Magic is a game of decisions, and there’s little surprise that Magic players are often involved in difficult situations where they have to compromise and make the best of the circumstances. Everyone knows that making the right decision would lead them to the right path. However, the ultimate question of “How do you get there?” lies in the process of making the decision itself. Today, I am going to talk about making the right call in your decisions from deckbuilding all the way to sideboarding, in hopes that you’ll pick up a thing or two that you can apply to your game.
Economics 101
Economics often measures the value of a course of action and helps make sound conclusions based on the derived results. I found it applicable to Magic with regards to building a deck.
Marginal Utility
Utility is an abstract concept. We use an assigned value of utility to represent a relative value. Marginal utility is the added utility derived from each unit of consumption.
In simple terms, marginal utility measures the relative amount of satisfaction that we gain from each additional unit that we purchase. However, take note that the value assigned in measuring the units of utility was arbitrary, and each individual has a different utility level.
Now, we attempt to apply the concept of marginal utility to our beloved Magic: the Gathering.
Building a Deck: Budget
Deckbuilding is the very beginning of the process that every Magic player needs to undergo in order to play a game of Magic. One can argue that trading might come first, but since I’m not an expert in the field, and I’m definitely a player more than anything else, I’ll skip trading and focus on assisting you maximize your chances of winning, without giving up that additional unit of consumption.
Budget often plays a huge role in determining what players will play in most scenarios, with Pro Tours being an exception. Most PTQers would like to avoid paying hefty amounts for playsets of Jaces and Elspeths just to play U/W Control. I’m not saying everyone would, but generally people have a good idea of what they’re going to play based on the cards they own, unless they’re willing to make a huge purchase for the upcoming PTQ. I have nothing against that, but here is my question:
Are you really maximizing your resources, and if you are, are you maximizing your marginal utility?
Now, when building a deck let’s assume that the utility of building a competitive deck is 80%, while the utility of building a deck that you really like is 100%. Also, assume that both the competitive deck and the deck you favor have the same win percentage of 50% in most matchups.
I’ll use Jund and Mythic as an example. There’s no doubt that Jund was the best Standard deck for some time, and although newer cards kept improving the other decks, most decks never had a win rate of over 50% against Jund. Mythic is also a relatively powerful deck that focuses on its own game plan of out-tempoing its opponent with speed, attrition, and difficult-to-handle threats.
For simplicity, let’s assume that Jund is the competitive deck with 80% utility, while Mythic is the favored deck with 100% utility. Now, I’m not sure about the actual price of either deck, but I’m sure the Mythic deck (featuring Baneslayer Angel, Jace, and Elspeth) easily costs twice as much as the Jund deck, which is loaded with commons and uncommons. Given the assumption that both decks have the same win rate, would you pay double the price to play Mythic with 100% utility, or you would play the cost-efficient Jund with 80% utility?
Ultimately, the answer lies in how much you value the 20% difference of marginal utility between the two decks. If you feel that the 20% utility can justify paying double the price, then you should go for it.
Otherwise, the wise decision is to always play the reliable, cost-efficient Jund. Note that there are no right or wrong answers to this question. It’s meant to illustrate an analysis of how you can make the best decisions over time.
There can also be a reverse situation where a player happens to own most of the Mythic cards and buying all of Jund would be considered cost inefficient.
Also, if a player believes that the win rate of both decks isn’t equal, I
strongly
recommend the player go for best deck regardless of cost because I believe win rate is the most significant factor in choosing a competitive deck.
Otherwise, with all things remaining equal, the right call is choosing to play the most cost-efficient deck because the price will add up over time, and this can become significant.
Building a Deck: Mana Curve and Win Conditions
Michael Jacob wrote an excellent article about
building your deck around a linchpin,
which talks about the win conditions of a deck.
Usually, the superstar in your deck that can take down games on its own often costs four mana or more. It makes sense because generally the more expensive spells are better than the cheaper ones. However, we can’t put every card that costs four mana or more into your deck because your deck would be clunky, and you’d end up passing the early turns without much action.
This is where mana curve plays an important role, especially for beatdown decks. Throughout the years, players have gotten better; deck technologies are much easier to obtain than before, and as a result, modern decks are often well balanced.
Beatdown Decks
When you’re building a beatdown deck, the key theme should be aggression, followed by resilience and attrition. Think about the successful beatdown decks. Think about the number of one-drops and two-drops that they run. You’ll notice that most of the time, the percentage is about 30-50% of total non-land cards played. Let’s take a look at the density of one-drops and two-drops of Paul Rietzl Pro Tour Amsterdam White Weenie deck designed by Gabriel Nassif.
Creatures (22)
- 4 Figure of Destiny
- 4 Ethersworn Canonist
- 4 Knight of the White Orchid
- 2 Ranger of Eos
- 4 Steppe Lynx
- 4 Student of Warfare
Lands (23)
Spells (15)
With 37 non-land slots, there are a total of 24 permanents in the deck (twelve one-drops and twelve two-drops) that cost two mana or less, or a staggering 64.8% of total non-land cards played.
