Introduction
I am going to do a series of articles, peppered here and there, that discuss “small” or discreet individual elements of superior Magic play. Of all the components that make up the experience of tournament Magic – strategy, tactics, and operations – operations is the easiest to improve, and tactics is the measure of the premiere pilot (especially under pressure), but it is strategy that sets aside the absolute best Magic players.
To review, strategy is the plan that we use to approach a matchup. Strategy isn’t any particular play… it is the blueprint of all our plays, the glue that holds them together. This article is going to address a component of long game Magic that will improve about one in nine of your tournament matches; some players will get no value, but cutting off the end game probably applies to more than one in six of my available matches.
Cutting off the End Game
One way that you can improve your strategic game is to clearly understand how the opposing decks in the metagame win – I mean really win – and cut off their strategic avenues to victory. Magic is a game that allows for different perspectives and approaches, even if it allows for only one correct actual play at any given time, so we can use different terminology to describe essentially the same mechanical game plans. In this article we will discuss, specifically, the methodologies by which you can prevent the opponent from winning (and hopefully win yourself) by cutting off the opponent’s end game.
Specifically attacking the end game presupposes that the opponent has an end game, and that he is assembling a sequence to play into it. In a sense, it is like bluffing. You don’t bluff a donkey. You can’t cut off the end game of a player who has no idea his deck has one. If your deck can win an attrition war even if the opponent has access to most or all of his strategic resources, cutting off the possible end games is a rewarding plan of attack. However, there are numerous matchups where the more control-oriented deck (say, the deck with more expensive cards or more card advantage) is actually at a disadvantage given a long game (I informally call this the Invasion Block Rule, after the playtest session with Brian Kibler where we learned fast B/R consistently beats slow B/R). In these matchups it is vital for the “control” to win as quickly as possible. For example, whenever two decks with burn end games fight, the more aggressive deck is actually favored in a long game because the slower deck must use its burn for creature removal earlier and the more aggressive deck will enter the crucial topdeck turns with more life; therefore its x-spells are more deadly more quickly… The “control” has to close or the “beatdown” will do it for him, and the wrong way. Moreover, you would not want to play this way if, for example, your deck didn’t care about the opponent’s stupid end game (for example, Aluren combo versus Life combo); it would be a waste of your focus in a matchup you were going to win anyway. This sort of highly strategic play – that is, cutting off the opponent’s end game – rewards essentially only players who are very well versed in the opponent’s likely deck list. While strategic errors in general disrupt a player’s ability to win like a fulcrum rather than a point, any screw-up here will be even more devastating than most because attacking the end game presupposes a long game where both players see most of their decks. Here is where cutting off the end game is like Who’s the Beatdown: If you devote a great deal of your efforts to a specific plan and that plan fails, winning becomes essentially impossible because not only have you wasted a good deal of your efforts (cards), the opponent has had time to assemble whatever victory components he desires.
So Now What? Failure of the False Trump
The most common area where playing to cut off the end game fails is when a pilot decides how he wants to win, gets the cards he needs to win, and then oops, he didn’t win. Only rarely will this be a failure in execution, no matter how a self-deceiving hee-haw characterizes matters. Generally it is a case of a player thinking that his deck has some capability in a long game (probably because he loves his deck like a girlfriend, or wants to justify his incorrect deck choice) that it doesn’t have, and coming to a harsh reality via the harshest possible light. An example would be a few weeks ago when I blamed Asher for a loss versus a U/G Opposition deck via bad scout, when in fact it is impossible for G/W to deck U/G due to Beacon of Creation. The only way I could have won with Troll / Worship would have been if the opponent had not yet drawn Beacon of Creation and I gave him some sort of Dave Price The Stare and voodoo’d a “can we play to finish this match please” look that transformed his outlook by dominating Frame. This only works if he hasn’t drawn Beacon of Creation yet, again, because otherwise the suggestion is just too embarrassing. I was just wrong.
