on shifting gears to a hammer approach, which I can accomplish by either changing out three cards or revamping the deck with an idea I had. Either way, we won't find out until next weekend.
A very nice beginning, TS. Now if only we could get you to use paragraphs.
The big issue that I have with playing a hammer deck is that, in large games (4+ players), you will get nailed down. People are going to start seeing you as always the threat. Look at The Captain. Every game, he does several hammer things, but he's always on 12 life, because people hit him whenever they can. I am really curious to see how long the playgroup puts up with Jokulhaups/Detritivore before you get flattened.
Again, a very strong article. If you keep that up, we'll lose you to SCG in no time.
Building a deck or choosing the appropriate cards for a multiplayer game is pretty straight foward. On the other hand, playing a game with enough political savyness (doubting thats a word...) to win is another issue entirely. I've seen games won on dumb luck and I have seen games won on sheer political ingeuinity. For instance, its very easy for a person to flaunder early, not be considered a threat, only to emerge as a front runner in the late game. As you can see, this has little to do with whether or not a scalpel or hammer is being used. The card choices made by the individual might increase their likelyhood of actually winning, but getting to that point is worthy of another "article". I think it would be good material to discuss things such as; 1) You have the only creature on the board. Who do you attack? 2) Hammer guy is attacking mana troubled Johnny with Finkel gaining tremendous card advantage. You have the answer to Finkel. Do you use it?
Its pretty obvious that our EDH group has popular targets, and knowing each other's decks helps with this, but I think there are still some interesting choices being made in the early to mid-game that eventually set the course for the eventual outcome.
Anyways, I'm excited to draft LLM. If anyone is interested in starting to think about Lorwyn Block, as I believe this is the next PTQ season, I'm all ears. With only two sets and the obvious tribal theme I think it will be a cheaper constructed season, one that my penny pinching ass would like to try out.
First comment ever,
Andy
PS I also thought the original thread was written very well.
A couple of the comments focus in some way on the role of other players' strategies and how they affect your own (or vice versa, I guess, CGB). You can call it politics or you can call it whatever you want. It DOES merit an article or seven on its own, but I don't think it belongs under the deckbuilding moniker. Why? It's really an issue of play skill. If I play my deck to be a Johulhaups/Detritivore "combo" every time, then yeah people will be banging down my door. They should be trying to kill me then. I sat for five turns with a Konda out and could have mised damage on either of my opponents and not even worried about the swing back, but chose not to attack so as not to appear a threat. It worked. But again, that's really about playing in a multiplayer game. For the record I hate, hate, hate, the political aspect of free-for-all games. Hate it. I would much rather do "attack left" or Emperor games. But if I have to play free-for-all, then I will alter my play style to suit the situation, making people think I'm weak when I'm strong, bluffing strength when I'm weak. But I WOULDN'T build my decks differently because of that. It's hard enough to be better than two or more other players, you don't need to water down your deck fpr the sake of politics as well. Play with the best cards. You'll always need them.
T
Really? You hate it? I hate attack left, where your seat and your draw is more important than your skill or your deck. Soooo random. And you hate random. And you've won like the last four multiplayer games you've participated in. So what's up with that, my homie? Also, LLM friday! w00t, as Noah Webster would say.
Post a Comment