Last Flores Friday, I posted a Mono-Black control deck for Kamigawa Block. It might not have been the best deck, but it was

fairly good at beating the opponents it was intended to fight.

Noticing the absence of Terashi’s

Grasp given the removal of basic Plains, one poster quite understandably commented:

"How does the black control deck overcome Pithing Needle set to Kagemaro? In general, the new black deck is missing

**any** enchantment/artifact control. I dont think that its safe to leave any Heartbeat of Springs in play, nor is it a good idea

to run a deck that has **no** answers to any of the good equipment being played… I would think that these are BIG holes in the

new decks design, that the original covered down on."

This set my mind to work. Similar situations, especially concerning equipment, came up quite a few times in testing… Yet the

Black deck would often prevail.

The wonderful, brilliantly written, and seminal font for all that is good not just in Magic writing but the world at large, Who’s the Beatdown? taught us that beatdown and control roles

are fluid, and can be reassigned from matchup to matchup. That doesn’t prevent us, though, from blanket categorizations based on

common trends. For example we call the TOGIT Three-color deck a "control" deck despite the fact that it operates more on

the order of ErhnamGeddon or some kind of Toolbox than a Weissman or Cuneo deck… But in a format where the most common enemies

are White Weenie and Black Hand, the role probably sticks for the majority of matchups. In some cases, the lines between beatdown

and control are blurry – just look at the aforementioned Black Hand decks in the current Block Constructed PTQs. The controlling

decks seem to have more Kagemaros and the

beatdown decks more equipment. The aggressive decks play nearly as much creature elimination to get blockers out of the way as the

control decks play to defend themselves; as both varieties of decks play the same threats – Jitte, Hand of Cruelty, Ink-Eyes – they have similar games, and both go on

CounterSliver expeditions with regularity. Even more blurry is the line between combo and control. Gifts Ungiven… Which is it? What about High Tide?

At the end of the day, decks in general can be difficult to categorize outside of context. If you want a general rule, I think

it is that control decks have to answer questions. All decks have holes – Circle of Protection: Red can slow

down Deadguy Red, Affinity dislikes facing Energy

Flux, and Napster hates a Grim Monolith

– but where the beatdown decks all sort of grin and say "I kill him first," the control decks don’t have that luxury.

Which brings us to the forum poster’s comment.

The important thing to assess when building a reactive deck is that yes, you have to answer threats… But you don’t

have to answer all the threats, at least not directly. In fact, if you try to answer some, you will invariably incur

opportunity cost that may or will hurt you elsewhere. At the same time, should you choose to answer a certain sort of deck’s

questions, there are very important rules that you need to follow in order to make sure you are answering with the right responses.

Throughout Magic history, the interplay between specific threat and specific answer has yielded decks just a hair different from

the common build… but decks that have become the icons of constructed Magic.

In the present example, I don’t think that Pithing Needle is a very good card. It certainly has its place, and is probably the best card (due primarily to its

mana cost) at fighting Sensei’s Divining

Top early. However the reason I dislike Pithing Needle is that it only rarely generates real card advantage, and quite often

fails to even keep card parity. Let me explain:

In testing Standard pre-Regionals, we found that Arc-Slogger was the best creature in the format.

You can blab "Eternal Witness"

all you want, but if you correlate win % between games where Witness shows up or doesn’t, they probably vary by something like

5-10% depending on the specific deck in question. If you track games where Arc-Slogger shows up on the other hand, you see

something very different. I found with my Kuroda-style Red that I won over 90% of the games I untapped with Arc-Slogger in play,

regardless of matchup, attributing the majority of losses to games where the big Beast was hiding in the deck somewhere or I didn’t

have five mana to play him before losing.

So this obviously led to the whole "how do you trump Arc-Slogger" line of thought. One of the first cards that came

to mind was that great new chase rare, Pithing Needle. The end result of the testing was "so what are you going to do about my

Arc-Slogger?" Pithing Needle would turn off the Arc-Sloggers (admittedly insane) special ability… but not really prevent a

huge 4/5 Beast from running over the hapless opponent. Quite often the other deck – often Black – would Terror the Arc-Slogger, which in general meant that

the Pithing Needle was the wasted card.