One deck I started testing in Standard months and months too far ahead of Regionals is G/R/W Snow. The Snow deck was a lock against the then-default version of Dralnu du Louvre, one of the most popular decks online before Planar Chaos and since, due to the presence of so much creature removal. With the default Dralnu du Louvre deck running 2-3 Teferis, 0-1 Lich Lords, and a general maximum of 1 Skeletal Vampire, Dralnu could essentially never cope with the 4 copies of Wrath of God, 4 copies of almighty Skred, and 4 copies of Mouth of Ronom (not to mention all the “random crap” like Gelid Shackles, Stalking Yeti, and Loxodon Hierarch, and certainly a resolved Rimescale Dragon) presented by Snow. One thing to remember is that in a long game situation, both players will develop “sufficient” mana to operate even their most expensive spells, and that both players will see the cards that they need to win. What will usually happen is that a deck like Dralnu will use Careful Consideration or Mystical Teachings to get quality short-term as well as bulk card advantage (probably off of Flashback), but almost for that reason, should Snow survive against the best of what Dralnu can present (read “use to defend”), should Snow get to the long, long game, the totality of its draws improve whereas Dralnu’s will get at least marginally worse. Snow’s card advantage via Scrying Sheets is relentless, with even inefficient threats demanding responses because of the free flow of mana. So long as Snow can play a respectable spell per turn (threat or answer) – maybe even two out of three turns – unenhanced Dralnu will simply run out. From the threat removal side, Skred is almost impossible to fight, realistically, with Standard permission spells, and when it comes down to what ultimately matters, Snow has as much as a four-to-one advantage in the Mouth versus Teferi fight.
This model was complicated somewhat by presumptive Apprentice #1 nominee ManningBot’s innovation of Grim Harvest in Dralnu. Grim Harvest could be annoying going long – it’s infinite and all – and made the matchup significantly less one-sided… But Snow was still the favorite. Snow is relentless with Scrying Sheets and an 80% batting average, playing and playing out cards that Dralnu, like it or not, has to stop.
However the decision by most Dralnu players to incorporate a single Extirpate as part of the Mystical Teachings suite is another matter entirely. The reason Extirpate is actually good here – I think of the initial hype around it as the worst sort of overblown nonsense – is that without Extirpate, Dralnu has essentially no chance of winning a long game in a matchup where it can’t play to win quickly. Dralnu, which you would think of as the control (usually presumed to be favored in a long game) can’t out-last four copies of Mouth of Ronom facilitated by four copies of Into the North and four relatively accurate Scrying Sheets (especially when a Sheets miss means that Snow is likely about to topdeck Wrath of God, Skred, or Into the North). Dralnu is slow on the kill and bereft of mana denial… “It just is.” On balance, if that one Extirpate shows – likely on the back of Mystical Teachings – the matchup is no longer just not an automatic for Snow, but it becomes a traditional repetition on True Control versus slow, board-development focused, mid-range Green; that is, Blue is favored.
In this case, Extirpate cuts off the Green deck’s source of inevitability. In the abstract, deck-against-deck, Dralnu is not fast enough to win… All of its threats will be dealt with, and Green will close the final point with numerous remaining cards. However, if the first Mouth of Ronom hits, thankfully eliminating a Teferi, which you would think of smugly and fantastic, that land becomes a juicy target for Extirpate. Bam! No Mouth of Ronom… No inalienable end game trump.
Our model for cutting off the opponent’s end game comes from the original Weissman:
The Deck, 1997
Brian Weissman and Michael Nickoloff
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 Mirror Universe
1 Amnesia
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Timetwister
1 Braingeyser
1 Recall
4 Tundra
2 Volcanic Island
4 City of Brass
3 Strip Mine
1 Library of Alexandria
4 Islands
3 Plains
5 Moxen
1 Sol Ring
1 Black Lotus
Sideboard
2 Divine Offering
2 Circle of Protection: 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
Brian’s plan against decks with lots of nonbasic lands was to side in Blood Moon and Circle of Protection: Red, probably alongside the Ivory Tower. The theory – and it was a good one – was that with Blood Moon out, the dual land-rich opponent would be able to tap only for Red mana. Drop a CoP and you’ve essentially cut off his possible routes to victory even under Blood Moon. A disproportionate number of the opponent’s topdecks became useless against a deck that is already geared to donk cards out of hand with Disrupting Scepter, and that can already cover the bases with permission. The opponent is denied action, let alone interaction. He has to assemble basic Plains (or Mox Peal) and Disenchant just to be able to play his spells; meanwhile he can’t sandbag because Weissman is attacking his hand with Disrupting Scepter and accumulating Mana Drains should the opponent present.
