The difficult we do immediately. Impossible takes a little longer.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Seabees”) during World War II
This is not just a clever turn of phrase or self-aggrandizement. What does it mean for something to be difficult? Looking up the definition of difficult, I found numerous variations of “hard to do.”
What does it mean for something to be hard to do? “Not easy.”
What does “easy” mean? “Requiring little effort.”
So, difficult is something that requires great effort? What is effort? Effort is the use of mental or physical energy, exertion. When it boils down to it, difficult is essentially “expensive.” The cost is whatever the cost is. Money? Natural resources? Maybe, but at the end of the day, money and natural resources are just a measure of time (or rather, focused time). If something costs more money than you have, you can use time to get the money. As a matter of fact, any and every cost associated with doing things is really an extension of costing you time, time where you are exerting Will in The Universe.
What is the difference between Easy, Difficult, and Impossible?
Easy is inexpensive. It costs little, such as what it costs you to bend down and pick up your wallet if you have dropped it.
Difficult? Difficult is expensive. If it is what it takes, it is what it takes. The question of whether or not something is worth the cost is an entirely separate issue, but so long as something is “worth it to you,” then what it takes is what it takes. This is not to go down an “ends justify the means” type of discussion, which can be pretty much summed up with:
1) If the ends don’t justify the means, what does?
2) The cost is more than just money, it is also what you are. If you are a liar, a cheater, or a thief, you may have accomplished something on one level, but the cost is actually a greater order of magnitude, making it is easy to “not make it worth it” to use these techniques for approaching problems.
You left your wallet at a convention center 200 miles away? Well, it can be difficult to do what it takes to get it back, but what does it matter? If it is worth doing, you do it. The effort it takes is just what it takes. If it is difficult, but possible, then really, what it takes to do is having the will to do it. How do you get the will if you do not have it? You have it at will. That is the entire point, anyone can have will at will, and all they have to do is will themselves. That is why it is so important to realize you are capable of anything. Once you realize that you can win, you can succeed, you can create, you can discover, then you are that much closer to realizing that all of these things are yours at will, all it takes is a will.
What is the definition of a will? (If I gave you a hint, it would be a dead giveaway.)
An experiment to consider is, when facing a new obstacle, ask yourself: “Is it possible?” If you determine that it is possible, ask: “What would it cost?” If, to you, it is worth what it would cost (not just money, of course), then just do it. That’s right. Waste no time and just do it immediately, no matter how difficult it is. This is no small feat. For instance, I have been going about winning a Pro Tour for a long time, and have not yet done so. Why? Obviously, there are a lot of games going on, not just the one, but even more than that, I am still learning how to go about doing it. Is there a random element that it is not feasible for me to overcome? The random element of Magic is not actually very high compared to many games. People that are quick to talk about how luck-based Magic is would do well to reflect on why it is possible for people PV or LSV to win as much as they do. If there is enough skill for them to be that good, then the opportunity for skill is always there; we just don’t see it.
Impossible? There are many kinds of impossible, but the long story short is that impossible basically just means “more expensive than you can currently afford.”
For instance, if your wallet was on the moon, it would be impossible for you to get it back, right? Of course, that is only because you do not currently have the technology to be able to convert your focused time efficiently enough to do it. Is there any reason why you couldn’t overcome this?
What if your wallet was on Pluto? What about if your wallet was destroyed in the year 184 AD? What about if your wallet never existed?
Yeah, this article is probably going to veer a little bit out there, but who knows? Maybe it is possible that there will even be a little Magic discussion somewhere in the text.
One of the most valuable lessons my parents ever instilled in me was reminding me at an early age that I am capable of anything. So many people have been taught the very opposite, an unfortunate belief that holds them back, locked in their own mind.
It is a tad clichéd, but the truth is you are capable of anything you set your mind to. Even if you don’t realize it yet, it is more useful to operate as though you are.
Here are some things that one might say are impossible:
1. Defeating Mono-Red with Turboland
2. Qualifying for the Pro Tour
3. Flying
4. Invisibility Cloaks
5. Teleportation
6. Time Travel
7. Faster-than-light travel
8. Perpetual Motion Machines
How many of these are “really” impossible? It would seem we need a better way of differentiating between classes of impossibility.
Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist that has written a number of books, including Physics of the Impossible.
Read it? Yes…
If not, I highly recommend it and will draw on it to help distinguish between the different classes of impossibility. According to Kaku, there are three main types.
Class I Impossibilities
Class I Impossibilities are “technologies that are impossible today, but that do not violate the known laws of physics.” Class I Impossibilities may be impossible today, but eventually we should be able to develop the technology.