Kagemaro falls into the same category. What kind of deck is most scared of Kagemaro out of a deck like this? A Weenie deck. In

this format, given the base threats and answers that appear in real decks, the said probably has 2/2 creatures for 1, 2,

3, or even 4 mana. This weenie deck sets Pithing Needle to prevent the portable Mutilate that Kagemaro is so famous for carrying

around in his giant, fat girl-like posterior. Sure, Pithing Needle can stop the globular excrement of universal doom, but What

Is It Going To Do About His 5/5-Ness? Now obviously the removal of Kagemaro’s Mutilate condition is helpful in many ways, but it

is also using a card without actually removing the relevant efficacy of the Legendary Demon Spirit.

Is Pithing Needle relevant? Without completely answering Kagemaro, the answer is clearly yes. It can set up Kirin to kill the

First to Suffer without fear of Mutilate retribution. It can simply buy time. Kagemaro may still be a giant, but at least he’s not

a gamma bomb. Sadly, this is not the line of argumentation we want to follow, and it does not mean that the forum poster is correct

in his analysis, as the question is answered by the Black deck’s own sideboard.

Proactive Response

At its essence, the forum poster’s concern is that the Black deck will not have a way to sweep the board. His analysis is that

so long as Pithing Needle sets to Kagemaro, First to Suffer, the Black deck is vulnerable to swarm. It may be the case that Black

is more vulnerable to swarm without this option, but the presence of the Pithing Needle does not remove the ability to

sweep, because Black Brings In Hideous

Laughter.

What is the exchange?

Black: In Game One, my sweep trumps your swarm.

White: Pithing Needle will neuter your ‘Maro. Hence you have no sweep for my swarm.

Black: In playing Hideous Laughter, I sweep your swarm, retain my ‘Maro, and laugh at your Pithing Needle.

White: …

So what is the answer to Pithing Needle set to Kagemaro? Rather than answering the Pithing Needle itself, Black’s goal is to

answer Pithing Needle’s strategy rather than Pithing Needle itself.

In general it is preferable to somehow attack the opponent’s strategy rather than the specific tools that he uses to achieve

that strategy. In this case, Hideous Laughter answers the baseline White question (weenie swarm) whether or not Pithing Needle

comes into play. It is a highly relevant removal card, usually garnering 2-for-1 or more; this does not change based on the

presence of Pithing Needle except to make it more important when that artifact is working its mischief. Hideous Laughter

effectively slows down the opponent in anticipation of more powerful threats regardless of the opponent’s sideboard cards… And

just so happens to give an out in the case that the big slug is stymied.

I didn’t test against any decks with Heartbeat of Spring, but as I said, I did test against several kinds of decks with

equipment. Now obviously without even Jittes of its own, the Black deck will have difficulty destroying a Jitte or other

relevant equipment. Interestingly, these equipment can be both sources and black holes of virtual card advantage. What I found very

often was that the Black deck would just eliminate every creature. With no creature in play, equipment was irrelevant. So long as

no good man showed up, every additional piece of equipment with no direct answer was a blank, and the Black deck would win with

Ink-Eyes long before they came online. Obliquely, in a good portion of the matchups, Hand of Cruelty itself was an answer to

equipment. It might not actually destroy the equipment, but in the absence of a few creatures (Lantern Kami, Hand of Honor), it would keep counters off of

Jitte and soak up damage without spending a spell, removing much of their vitriol, if not their presence.

Notice how in this case, aggressively focusing on the Black deck’s proactive strategy of dominating the creature aspect of the

game can simultaneously answer classes of cards without resorting to dealing with them directly. Certainly a player will sometimes

have a Manriki-Gusari which can pump

toughness past Hideous Laughter… but for every Manriki-Gusari, the Black deck had at least a Sickening Shoal, not to mention the sum total

of large creatures and spot or sweep elim.