Cutting off the End Game with Mid-Range Decks
I am a well-known aficionado of “middle of the road” decks, specifically Green decks. I actually think that this might be an example of “life imitating art” because I used to love beatdown decks (read even my early stuff on Threshold and StOmPy for this site), but then I started testing the most in order to support the fact that I was / am writing the most. I test decks or am interested in decks, by necessity, that are not only viable, but make for good topics. Beatdown decks don’t generally have a real end game, and if it comes down to end games in a matchup, beatdown is usually getting the short end of the straw anyway. Talking about beatdown decks is pretty straightforward… How many articles can you get out of “attack them and then burn them out,” especially after multiple iterations of The Philosophy of Fire? Beatdown and burn are deck presentation-oriented, rarely strategy-oriented. Go back at “Fireblast, Fireblast” by Dan Paskins. Awesome article. I’ll read anything by Dan. He spoils all of it in the first two lines (Q: “What’s the only thing better than a Fireblast?” / A: “Two Fireblast”). Not that there is wrong with it (definitely not, I repeat not, with Dan), but it’s deck rather than strategy. Excepting a new linear mechanic (like Affinity for Artifacts), there is very little to build on past the principles… Even with an Affinity, explorations just end up about a deck or decks. Combo decks give you very few options as to how to play. The best combo article is something like Raph Levy’s Worlds report when he just said TEPS was the best… Which itself was probably the first look most players had at that brand of TEPS. After a cursory introduction, there isn’t much that you can convey in an article about how to be a strong combo pilot. You have to learn by doing. With either style, if you choke out an enemy’s end game just by being faster; there isn’t necessarily a lot of far sighted interactive strategy weaving your plays together. Even True Control lacks this specific brand of interactivity… No one is impressed by your ability to create a merciless wall of No.
On balance, mid-range decks can fluidly shift between different roles during different points of the game, attacking early, stifling primary plans, circumventing or choking off the opponent’s planned finale, winning during a relatively short window (even if it begins late) with a single threat. Because mid-range decks are worse at attacking than beatdown decks, and worse at controlling than control decks, infinitely slower and nakedly less powerful than combo decks, winning with them requires constant vigilance, tight play, and the ability to outfox when outnumbered. Mid-range rewards nuance. Look back at Jeff Novekoff article on his Beasts Rock. He tells you what to Cabal Therapy in which matchup.
Moreover, work with mid-range decks is much more rewarding on the delta than any other style of deck. You can get maybe 1-3% by making TEPS better; you can get 20% with a mid-range deck by changing one card. By definition, work with mid-range decks is not only rewarding, but also rich in content. Every innovation, every internal monologue, that you incorporate into mid-range strategies make for paragraphs and paragraphs of vigorously positioned content. The justification of Suppression Field over Dwarven Blastminer comes down to numerous matchup analyses, and the right bet is contingent on expected opponents. The in-fighting surrounding something as simple as Gilded Light versus Orim’s Chant showcases a compelling human drama that sets up characters for conflict and teamwork in future articles. Richard and Zac on Gifts Ungiven versus Solemn Simulacrum highlights the same dynamic; at the very least they get to talk about how smart they are. Most importantly, getting in bed with mid-range, spending lots of time with the only style of deck that is actually rewarding to discuss, is infectious. I was watching Dean Ornish on Google Video last week, doing research, and at the end of it found myself thinking “yeah, I can totally see why a low fat, low simple carbohydrate, diet could be optimal for health and anti aging.” Familiarity, over and over, breeds… more familiarity. When you have to work at winning a certain way, you almost necessarily get more and more invested in a deck and process. It’s hard to break away, even when you only created a deck, originally, for an article (I was going to play The Critical Mass update at States 2005, but make Mono-Blue as an example, but it turned out to be the awesomest).