For instance, in 2006, Duke University and Imperial College bent microwaves around an object so that it would appear invisible in the microwave range. The object is like a boulder in a stream. Downstream the water has converged in such a way that there is no evidence of a boulder upstream. Likewise, the microwaves converge in such a way that, to an observer from any direction, there is no evidence of an object. In 2008, two groups, one at Caltech and the other in Germany, were able to bend red light and blue-green of the visible spectrum. This made the object appear invisible in the red and blue-green light range. However, this was only at the microscopic level. Still, there is no reason to think that this technology will not continue to advance and evolve. Invisibility cloaks may be impossible today, but our technology is already on the right track to exist some day.
Teleportation is another Class I Impossibility, in that it doesn’t violate the laws of physics and it is conceivable that the technology could exist 100 years from now. Today, scientists are able to teleport only information at the atomic level. Information can be teleported from Atom A to Atom B, for example. But this is nothing like beaming Captain Kirk down to a planet and back. In order to do that, a person would have to be dissolved atom by atom then rematerialized at the other end. On the scale of a decade, it will probably be possible to teleport the first molecule, and maybe even a virus. The fact that we are already at this level, and that the technology is moving in the correct direction, suggests that it is only a matter of time before we have the technology to actually teleport matter.
In theory, with a computer large enough and programmed sufficiently (the size of Australia?) and enough energy, we could teleport you to Las Vegas. The reason it is currently impossible is that we cannot yet afford it.
Class II Impossibilities
Class II Impossibilities are “technologies that sit at the very edge of our understanding of the physical world,” possibly taking thousands or millions of years to become available.
Time Travel is the perfect example of such a technology. Time Travel is not forbidden by Einstein’s equations, while we may not yet know how to even begin to develop the technology to accomplish such an end. Still, the fact that it is not expressly forbidden by science suggests that the technology could someday be discovered, though this would not be developed for hundreds or thousands of years. Whereas Class I is all about not having perfected the technology, Class II is about not even knowing how to begin to look for the technology. The two major physical hurdles are energy and stability. Traveling through time would seem to require the entire energy of a star or black hole, or perhaps even somehow harnessing “Negative Energy.” Will the radiation from such a journey kill you? Could you get back?
Why speculate on such things? Examining the “Impossible” has often lead to discover rich new areas to study. Maybe humans will die out before they ever discover Time Travel. Maybe we will someday discover a reason why Time Travel must be impossible. For the time being, however, it is possible on paper, meaning there are awesome opportunities to discover and learn about The Universe. One does not need to have four quadrillion objects to count to know that two quadrillion plus two quadrillion is four quadrillion.
We may be unable to afford Class I’s, but Class II’s? We don’t even know where to shop.
Class III Impossibilities
Class III Impossibilities are “technologies that violate the known laws of physics.”
Perpetual motion machines are a great example of Class III impossibilities, as is faster than light travel. Development of these technologies would represent a fundamental shift in human understanding of physics. Basically, in order to accomplish these impossibilities, we would have to have a new framework for discussing the universe, since we would have to have a new understanding of what The Universe is.
Class III’s are not only not for sale, they are also expressly forbidden from ever being built, let alone bought, making them significantly more impossible that Class I’s or II’s.
What does all of this have to do with Magic?
Magic is a game where people speak hyperbolically. A lot. So often, people dismiss cards, decks, or other ideas out of hand as being “impossible.” In my experience, most impossible stuff isn’t even that hard. The first step to doing the impossible is to believe the impossible.
Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said” One can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll
Does this mean believing the illogical? No! Far from it! It would be illogical to believe the illogical. However, there could always be something we do not yet know. Something that could logically allow for the possibility of whatever impossible thing which we conceive. The point is not to believe a paradox is possible, but rather to imagine what would have to be so to make the impossible thing possible, even if it is as outlandish as blowing up a star or spending a million years to do it.
The hidden truth is that anything is possible. The Universe is that amazing. The word impossible at its core is describing our understanding. In Magic, keeping an open mind about “possibility” is an incredible fundamental element of creating and discovering technology. You want to build decks? You want to discover new uses for cards? You want to develop new strategies that change the course of Magic?
Open your mind.
When one sees a new card or the spoiler for the new set, it can be very tempting to dismiss cards with which you see a problem, or that don’t do whatever it is you imagine they could. It can be so tempting to write off a strategy as “not as good as Jund, Faeries, whatever.” How much is gained by bashing and cutting down new cards, new ideas, new strategies? It can be fun and can help instil a feeling of “I was right” to say every card in the set is probably not going to be tier 1, since almost every card won’t be. Still, it is far more fun to create, to find something that others did not see.