Statistically speaking, in an opening hand with an average of three to five non-land cards, it’s really hard to not have a drop by turn 1 or turn 2. Beatdown is all about curving out in order to maximize damage and maintaining a superior board position. Generally, when you’re building a beatdown deck, here’s what you should keep in mind:
One-Drops: 8-12 slots
Two-Drops: 4-8 slots
Three-Drops: 4-8 slots
Four-Drops or Higher: 4-8 slots
Note that the slots given are almost symmetrical and make sense because they allow you to make a drop every turn without wasting your mana. You don’t want to be casting a one-drop or two-drop on turn 4 if you could be casting something that costs four. On the other hand, you always want to be casting something on turn 1 or 2, thereby restricting the numbers.
A well balanced number of early drops and late drops is ideal, and the percentages will work out in the long run. In fact, almost every successful beatdown deck is in this configuration, and you should keep this in mind when building one.
Control Decks
Control decks are generally harder to define because they’re made according to a particular format. If a metagame is choked with creatures, having an endless stream of removal is a no-brainer. If a metagame is filled with combo and control, discard spells or counterspells would fit better.
Generally, a control deck has almost no one-mana spells (besides those like Preordain or Lightning Bolt, I suppose) because a control deck wants to build its deck around utility spells that can be useful across the whole span of the game. However, control decks also want to play cheap spells that allow it to control the game early and maintain the player’s life total, so that it can take over with more expensive spells later in the game. This is why cheap counters or removal spells like Mana Leak, Lightning Bolt, and Terminate are essential to have in a control deck because they generally work well from turn 1 until turn 6 or later (although obviously Mana Leak gets a lot worse in the later stages of the game, but we have to live with it in Standard). Generally, here is what you should keep in mind:
One/Two-Mana Spells: 8-12
Three-Mana Spells: 4-8
Four-Mana+ Spells: 12+
The configuration here is a lot different from that of a beatdown deck. Note that one and two-mana spells are clumped together because control decks don’t need to apply pressure on turn 1 and 2. All it needs is to answer something on turn 2 and 3 and to play its expensive spells, usually consisting of card advantage, to take over from there. Control decks also have far more spells that cost four or more than any other decks in a format because they’re designed to abuse the raw power of expensive spells. For example, Michael Jacob Top 8 deck from Pro Tour Amsterdam has a total of fifteen spells that cost four or more.
Creatures (2)
Planeswalkers (3)
Lands (26)
Spells (29)
Mulligan Decisions
Now that you have a deck and are playing with the correct configuration of cards with assorted mana costs, let’s say you play your first game and draw seven cards. The question now is: do you mulligan?
Generally, the biggest question that you should always ask yourself is: “Can I win this game with this hand?” And be honest with yourself.
Let’s make an assumption that hands with mana issues should be an auto-mulligan (zero or one land or six or seven lands), while hands with an average mix of lands and spells are keepers (two and five landers are fine hands; three and four landers are ideal hands most of the time).
Now, ask yourself this question: “Should I mulligan this hand because I don’t think I can win with it?” Ask how aggressively you should mulligan. For simplicity, let’s say the hand has no mana issues; you have the right mix of lands and spells. What we want to know is how aggressive you want your hand to be and how it affects the game state.
At Worlds 2009 and Pro Tour Amsterdam, I piloted aggressive decks for both tournaments to respectable third and tenth place finishes, respectively. One of my keys to winning was aggressive mulligans. Especially at PT Amsterdam, I averaged about 1 to 1.5 mulligans per match throughout the entire tournament, yet I won a lot of my games.
What do I base my decision upon when mulliganing? Here’s what I usually do.
Assuming there’s nothing wrong with the mixture of lands and spells, I look at the casting costs of the spells in my hand, as well as who’s going first in that game. For example, a hand with two Bloodbraid Elves, Vengevine, and four lands is an easy mulligan for me. This should apply to every other deck as well.
Generally, I dislike my chance of winning a game if my hand doesn’t contain anything that costs three or less. If you don’t draw a cheap spell within the next two turns, you’re almost as good as dead. Beatdown deck will crush you with their early beats. Control decks will be comfortable casting Jace or waiting for their powerful spells to come online without any pressure from you.
Michael Jacob deck above demonstrates why Preordain is highly valued in control. Preordain allows you to find the cheap answers needed in the early game, and let’s you throw away anything irrelevant in the late game in search of the winning Cruel Ultimatum — for a mere one mana without the loss of card economy. A hand with three lands, Preordain, Cryptic Command, Jace, the Mind Sculptor, and Mystical Teachings is a far better hand to keep than four lands with the same mixture of spells minus Preordain. Hence, the right call for deciding when to mulligan is to mulligan any hand without anything that costs three or less.