I once suggested that “the Green-Black deck” was the best deck I ever built.
The format was the last PTQ for Gadiel’s Philadelphia, Extended that still featured Vampiric Tutor and other awesome combo-enabling options-oriented selection cards. This deck was intricate and awesome, the definition of an anti-end game deck. With one Vampiric Tutor and a good opening hand, the G/B deck could make it impossible for most decks in the then-metagame to win. The G/B deck had massive percentage advantages against Mind’s Desire, Aluren, and Cephalid Illusionist decks, strong plans against beatdown. Its sideboard plan – to remove main line disruption in favor of five Engineered Plagues and all the Cranial Extractions (probably for Naturalize) while managing life total with Vicious Hunger and Powder Keg – is a good example of how to cut off both proactive and reactive long game plans in Goblins.
The failures of the deck tended to occur when it is aiming in the wrong direction (I lost one-and-a-half matches – that is, three games – to poorly aimed Wasteland, Cabal Therapy, and Cranial Extraction), or by being out-mid-ranged (!!!). How do you cut off the end game of a deck with ostensibly superior threats whose plan is also to Duress you and set up an excruciating attrition fight? You can only win on edge with Haunting Echoes (that is, Extirpate 2002), but you might be on the wrong side of the math there. My second loss was to ‘Tog, a matchup that was very favorable in testing. I played for Undead Gladiator long games in both Two and Three, and embarrassingly lost Two to the false trump when I had a fist full of anti-Atog… Stupid Mana Short plus Corpse Dance.
I really liked this deck (hard to play), but Kowal of course just accused me to trying to recapture the Napster.
Speaking of Kowal, his This Girl deck (BK’s Angels), is a very good example of a mid-range deck designed to cut off the opponent’s end game.
You should be able to see how several of the topics we’ve discussed in this article come together to trump a variety of end games.
Against beatdown (Boros, Zoo, or Rakdos), which doesn’t really have a true end game but nevertheless generally plays short-term aggro and follows with burn spells to finish. This Girl could trade spells, gain a little card advantage, but most importantly manage life total with Firemane Angel and Lightning Helix. Note that Zoo’s Lightning Helix might be necessary to counterbalance its painful mana base but Boros gets very little additional value out of Lightning Helix, but This Girl – against one of the aggressive decks – plays like it has an extra card or two with every Helix. One way to look at these matchups is that the aggro deck has to deal a certain amount of damage – say 6-10 minimum – before it becomes realistic to win with burn spells. The Helixes and Angels, not to mention holding off the beatdown with both removal and creatures, prevents the beatdown from getting to the position where burn is workable.
Against True Control (U/W or U/g/W at States), This Girl had to play the beatdown to get the opponent into burn range, but would then invariably win with face-facing Demonfire. The Control would have all the card advantage… This Girl’s Angels would all be dead; Control would have the cards in hand. In fact, that’s exactly how This Girl wanted to play. This Girl wanted the Demonfire Hellbent.
This Girl was a dog in the Dragonstorm matchup Game 1, but had a strong sideboard plan. Between Mana Leak and aggressive mulligans, This Girl could deploy Grand Arbiter Augustin IV consistently before Dragonstorm could go off. Grand Arbiter Augustin IV makes life very difficult for Dragonstorm because, while the Arbiter’s “tax” doesn’t completely obviate Dragonstorm’s mana engine, it comes close… With fast threats like Lightning Angel, close is good enough.