A mistake I see so many make is to overcompensate (generally unintentionally) and go the other way. Is it keeping an open mind to say that every card is going to be great? No, that is not even thinking at all. Not every card is going to be great. Rather than just look at cards as 1’s and 0’s (Good versus Not-Good), it can be far more useful to understand a card’s function. What circumstances must exist for it to be possible for this card to work?
It is so tempting to dismiss cards from Constructed saying something else is “strictly better.” In my experience, these evaluations are not just wrong because of Mindslaver-type arguments. Saying Obstinate Baloth is strictly better than Ravenous Baloth is foolish, for instance, since if there was a reason you wanted to be able to sacrifice your creature every turn, you may prefer the Ravenous Baloth (let alone sacrificing Mutavault).
What I am trying to say is when looking at cards, especially new cards, the shortcut to develop is not “Is this card a 1 or 0, is it good or bad,” but rather “What is this card’s purpose?”
Merfolk Spy – This is a card that many would be quick to dismiss, saying it is a 1/1 that doesn’t do enough. This might be true in many contexts, but to have this card available as a tool for our arsenal involves understanding what it does. For instance, it is a one-cost Merfolk with two abilities. The context where it would be good might be the one where we want a one-drop Merfolk (maybe our Merfolk deck) that can take advantage of its abilities (Maybe we use Spreading Seas or Cabal Therapy). Understanding what it does do allows us to make more informed decisions, even if we never actually do use it.
Obstinate Baloth – This card is the perfect example of how easy it is to be hypnotized by a possibility. Just about every serious tournament player can see how this card was engineered as a foil to Jund, but if that is the extent of the examination, we miss much. Think about how many decks in which Loxodon Hierarch has appeared. Sure, it has often been a sideboard card, but it has also often been a maindeck card. What are the uses of Obstinate Baloth? Besides hosing Jund, it can provide a nice midrange body, particularly if you are in the market for a four-drop. It obviously gains percentage against Mono-Red, but how does it stack up against Wall of Omens? Path to Exile? Rhox War Monk?
Warlord’s Axe – Now here is a card that I have been able to nearly entirely write off from Constructed. What does Warlord’s Axe have going for it? Compared to Sword of Vengeance, it grants an additional +1/+1 instead of granting first strike, haste, vigilance, trample, and costing one mana less to equip. To me, that is a huge drop in power. The Sword is better in almost every way. Trusty Machete is like a Warlord’s Axe that costs a ton less, yet grants only one less power. Does this mean it is impossible for Warlord’s Axe to be worth it? No, but to understand what it would take, we must examine what it does better. Sometimes, scenarios occur where you need a specific bonus, even if it costs a premium. Still, it is exceptionally unlikely that the exact bonus +3/+1 is going to be so vital as to be worth this cost.
What about if a new card was printed:
Charlie, Smanda Warrior
R
Legendary Creature – Human Warrior
When Charlie, Smanda Warrior enters the battlefield, you may search your library for a Warlord’s Axe and put it onto the battlefield equipped to Charlie, Smanda Warrior.
1/1
This is a pretty extreme example, but the point is to keep an open mind to the possibilities that could exist in the future. Open your mind about the differences between cards. What differences are their between Warlord’s Axe and Sword of Vengeance? One additional difference is the name, which means that if Charlie, Smanda Warrior was printed, Warlord’s Axe would have a massive application on account of that “difference” between it and the Sword of Vengeance.
An awful lot of cards are going to be “for Limited.” Generally, cards like Warlord’s Axe, that are designed to be used in Limited but are costed out of Constructed and don’t do anything unique or special, are all going to end up in that category where they are unlikely to ever be good, but it is not a sure thing. Understanding what it would take to make it possible for it to be good is worthwhile, as once you understand how to do this with cards, it comes all the time, and it’s actually relatively easy yet useful.
Time Reversal – This card is the perfect example. Is this card bad? I think that those that snap “No” might be missing the point. It may be bad at doing something specific, but bad in general? I think the card is not particularly busted because you are not actually getting that much value for five mana, but the card is much more interesting and important because it does something that is not exactly commonplace (like a random power/toughness modifying equipment). It does something different to anything else, so while you may not be in the market for such an effect today, knowing what context would make it possible is the single best thing to know if situations change in the future. Time Reversal lets you draw seven cards for five mana, which is a rare thing. In addition, it refills your library, it forces your opponent to draw cards, it gets rid of their graveyard, it changes their hand, and more. The card has tons of huge effects, so you may not want to play it today, but you might someday (then again, you might already).
