In this week preceding North American Regionals, perhaps the biggest tournament of the Standard calendar, it was my intention to center the article on the topic in a way that could somehow help you. The truth is that I haven’t played Standard in a very long time, either online or offline.
Don’t get me wrong, Standard is my favorite Constructed format, but because of the Grand Prix and Pro Tour commitments, I had to turn my attention to Time Spiral Block Constructed, 2HG, and individual Limited. The fact that my next Standard tournament will be Portuguese Nationals in September, with Tenth Edition, meant I didn’t worry too much about the current state of Standard with Future Sight.
By the way, many people have been asking me the same question lately. I believe my answer won’t affect your choice of deck, just like it didn’t affected theirs, but if I had to play Standard right now I would pick Triple Color. I believe Westerners know it by the name of Angelfire (what else could it be?) or Solar Flare, depending on the third color. Mostly because it’s a cool deck that I enjoy, rather than being efficient for this metagame, since it has a very rough time against Dragonstorm no matter what you do. It’s very unpleasant to play a long tournament with a deck you don’t like, and this one kills creatures, draws cards, and can also be semi aggressive, because it’s not a pure control deck with fifteen counterspells and two or three creatures for the kill. Well, I haven’t convinced anyone so far to play one of these decks, but in case you curious about the deck I would pick… now you know.
Instead of presenting you with more of the same well known netdecks – or perhaps something off the radar or with some new twists, but untested and with no Tiago Seal of Approval – I’m going to talk about something that I know, something that really helped me become a better player. Something that is extremely important when playing Constructed. It’s identifying and applying your game plan, and it can help you make better decisions, fewer strategy-related mistakes, and even add some more game wins during the tournament. This can be the difference between a Top 8 and a “maybe next time.”
One of the most common errors that I happen to face, be it when I’m playing or watching someone play, is the lack of a game plan. A player will be nothing more than a body drawing the cards and playing them, hoping they’re enough to win the game by themselves. Shockingly, sometimes it is! For example, it can be enough in a very favorable Constructed matchup, or when a Sealed Deck is clearly far better than the opponent’s forty, or when a player has good draws. In this case, you can just draw your seven-card hand, play them according to their casting cost (the two-drop on turn 2, the three-drop on turn 3), and you lay every card you draw in this fashion.
But sometimes, the pairings bring a tougher matchup, an opponent with a deck with the same or higher power level, a better or better-prepared player, or you just happen to have average draws. In those cases, you can’t rely on the cards to win the game for you. There are many players who don’t understand why they can’t win more overall when they aren’t making mistakes… that’s because while they aren’t making playing errors, they might be commiting strategy-related errors. Many such errors could be prevented if they had a game plan established from the beginning, instead of one formed based on the cards they draw and how the game develops.
Let’s take a card as simple as a Shock, with a tiny amout of text. With this card, I’ll try to show you the difference between playing errors and strategy errors.
- Playing Shock on a Benalish Cavalry with a Celestial Crusader on the table.
- Playing Shock on Knight of the Holy Nimbus without mana to pay for his ability.
- Playing Shock in a creature you intend to kill, after being declared as an attacker when you know your opponent has Strength in Numbers in his deck.
These are playing errors that most of the competitive community won’t commit. As such, they might think they’ve played a game without commiting any errors, but…
- Do you play Shock on a creature that’s attacking you, or do you point it at your opponent hoping you’ll topdeck another spell to deal the final damage?
- Do you play Shock on a creature that’s attacking you, or on a potential blocker?
- Do you play Shock on the first creature your opponent plays, or save it for something better?
The tricky part here is that any of these plays can be both the correct play and the error, depending on many factors. Because of that, some players won’t see them as mistakes, since the Shock did what they intended it to do at that exact point. The mistake here could be that what you were aiming for was not the optimal play to win the game.
By having a game plan, and executing it as soon as possible, you will make your play decisions according to that game plan, and not just because a single play seemed better at some point in the game. Executing your game plan once you’ve realized the matchup you’re playing is one thing, but sometimes you can know what to do as early as your first land drop, and sometimes you have a plan when you simply look at your opening seven.