This Girl was an out-of-left-field deck for 2006 Champs, when no one really knew what would make up the top decks, when few had heard of Scryb & Force, and Smallpox was what passed for razor edge tech. By Worlds 2006, even if This Girl remained a viable deck in the abstract, it would not have been able to ride strategic end game advantage against the top end of the metagame. To Wit:
Tsuyoshi Fujita, 6-0
Standard — 2006 World Championships
4 Forge[/author]“]Battlefield [author name="Forge"]Forge[/author]
4 Sacred Foundry
4 Flagstones of Trokair
4 Gemstone Mine
3 Mountain
1 Godless Shrine
4 Plains
4 Soltari Priest
4 Savannah Lions
4 Icatian Javelineers
1 Knight of the Holy Nimbus
4 Volcanic Hammer
4 Lightning Helix
4 Rift Bolt
3 Demonfire
4 Char
4 Seal of Fire
Sideboard
4 Paladin en-Vec
4 Cloudchaser Kestrel
2 Rain of Gore
3 Giant Solifuge
2 Honorable Passage
Fujita played three more lands (and three fewer Boros Garrison) than the other three undefeated Boros decks from Day 1 of the 2006 World Championships. Interestingly, he also played ten fewer creatures, was the only undefeated Boros to play any Demonfires at all. More interestingly, look at Tsuyoshi’s sideboard… he splashed for Rain of Gore.
Let’s approach the deck strictly from the lens of This Girl, Champs era. All together, these innovations blunt This Girl’s edges. Rain of Gore after a Compulsive Research can ruin what was, a moment ago, a very defensible play. With fewer creatures, Tsuyoshi makes Court Hussar, Wrath of God, and Lightning Helix all worse. They aren’t “bad” per se, but they aren’t generating the same degree of advantage. By adding Demonfire, he gets to ride the “same end game” generality from Invasion Block. What is stopping Fujita from an X-spell win if he enters the middle turns ahead on life?
Creatures (4)
Lands (23)
Spells (33)
This is the one that “retired” Ravitz. U/R/W has two strong end game plans against control, but the lock is supposed to be Hellbent Demonfire. Get damage in… It’s okay if the bad guy has card advantage. No problem. You don’t care if he has Spell Burst recursion… Get your Demonfire in there. The Commandeer got Josh in his matchup with Shuhei (very similar deck to the Top 8’s Mori and the undefeated Ishida)
Creatures (6)
Lands (22)
Spells (32)
- 4 Sleight of Hand
- 4 Seething Song
- 4 Dragonstorm
- 4 Remand
- 4 Telling Time
- 4 Gigadrowse
- 4 Rite of Flame
- 4 Lotus Bloom
Sideboard
Even with Grand Arbiter Augustin IV and Mana Leak, the Dragonstorm matchup is difficult. You have to draw your spoilers. You have to have the opponent not have Remand or Gigadrowse at the wrong time. You need him, many times, to not be on the play. Add five Calciform Pools and Dreadship Reefs? The dirty combo deck can get just enough mana to overcome the Arbiter.
I Really Should Know Better
As you probably recall, the New York players in my cadre all did well with a deck called White Wafo-Tapa last summer. Julian, Steve, Chad Kastel, and I all qualified for the NEC with it, and I finished Top 16 at that tournament with the same deck. I really like dissenting, and I like playing the best cards, so I tried to re-bottle the lightning for Regionals (early, as usual). Here is where the deck is at present:
Creatures (3)
Lands (25)
Spells (32)
- 1 Sacred Mesa
- 4 Wrath of God
- 2 Tidings
- 4 Rewind
- 4 Mana Leak
- 4 Compulsive Research
- 4 Remand
- 1 Debtors' Knell
- 4 Repeal
- 4 Spell Snare
Sideboard
Compulsive Research
Do people really not play this any more? Am I ahead of the curve, or behind? I was on Think Twice and Mystical Teachings > Compulsive Research before Champs, but Heezy (vote Herberholz for Resident Genius 2007) pulled me back to Compulsive Research in a White deck (digs to Wrath). This is a White deck.
Debtors’ Knell
The miser’s Knell is a holdover from last year, when we won on singleton Yosei recursion. This year it has been rewarding against opposing Compulsive Research, Magus of the Bazaar, etc.
Mana Leak
Staple.
Remand
Staple.