Lotus Cobra was the same. Lotus Cobra was initially hyped through the roof, which lead to a backlash when it was quickly revealed not to be the best creature of all time. So many people on the 1’s and 0’s system for card evaluation then “decided” the card was bad, instead of the far more useful position of understanding what it would take to make it possible to succeed. Michael Flores was right when he pointed out the raw power of the card, even though it took months for people to learn how to use it. Zvi did not use any such 1’s and 0’s system, instead realizing that what it would take is a deck where you have plenty of creatures worth killing and enough four- and five-mana cards that were worth utilizing Lotus Cobra for, cards that would still be good even if you didn’t draw the Cobra (or it died).
Let’s say you want to be critical of a card, such as Lotus Cobra (or whatever the new hype card may be… Jace, the Mind Sculptor; Kozilek, Butcher of Truth; Time Reversal). Make sure you speak in terms of contexts. For instance, I was critical of claims that stated Lotus Cobra was allegedly better than Mind’s Desire or Tarmogoyf here, but further examination reveals that rather than just bash the Lotus Cobra, an examination of possible applications leads to a much better understanding of the card and the format. I was not initially as turned on by Lotus Cobra as Flores and some others, but there had to be reasons why they held the card in such high esteem, and I am thankful to have taken the time to learn the possible applications from them. Not every card will turn out to be a winner, but keeping an open mind is vital for being able to tell the difference between a Lotus Cobra and a Countryside Crusher and a Sarkan Vol.
Many people have commented and responded to my last two articles, as well as Evan Erwin Magic Show 197, prompting to me to add one more piece of food for thought. I linked to Information Cascades recently for a reason. It is not just about “doing it yourself.” It is not just about breaking away from netdecking. It goes the other way as well. Many people are quick to dismiss netdecks, and “not let themselves” do something because it would be netdecking.
Jamie Wakefield recently wrote:
Holy God! Why am I not playing this deck (Jund)?
“I should just spend the three hundred dollars and play Jund.”
“Would that be fun? I’m fine with you buying Jund if you want.”
“Yeah, that deck is awesome. I would laugh my ass off playing that deck.”
“What I’m asking you is: would you, and the people who really support you, be happy to see you qualify with Jund?”
Jamie is a truly gifted writer, and while he may play up the whole casual Green mage angle, don’t be fooled. Jamie can win some games of Magic. The thing is, winning at Magic isn’t what Jamie is trying to do, which is revealed by these comments. No, Jamie isn’t just “trying to have fun” either. Jamie actually admits here that he not only thinks that Jund would give him the best chance to win, but that it would actually be fun! The truth is that Jamie wants to win with a deck that he created. It is not enough for him to win, or to have fun; he wants to build a deck (and from the look of it, a budget Mono-Green deck) and win with it despite the naysayers.
Is this “bad?” It would be if he was actually trying to win or to have fun, but if he is happy with his goal, then it seems perfectly reasonable. What if he actually does want to have fun winning, though? What if those same friends that tease him about considering Jund are holding him back?
Would the people who really support Jamie be happy to see him qualify with Jund?
I know I would.
Is it really impossible to just say “I wanted to win the tournament, and I thought the best deck to play was Jund… and it was fun?”
“Wait,” you might be saying, “Isn’t Jamie just innovating Mono-Green, refusing to give in to the hivemind?”
No, don’t you see? If he is actually trying to win (not just build his own deck), then he is letting the hivemind dictate his deck choice. The fact that many others do it is the reason he is not doing it. That is no different than people that copy Jund because everyone else does it, except that he is intentionally choosing something he thinks is worse. Remember, don’t let him hustle you with all that Mono-Green talk… he is a competitor. The thing is, Jamie is a perfect example of a very common self-imposed restraint that holds back TONS of Magic players (Jamie is simply one of the most eloquent).
The reason Jamie would not just be “letting the Hivemind dictate his deck choice” if he played Jund is because the way he arrived at Jund being the best deck was through his own experience and game playing. He did not just start with Jund because it was the most popular, but rather he found from lots of experience that Jund was the best deck he knew of, and one that he would enjoy. Remember when Jamie began this comeback, how he spoke highly of Jund and praised its existence? Why does he not let himself use it? The taunts of peers? It is exactly this sort of self-imposed constraint that it holding him back, because I am here to tell you, Jamie is definitely still a strong enough player to play on the Pro Tour.