For example, having many lands in your opening hand – seven or six, sometimes even five – can be a reason to mulligan… but it’s good to make every land drop in a control-on-control matchup. Once I played Standard format Psychatog against Mono Black Control with loads of discard and removal (that won with Corrupt or Riptide Replicator). It was Game 2. I kept with seven lands, and my opponent Duressed me on turn 1, exclaiming: “You kept with that?” My game plan in this matchup was to get to nine mana and play an Upheavel followed by Psychatog, with Force Spike or Circular Logic backup. All the other cards were in my deck to keep me alive until that point, or to get me closer to my goal. Note that it’s quite bad to have the Upheavel in the hand, as the Black deck has so many discard spells. That’s the reason why cards like Compulsion, Future Sight, and Deep Analysis were gold in this matchup. My hand of seven cards allowed me to dodge discard like Duress, and it weakened their main weapon – Persecute. Even if I was unable to defend myself against my opponent’s actions, he would still take a lot of time to kill me with multiple Corrupts.
Another example – at Grand Prix: Strasbourg, Rogier Maaten was on four wins and a draw, and assumed that he was in the draw bracket therefore playing against another slowish control deck. He kept a seven-land hand… and recoiled in horror as his opponent started with a suspended Rift Bolt. With the information Rogier had available, even if it was based on assumptions, he decided that hand was a keeper, and thought he had a game plan.
Usually in Constructed, players are familiar with having a game plan, at least on a basic level, when two different decks face off together. If you are the beatdown player facing a control deck, you want to deal twenty points of damage before your opponent stabilizes, or you want to exploit a weakness you know the control deck has. You can start directing damage at your opponent if you know you’re playing against control, such as Firebolts or Rift Bolts. On the other side of the matchup, the control deck has to neutralize the threats and stay alive, which means taking the least amount of damage possible, and efficiently using its mana costs, such as playing countermagic on any creature the beatdown plays on turn 2 if he intends to play Thirst for Knowledge on turn 3.
A beatdown deck like Boros Deck Wins in Extended, or the previous version Red Deck Wins with Jackal Pup and Cursed Scroll, plays an agressive plan totally tempo-based against Control, Aggro-Control, and Combo decks. The matchup versus combo is just a race, as the Red Deck has very few disrupion tools. The game plan is to deal twenty before the combo player wins.
Against aggro-control, you want a fast start to deal the maximum damage you can, but you have to keep in mind what to with your burn spells. Should you throw it at the face, or should you start playing defense on the board to have more turns to draw more burn spells?
Facing pure control decks puts you in the role of the aggressor, but not a mindless one like against combo. Depending on the information available, you have different plans… like knowing when to overcommit, or when to save some gas in your hand, or how viable it is to burn your opponent out and from what life total that’s viable. Having the answer to some questions, like how much mana do their answers cost, and whether or not they have mass removal or life gain, can help you establish the best game plan to win the matchup.
Sometimes you’ll face situations where you have to radically change your game plan. I know of two such situations. One is in a matchup where your original game plan won’t win you the game (from my personal experience, Owling Mine versus Gruul) or when two similar decks collide. Sticking with the Boros example, I’ll show you some changes of plan when facing other beatdown decks.
Mike Flores wrote in “Who’s the Beatdown” that the deck with the most removal usually has to be the control deck. Against Affinity after sideboarding, the Boros deck has access to Katakis and quality artifact removal like Ancient Grudge. With one card that almost wins the matchup by itself, and with cards dedicated to destroying artifacts plus the traditional burn spells that can act as creature control, the Boros deck won’t play his traditional plan of killing everything that moves just to attack with his tiny creatures. Instead it can run a plan where it neutralizes the key artifacts of the Affinity deck, eventually winning with a well-timed Kataki or with the recursion of Grim Lavamancer.
In a pure Boros mirror match, no one has access to more removal, and with similar draws both decks neutralize each other. Usually, there’s a change of plans for this mirror. Tempo-based strategies are not recommended, since both decks have access to the same creatures with the same power and toughness and the same mana cost, as well as the same answers. Most of these answers are very cheap and efficient, so it’s unlikely that the creatures will do much damage. One of the game plans coming from the sideboard is to equip a Silver Knight with an Umezawa’s Jitte, while the other is to play a card advantage game, since most of the cards trade one-for-one (one burn spell kills one creature), which was especially true back in the days where Cursed Scroll was legal in Extended. In these scenarios, many players like to draw, for the card advantage of having one extra card and to find a very specific card for a matchup… such as Cursed Scroll, or Umezawa’s Jitte plus Silver Knight.