Focus on What’s Relevant

A similar "you’re missing an answer to…" came up in Standard, where certain players lamented the lack of answers my

Red Deck had for the card Troll Ascetic. As

I tested, Troll Ascetic came in two distinct forms:

Naked

Carrying a Sword

In general, players said that I needed this card Flamebreak to kill Troll Ascetic, and Teddy

Cardgame suggested I play Shatter to kill his friend the Sword of Fire and Ice; others liked Oblivion Stone for its ability to answer all

different kinds of cards, but most everyone said Flamebreak. Flamebreak, Flamebreak, FLAMEBREAK. [Unforge turned out to be

a better Shatter that I had overlooked. – Knut]

Sideboarding Flamebreak in my Red Deck is not just sub-optimal, doesn’t just smack of The Fear, it shows a fundamental lack of

understanding in how the deck interacts. In Game Ones, I loved to see Troll Ascetic. The Medium Green deck I tested against most

was Brett Blackman’s – the one that eliminated Anande Khare from the Philadelphia LCQ – and had Wood Elves in the main, Trolls in the side. Do you

know how scary a Wood Elves is when you’re on the draw? Sometimes you bite a Plow Under on turn 3 and never have a shot to play

Magic. A Troll Ascetic on the other hand was a slow threat, usually played by a deck with inconsistent mana development. If the

opponent were foolish, and got in there while you just played your board down, he always lost. Why?

Pulse. Of. The. Forge.

In the mid-game Troll Ascetic wasn’t getting past Arc-Slogger, who, with an untap, would end the game time and again.

I respect Terry Soh Troll and Nail deck… but only when it is correctly applied. Ask Terry about his games against Osyp

off-camera at the Invitational. I have played against numerous Tooth and Nail players who have gone transformative for Game Two…

and never lost a sideboarded game. By going Trolls, the Tooth player would make himself slower than the Red Deck and present

useless cards rather than advancing his fundamental strategy.

In short, I did not play Flamebreaks against Naked Trolls because such would have been a foolish waste of sideboard space.

Trolls wearing equipment presented a different problem. Sword of Fire and Ice was annoying, but not in and of itself lethal. A

Troll with a Sword kills in three swings, though, so I had to figure out a chump block somewhere along the line. Luckily I had

eight artifact creatures. Teddy’s Shatter would have answered the Sword half of the problem, but not the Troll; the situation

against a post-Shatter Troll would be far different than a Game One or Tooth and Nail Naked Troll… A previous Sword-toter would

be hitting for more than twice as much damage early, and given a single hit and the spend of a Shatter, I’d be down a card and

jockeying to catch up rather than counting to 20; Shatter would not do.

Brian David-Marshall luckily suggested Unforge. Unforge was great because it answered both Troll and Sword, the actual

problem card. Even when the opponent had available mana to pay regeneration, Unforge was a Fog.

Secondly, I had Culling Scales. Culling

Scales was absolutely broken on many levels, but its synergy with Unforge in battling Trolls with Swords cannot be

overemphasized.

Now these cards answer the Sword of Fire and Ice… and sometimes manage to get the Troll as well. How do they fit into our

puzzle? Unlike Flamebreak, they work. Notice how if the opponent has a Sword, you aren’t going to kill his Troll with Flamebreak

anyway. Worse yet, the Sword, not the Troll is the real problem here. It is the Sword’s Protection from Red that is disrupting your

strategy, not the Troll it is attached to. You Don’t Have To Kill The Troll. Worrying about the Troll

strategically is like thinking to yourself "I don’t have a second Ace to crack his Kings" when you are the proud

owner of an Ace high flush.

One of the problems with Sword of Fire and Ice was that it could turn a lowly Birds of Paradise into a difficult-to-block

threat that was also immune to the Kuroda-style deck’s usually inimitable firepower. By playing Culling Scales, both parts of that

problem could be answered in a single card.