This type of overcompensation is very common, and is actually just as much the “problem” as people that always netdeck. See, Jamie may be “finding his own way,” and it is clear that he has a strong understanding of the technology he wields, but he refuses to pick up the Laser Guns and Rocket Packs and use them himself. The key is not to avoid technology, but to understand it. The game isn’t to “stop netdecking.” That is the same problem in reverse. A balance is the best recipe for success, as talked about in Information Cascades. Again, if you haven’t read that article this year, I can’t recommend it enough.
If one always netdecks, they will generally never understand the technology they wield, but if one never netdecks, never taking the time to fully understand Jund, Turboland, Mythic, Mono-Red, and so on, they will never be able to design the technology they could if they did understand the strategies. The reason we want to be able to build decks is not because we want people to think we are clever. We want to be able to build decks so that we can win more at Magic. Part of what it takes to have an understanding of Magic theory that will lead to winning more at Magic is taking what the Hivemind has produced and learning from it. It is all about balance, not overcompensating by going the other way to an extreme.
We are not so weak as to need excuses when we lose, justifications to try to preserve our self-worth. We are better than that. Complaining that your opponent used a netdeck is the coward’s way. It is cowardly because it tries to avoid facing the truth that maybe they made a better choice than you. That is a hard fact to face. Remember, we could all play Jund. Those that do are choosing to do it. Those that don’t are choosing not to. We all have our reasons, but at the end of the day, we are all responsible for our actions. Before jumping to point out the cost of Jund (which I would like to add is significantly easier to acquire than spending $300, in my humble opinion), remember that getting the cards to compete is part of Magic. Some people have more money to start with, but just like a short man being able to play basketball well, so too can a man without much money acquire cards, such as trading or networking to a degree where it is more feasible to borrow cards to compete in tournaments where you can win store credit to acquire the cards you need.
If you are going to duel someone to the death and you get your choice of a Knife, a Sword, or a Gun, don’t be mad when your opponent selects a Gun and you brought a Knife. That was your call, man.
If you do not care about becoming a master deck builder, then there is less reason to care about netdecking, but if you do care, seek balance. The master deckbuilder has every strategy in his range, Combo, Control, Aggro, White Weenie, Dredge, Burn, Rock, everything. Many strategies are traditionally bad or not as good as most of its pilots think, but that doesn’t mean that it is impossible for the strategy to be good some day.
Obviously, losing a match doesn’t mean that we definitely made a worse choice, but if we are secure in our choice, if we are proud of it and would make it again, we have to be okay with the fact that a 60-40 favorite still loses twice out of five. Why do we need to try to cover up our decision? If we are happy to have rolled the dice we rolled, why do we need to insult our opponent for choosing the dice he chose?
Instead of hating the netdecks, why not love them? Your opponent is your enemy in many regards in a game of Magic. The enemy you know may have bigger guns than the enemy you do not know, but they also have weaknesses, weaknesses that you can use against them. People will play what they will, so rather than get frustrated and hate that they do, it is so much more useful to be like a graceful dancer. Be a sword fighter that doesn’t complain about the opponent’s constant thrusting. Instead, use it against them.
My suggestion? One that seeks deckbuilding mastery ought to combine innovation with imitation. Build decks yourself, but do not limit your deck selection to decks you have built. Deckbuilding mastery is not something that comes easily, nor is it not without a cost.
Have you spent over 10,000 focused hours building decks? This is certainly not a line that when crossed assures mastery, but many forget that a subject as complex as Magic theory is not something that can be mastered in hours or days. Heck, some people don’t even think it exists! In fact, the road towards mastery is perpetual, as the road itself is the thing, as there is always more perfection to discover, more impossible things to melt away. Wisdom can take time, and can often ride alongside gray hair.
When I noticed my first gray hair, I thought I would curl up and dye. It was not until I got back to my roots that I discovered I could cut it. LSV is on top of things when he says it is possible to be a grateful head on tour.
The existence of Magic theory masquerades as a semantic one, but at its core, it is very much like Chess theory. You may believe it or deny it, but people that know it win more often. Magic theory is the same way, so think of it like this:
Maybe Magic theory is all wrong. Maybe it is all just folklore and attempts to explain the intuition of a few, but a massive amount of evidence would suggest that pretending Magic theory is a real thing, one that can be learnt and discussed, has lead to many, many people at all levels winning a lot more often.
Comparing Magic theory to scientific theory is foolish, because Magic is more than just a science. Magic is also an art.
Magic theory is the discussion of principles or methods of playing Magic, rather than the practice of it.
Patrick Chapin
“The Innovator”