If you identify your new game plan for the Boros mirror from the start, you can make small play decisions that follow the plan, plays you wouldn’t normally make… but plays that might give you an edge. For example, you’ll not take two damage from the Ravnica Block dual lands to play a creature to attack early, since it’s likely that they have an answer to it, and in this case you just Shocked yourself.
Here’s another scenario: after sideboarding, your opponent plays first and makes a turn 2 Silver Knight and turn 3 random creature. It’s your turn 3, and you also have made a creature on turn 2. You can use the mana on your turn 3 to play another one, play a Jitte, or keep mana open for a burn spell at Instant speed. While having a turn 4 Jitte and equiping it it’s devastating and you can have that play, you can’t allow yourself to be exposed to it, so it might be better to play a Jitte of your own just to prevent the scenario of happening from the other side. In this case, you ignored the tempo / damage based strategy, and played a new game plan of Silver Knight and Jitte advantage.
Mirror matches are the most feared matchups by the average player, mostly because they don’t have a game plan. After all, everything they do the opponent could do the same, so many players approach mirror matches with the notion that it’s all about drawing cards, and whoever draws best wins. It might be true sometimes, but in longer control matchups it’s less likely to happen, since more cards will be drawn in a longer game.
Starting with Control on Control matchups, most of the time the roles of agressor / control are assigned based on who has the inevitability. Both decks are built for the long run, with powerful cards, and in normal situations both don’t mind playing that long game. The players must be able to identify who has the inevitability and have a game plan based on that.
So, what is inevitability? In simplified terms, it’s a condition of the deck that makes that it win in the long run if both players aren’t doing anything. So whoever has it doesn’t need to move, while whoever doesn’t have it has to be the aggressor. This doesn’t necessarly mean being active from the beginning, but it does mean knowing that the player without inevitability will have to make a move and strike first.
Some examples of inevitability:
- A deck made of 60 Islands playing against a deck made of 70 Islands.
- Old School Tog with Upheavel and Cunning Wish to fetch Mana Short.
- Decree of Justice.
- Academy Ruins.
Historically, many control mirror matches were decided solely on the simple fact that one player has a better game plan than the other, which is very different from the concept of whoever draws the better cards wins. For example, my friend Carlos Romao was crowned World Chmapion playing Psychatog in a field full of Togs without losing a single match to the mirror. The Latin America playtesting team realized they shouldn’t counter the card drawing spells like Fact or Fiction, Deep Analysis, or Cunning Wish, because there were far too many targets. Instead, it was best to save the few counters for the key spells like Upheavel and Psychatog. This logic contradicts a cliche that says the player who draws more cards will win the control mirror, but for this particular matchup at this time, they realized the resources should be saved to focus for the key spells.
Another example was during the summer of 2004, where some Nationals were played with Skullclamp banned, while in others Skullclamp was legal (like Portuguese Nationals). The metagame consisted of Affinity with Clamp, Goblins with Clamp, and Elf and Nail with Clamp. I decided to play Elf and Nail, and already had game plans against both Goblins and Affinity, but after fifty or so games against Frederico Bastos we still had no clue how to win a mirror match where both players had access to Symbiote returning Wood Elves to hand. Eventually, Frederico broke the streak in his favor, and started beating me in the mirror. The reason? The deck only ran one Kamahl, Fist of Krosa, and Frederico’s plan involved not playing it or getting it with Tooth and Nail unless it was for the kill. Otherwise, you were just exposing your best win condition on the table to cards like Duplicant or Triskelavus, without having the opportunity to use the ability.
Right now, one of the plans for control matchups both in Standard and Time Spiral Block seems to be to charge the Storage lands to go off in one big turn. With Dragonstorm, you power up a big Gigadrowse at the end of your opponent’s turn, and then play the combo on yours. With Dralnu du Louvre or Blue/Black Teachings, you’re able to win a big counter war for a key spell just because you have more mana stocked, which allows you to play more spells. What does this mean? That as soon as you identify you’re facing a control matchup, you should be charging lands instead of doing something else. Some examples:
With Dragonstorm, if you draw a Sleight of Hand on turn 2 you should charge your land, and then play the Sleight of Hand on turn 3 and also charge your land.