However, the requirements change drastically once you’ve mulliganed. Once you are down to six cards, a lot of hands become much more playable than when you were at seven. Although the difference comes down to a card, I always believe that six-card hands still have a good chance of winning while five-card hands are always an uphill battle. This is because your choices are limited, and you have imperfect information.
If my six cards have Bloodbraid Elf, Vengevine, and four lands, I’m happy to keep, as opposed to a similar hand with seven cards.
In a five-card hand, if you think your hand isn’t good enough, going to four is the only option, and going to four cards is not much different from conceding. You almost keep anything as long as there are lands and spells, regardless of the mixture. (I’d rather keep a one-land or five-land hand than go to four.)
The Sideboard
The sideboard has a big impact on how games 2 and 3 are played. It can also swing the matchup percentage depending on the amount of hate you have for a particular deck and the amount of hate that others will bring in against you.
Sideboarding can also be a guessing game. I’m a big fan of transformational sideboards because it’s so hard to play against them. The Tooth
and Nail deck that I used to win the
2005 Magic Invitational Tournament
was an example of transformational sideboarding. Here is the list for reference.
2 Duplicant
4 Eternal Witness
1 Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker
4 Sakura-Tribe Elder
2 Sundering Titan
3 Mindslaver
3 Oblivion Stone
1 Plow Under
3 Reap and Sow
4 Sensei’s Divining Top
4 Sylvan Scrying
3 Tooth and Nail
10 Forest
4 Urza’s Mine
4 Urza’s Power Plant
4 Urza’s Tower
Sideboard
2 Iwamori of the Open Fist
2 Molder Slug
3 Plow Under
2 Razormane Masticore
4 Troll Ascetic
2 Vine Trellis
For recent Extended decks, Pyromancer Ascension also has various types of transformational sideboards, where they usually board out the Ascension for Polymorph/Emrakul or Pestermite/Splinter Twin.
When you’re deciding your sideboard slots, think of your game plan. Are you planning on having any form of transformational sideboard? If yes, is your transformational sideboard able to withstand or neutralize the hate that your opponent is bringing in?
If you’re deciding on a regular sideboard, what is your bad matchup and how likely will sideboarding change the win percentage? What cards can you afford to board out, and what will you be bringing in?
These are just a few prime examples of the questions to ask, and there are a whole lot more questions when building your sideboard.
Also, if you’re playing in an important event, you should always shuffle your entire sideboard into your deck and pull out fifteen cards. You don’t gain anything in this process; but you stop your opponent from gaining any information. This makes sense because whenever your opponent gains something, theoretically you lose something. You don’t want to let your opponent know how many sideboard cards you’re bringing in against them.
This is especially important for decks with transformational sideboards. For example, if you decide not to transform, and you take three cards out of your deck and slip three sideboard cards into your deck, it’s as good as telling him that you aren’t bringing in the transformational sideboard! On the other hand, if you decide to transform, and you take out a bunch of cards before putting most of your sideboard in, it’s an equally obvious statement.
When deciding upon a regular sideboard plan, try to think of what cards your opponent will most likely bring in against you. Then, based on your deduction, you should bring in cards that are good in attacking the strategy that your opponent is bringing in.
Your sideboard cards should also be proactive in serving its role to fight your opponent’s strategy and not dilute your overall strategy. For example, cards like Ethersworn Canonist can lock out a combo opponent while allowing you to continue attacking your opponent’s life total. Sure, it’s not a hard lock, and every opponent should have some form of answer to it, but it gets the job done by playing the dual role of disruption and attacker.
There are also times when it’s better not to have any sideboard cards against a particular matchup because of how good/bad the matchups is, and it wouldn’t make a difference anyway. Take Brian Kibler Punishing Fire Zoo from PT Austin as an example.
Creatures (21)
- 4 Tarmogoyf
- 4 Wild Nacatl
- 3 Noble Hierarch
- 4 Knight of the Reliquary
- 3 Qasali Pridemage
- 3 Baneslayer Angel
Planeswalkers (1)
Lands (24)
Spells (14)
Sideboard
Kibler’s deck has zero cards to bring in against the mirror because it has practically nothing to board out, and the deck is sufficiently good in the mirror. Hence, without wasting significant sideboard slots, Kibler decided to improve his matchups against control and combo decks. By cleverly utilizing his sideboard slots and the technology of Punishing Fire, he proceeded to win the Pro Tour.
If you can
almost
always make the right calls when deckbuilding all the way to sideboarding, I’m sure you will be on your way to success. Nobody is perfect, and we aren’t machines either; we cannot make a 100% statistically correct decision every time. But winning and losing often comes down to making far less wrong calls than those who make more.
By winning, your marginal utility in playing Magic also increases when compared to doing something else, hence making you a better and happier Magic player. Magic is a game that teaches you to get the most out of your relatively scarce resources, so apply it to every aspect of your game and life!Â