In sum, the deck did have difficulty removing Troll Ascetics… but as they weren’t inherently relevant, it didn’t have

to. By concentrating on the real problem, I could either continue to blissfully ignore Troll Ascetic or kill it sometimes…

as an afterthought to the job I actually had to do.

Shifting Paradigms

My favorite implementation of this kind of threat-answer interplay – and Zvi will doubtless accuse me of repeating myself –

comes from Regionals three years ago. The big decks we expected were Deep Dog, Psychatog, and G/R Beatdown. The apprentices and I

developed a Mono-Black control deck using the shell of a discarded Kai Budde deck list that was fierce against all three leading

archetypes. In one marathon test session, I dispatched Josh Ravitz Psychatog deck 24 straight games in pre- and post-board

situations, ruined G/R in by removing all its creatures… And yet managed a best matchup of the three against Madness.

The problem was that the Green decks – primarily G/R – were sideboarding Compost.

Traditionally, the MBC deck could not hang with Compost. The G/R deck would lose creature after creature as in game one… but

would simply never run out of steam. Eventually it would beat or burn resource-exhausted MBC out. We tried a variety of things,

including the Green-hating Paladin, to stay at parity with Compost card advantage, but cards like Volcanic Hammer made that impossible.

Instead, I figured out that we should sideboard in a ton of six-mana threats – a third Visara the Dreadful and a couple of Laquatus’s Champions – and fundamentally

change the field of battle. Under the status quo, the matchup was all about cards. Black had inherent resource advantage, but via

Compost, the G/R deck would overtake it in card advantage and win with the last threat; it could win any exhaustion war by simply

never running out of threats while Black spent both mana and defense in a battle it could not win. What we did was shift the

relevant resource to life: preserving our life total, erasing theirs. The Black deck still had fundamental mana ramp, card

flow, and mountains of removal… in fact, we sided in more 1-for-1s. But instead of trying to win an exhaustion war, we

used these cards not to trade answer for threat, but to control time while we continued to lay lands.

If all we did was keep threats off the board, we could develop our mana without molestation. Eventually, we’d have Laquatus’s

Champion with regeneration mana, an inviolate defender who happened to take 6 or even 12 life points with him in a short window,

such that a Corrupt later, the opponent – with seven cards in grip – would be scratching his head, wondering why his life total

read empty.

That Regionals I personally defeated at least six Composts. I did it not by removing the Compost itself (Culling Scales would

have been great!), but by stripping the virtue from the strategy that Compost fueled. By making the game about life, it didn’t

matter how much card advantage I seemed to yeild because the game was no longer about that. Have All The Cards In The World,

Friend. Which One Of Them Lines Up Against Laquatus’s Champion And A Pair Of Corrupts?

The Race to the Fundamental Turn

I find that the best defensive strategies attack. When you let the opponent dictate the terms of an interaction

("this game is about my Jitte") you have to play by his rules; you may mistakenly enter a mindset where you

believe that the game revolves around some key permanent he uses to threaten you, even when it only looks that way, or only

is that way because you let it. You grasp for even sub-optimal methods of answering that permanent in the vain hope that

its removal is, like Love in the Beatles song, all you need. The problem is that when the opponent controls the

initiative, you can’t hope to win with one-for-ones; even when you are "successful" at playing his game, you

just fall less behind, rather than taking the lead for yourself. Imagine if I had tried to fight Trolls and Swords with Flamebreaks

and Shatters. Half the time I would have Shattered the Sword and died to the Troll, the other half of the time I’d be staring at a

card that did three to me but didn’t kill the asbestos-garbed Troll at all.

An old priest once said that when you pick the wrong tool for a job, you not only fail to do the job, but you often foul the

tool. In Magic, it is frustrating to find yourself in a situation where the other guy’s Compost is making your "overwhelm his

creatures with removal then take control" strategy decidedly underwhelming. It is in these situations that you have

to examine not just the threat, but how the threat fits into the opponent’s overall plan… and pick a battle that you can win.

Think of it this way: an unbreakable shield isn’t much help when you haven’t got an arm to hold it.

LOVE
MIKE