With Dralnu du Louvre, charge your land on turn 2 instead of casting Think Twice, unless you really need the extra card.
With Blue/Black Teachings, charge your land on turn 2 instead of playing a Prismatic Lens, since you can play the Lens on turn 3 and still charge the land, unless you really want the Lens to accelerate a turn 3 play like a Careful Consideration or a Shadowmage Infiltrator when you have no Black mana.
I’m not claiming this is the best way to win mirrors and control matchups. I’m just saying that if you believe it to be, then you should start working on that game plan as soon as possible.
Combo decks play the same role against control and beatdown. Against both they’re looking for a big turn in which they “solve” the game. Against beatdown they’re racing against time, since those decks have very little disruption. All that matters is speed, and trying to win before they deal twenty damage. Versus control, you have a lot more time to position yourself and maneuver, but you have to work past through disruption that can include countermagic or discard. Usually it’s the beatdown and the control deck that have to adapt to the plans of the combo deck. For example, think of a deck composed of weenie creatures but with access to some discard. How will you play this matchup? Should you try to put all your attackers on the table first? When should you play your discard spells? As always, experience is your best ally, and nothing is more useful than having played countless times against that deck (or even with the deck). This allows you to get a feeling of when do they off, how often they go off, what cards they need, and how easy the deck can win with a topdeck.
My final example to demonstrate the differences between having a game plan and not uses a classic hand of a Rock deck containing lands, Birds of Paradise, Troll Ascetic, and either Duress or Cabal Therapy (or both). In almost all the situations I can remember, the better play will be turn 1 Birds of Paradise. If you have no information, and you’re playing first, than it has to be Birds of Paradise, as you can then react according to their first turn with either Troll Ascetic or the discard spell(s). When playing against a combo deck, with lots of deck manipulation cards (Brainstorm was particularly annoying), it might be better to cast a turn 1 Duress and turn 2 Birds and Cabal Therapy… unless fast damage is important and it’s a slow combo, as your discard will still be useful later.
Turn 1 Birds followed by turn 2 Troll Ascetic is good in most scenarios, while different plays can be better, but you’ll still have to identify them as they arise. Once, I was playing in a Pro Tour and I had this very hand with lands, Birds, Cabal Therapy, and Troll Ascetic. My opponent went first and played something that indicated he was playing Red Deck Wins – maybe a Mountain and turn 1 Red creature. I’d played this matchup many times before, and knew a thing or two about it: the turn 1 Birds on the draw never survives, Cabal Therapies are quite bad as they don’t have many cards left in their hand, usually you don’t have many creatures to sacrifice to flashback, and their best weapon is mana denial such killing Birds and destroying lands. Had I played on auto pilot with a turn 1 Birds, it was very likely that he would kill it. Then, on my second turn I would be forced to run a Cabal Therapy on Pillage or Molten Rain to prevent him from destroying a land on the next turn, putting me back on one land unable to play the Troll and pretty much anything else.
Knowing exactly what happens in the early turns of the matchup, I decided to play it differently. After seeing his turn 1 play I planned to cast a turn 1 Cabal Therapy, hoping to hit and seeing his hand. Turn 2 I’d play the Birds, and if needed use it to flashback the Therapy if they had doubles in their hand, or if they had removal for my Birds and land destruction to follow. This should guarantee a turn 3 Troll Ascetic. I’m still unsure if this was the better play, but my plan involved getting a Troll into play for sure on turn 3, and this play seemed to guarantee that as I would have a much better information for a turn 2 Cabal Therapy. None of this reasoning would’ve been possible without a certain flexibility in my game plan.
To identify and apply a game plan, you need a good understanding of the matchup in question. You need to stop, wait, and think (but don’t get slow play warnings) instead of playing the cards in auto-pilot mode. You can’t be tied to conventional plays and cliches. You also need to keep your blood cold, as sometimes the plan won’t be working and you’ll have to decide whether to change it or stick with it. While it can be tempting to go for the better play in the short term, you have to think ahead, as immediate but insubstantial profits serve nothing more than to mask your true goal, which is to win the game.
Best of luck to everyone attending Regionals, and make sure you have a game plan… even if it’s not a good one!
Tiago