Repeal
I had this in the sideboard and Boomerang main, which was the beta version of White Wafo-Tapa last summer, but I pulled back to my own style (this is already the third generation of this deck) because I kept siding out Boomerang, and because Boomerang is inconsistent even against other control. I don’t want to lose to beatdown, so I figure, “cheat.”
Rewind
This was a second or third version addition. I don’t like Cancel whatsoever. I had Overrule for a while, but it was inconsistent, absolutely useless versus other control, where they have ‘Tron and Signets (whereas Rewind + Spell Snare is awesome). You do need a hard counter. Surprisingly, this has been pretty good with Prahv.
Sacred Mesa
I borrowed this from the Karsten three-color. It has been a very welcome singleton.
Tidings
I initially had four Careful Considerations, but I actually want bulk in a lot of matchups. I still don’t know if this is optimal. I like speed, as you know.
Wrath of God
Staple. This is why you play this deck.
Aeon Chronicler
This guy is too awesome. I’d play four (probably over Tidings) except it doesn’t actually do the same thing. Also Extirpate.
Prahv, Spires of Order
This card is good. You should try it.
Spell Snare
This card is good again.
Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir
I want a semi-diverse end game due to Extirpate and similar.
Urza’s Factory
See the above.
Faith’s Fetters
I hate reactive cards like Disenchant. When you play Fetters and Repeal in a permission deck, you don’t really need Disenchant. I actually won States with only Repeal, no Fetters.
Grand Arbiter Augustin IV
This is mostly for Dragonstorm. However, it is annoying for many. I bring in ~2 in a lot of matchups knowing it will die just to make the opponent play badly.
Jotun Grunt
I think a mix of Tormod’s Crypts might be better. I have two Grunts and two Crypts in Beach House, for example. However this deck kind of has to block… A nice compliment to Debtors’ Knell.
Mouth of Ronom
I just added these. I really just want cards to kill Teferi or Pickles pieces. You tend to have what time you need if they aren’t expecting this answer. Also, even if it doesn’t come to Mouth activations, lands are important control versus control. White Wafo-Tapa is almost unbeatable if the opponent plays your game, that is, he is willing to trade cards with you. You will win on Aeon Chronicler for Trish. The problem is if the opponent does nothing, or only picks fights at end of turn, or if the opponent sandbags Dreadship Reef and refuses to care about discarding (his or yours). You will fall behind and lose going long. However, if you have 28 lands, only one of you will be discarding, and you will have a better chance of being the one able to pick fights.
This deck is actually pretty awesome… sometimes. I always beat Dredge, for example, and comically. In Game 1 situations, I have my back against the wall and then I mise the one Debtors’ Knell. Stinkweed Imp keeps blocking the Restless Tomb (you are kold to Svogthos + Traitor’s Clutch unless you have Prahv, by the way). After boards Jotun Grunt and Faith’s Fetters make it look easy. Beatdown decks are pretty easy. They play stuff. You counter. You get a two-for-one. You win by the skin of your teeth. Easy. Not having Miren, the Moaning Well any more hurts, but the main deck Repeals on top of the Wraths are very nice. I never had any problems with beatdown decks last year (which were generally better) with Repeal and Faith’s Fetters after board.
I am actually fine against other control. By “fine” I mean I haven’t been as far behind Teferi as you’d think. Aeon Chronicler is pretty good, even if he’s not allowed to resolve. The biggest problem I’ve identified is the complete inability to beat the Pickles combo if the opponent, you know, draws one of the pieces. They just have a better end game and White Wafo-Tapa doesn’t have much to say about it. Add in that the Pickles decks tend to have more mana… You get the picture. Last year we beat ‘Tron decks by having more counters, or by being able to pay three or out-last their soft counters heads up. This year, if the opponent has far more mana, he can force down Pickles and it’s next to impossible to get out from under it because, drum roll, both decks go long.
I am going to keep at this one, play around a bit with Snow, but honestly? The best decks in my gauntlet are Beach House and Orzhov Aggro! Holy Godless Shrine! Embarrassing, I know.
LOVE
MIKE