I. What are design constraints?
Whether it be buildings, software, Magic decks, or anything else, to design something is to create a solution for a given problem. An architect’s problem is that he or she needs to design a building that fits the needs of his client. A software designer’s problem is that he or she needs to construct a piece of software that accomplishes the tasks that his clients want. The designers of Magic decks are trying to solve a problem too. Their problem is to create a deck that is capable of winning a tournament.
The design process has many facets to it, but one of the most important is adhering to design constraints. Design constraints are limitations that prevent some designs from being a solution to the problem at hand. An architect cannot design a building that is bigger than the land on which it is supposed to be built. This is a constraint on the design of the building. A software designer cannot propose a software design that requires more resources than the hardware on which it is supposed to run. This is a constraint on the design of the software.
The designers of Magic decks have similar constraints. The most obvious one is that decks cannot be built with cards that are not legal in the format for which it is constructed. This is a constraint on the design of the deck. A more subtle constraint is that deck needs at least one win condition. This is not a requirement for a legal deck, but it is one for a competitive deck. The constraints that deal with making a competitive deck are the ones that are the main topic of this article.
The most significant constraints when building competitive decks is the design of your opponent’s deck. Whether your deck is capable of winning a tournament depends largely on its ability to defeat your opponent’s deck. The constraints will change depending on the deck you are playing in any given round. If a format has some defined metagame, then you are likely to see the same decks and likely to see the same cards.
This discussion may seem a bit abstract, but perhaps the idea of a design constraint in terms of Magic decks can be made more concrete. A design constraint is any card that requires an opposing deck to consider it when they design their deck, and is prevalent enough that anyone is likely to encounter it in a tournament. If a card does not require any specific design change because it is in your opponent’s deck, then it is not a design constraint. If it does require a specific design change, but is not prevalent enough to consider, then technically it is design constraint, but in reality it acts more like a non-constraint because no one will actively consider it when designing a deck.
II. Legacy’s current design constraints
Every deck faces design constraints, but the focus of this article will be the current Legacy metagame. This should also help illustrate what a design constraint is, and why it’s necessary to consider them when building competitive decks for the Legacy metagame.
The first and most obvious design constraint in Legacy is Tarmogoyf. It has a low mana cost, a high power/toughness, and a non-restrictive color requirements. It’s easy to see why it is sees play in virtually every archetype. It limits the types of creatures that see play in Legacy by costing less and being larger than almost every creature.
It makes little sense to play a creature that is likely to be smaller than Tarmogoyf but costs at least as mana to play it unless it has some other redeeming quality. Creatures that cost 1 mana are a bit of an exception, because they cost less than Tarmogoyf and see play because of a variety of reasons. This breaks most of remaining creatures that see play in to two categories. One group which can compete with Tarmogoyf in combat and the other which cannot compete with it in combat but have some other ability that makes them worth playing. The first group has creatures like Tombstalker, Nantuko Shade, Countryside Crusher, Terravore, Mystic Enforcer, Woolly Thoctar, Lorescale Coatl, and others. All of these creatures have the potential to take down a Tarmogoyf in combat or at least trade with it under most circumstances. You will notice that these creatures cost at least as much mana as Tarmogoyf, and they impose restrictions on the decks that play them that Tarmogoyf does not. These requirements range from mana cost for Nantuko Shade and Tombstalker, Threshold for Mystic Enforcer, multiple colors for Woolly Thoctar and Lorescale Coatl, and finally enough lands to fuel Countryside Crusher and Terravore.
The other group of creatures is played because of the abilities they have. Some of the examples from this group are Dark Confidant, Hypnotic Specter, Sower of Temptation, Trinket Mage, Magus of the Moon, Trygon Predator, and others. None of these creatures can defeat or trade with Tarmogoyf in combat under most circumstances. Dark Confidant provides recurring card advantage as does Hypnotic Specter though by limiting your opponent’s cards. Sower of Temptation can steal an opponent’s Tarmogoyf and has evasion. Trinket Mage finds utility artifacts. Trygon Predator is a way to maindeck an answer to artifacts and enchantments without being useless in other situations. Finally, Magus of the Moon can end the game against opponents who rely completely or mostly on the use of non-basics.
If creatures do not fall in either of these categories, then they are most likely not playable in Legacy. The reason is that that they do not address a central design constraint of Legacy, Tarmogoyf. There are a few notable exceptions to this. One casting cost creatures were mentioned earlier. Creatures like Wild Nacatl see play in aggressive decks like Zoo and Goyf Sligh. Its inability to usually defeat Tarmogoyf is less important because these decks plays other creatures of accomplishing this task and a large burn element that can be used in conjunction with creatures to deal with opposing Tarmogoyfs. Nimble Mongoose still sees play in Canadian Threshold and other Threshold decks. In these decks it is
a resilient threat that can provide a solid defense against opposing Tarmogoyfs when it has one Tarmogoyf on its side.
The other major exception are tribal decks. The design of these decks is completely different in that they rely on the quantity of threats and synergies between them more than the quality of individual threats. These decks do not plan to match Tarmogoyf with one creature, but with horde of them. In addition to the swarm strategy, Goblins has Warren Weirding as a maindeck answer to an opposing Tarmogoyf. Elves and Merfolk rely on their respective lords to increase the size of all their creatures as well as forestwalk and islandwalk abilities to evade opposing Tarmogoyfs.
After Tarmogoyf, deck designers have to be concerned about Counterbalance. Counterbalance is a major design constraint for Legacy decks. Its ability to completely lock out an opponent with the help of Brainstorm, Ponder, and Sensei’s Divining Top is hard to overstate. Counterbalance decks almost always have multiple 1 and 2 converted mana cost cards in their decks. Since Counterbalance can be played as early as turn 2 virtually every deck needs a way to deal with it. This is even true for decks that run Counterbalance because they are just as susceptible to an opponent’s Counterbalance as any other deck.
Counterbalance has changed almost all sideboards so that they always run some number of Krosan Grips. Some decks including Gabriel Nassif and Andy Probasco CounterTop decks that placed 1st and 2nd respectively at Grand Prix Chicago played a total of 3 maindeck Krosan Grips with more copies in their sideboards. Its primary purpose was to prevent from being locked under an opponent’s Counterbalance even though each of them played 4 Counterbalances in their maindeck.
There are many different designs that have been constructed to deal with the Counterbalance. Some of the designs include enchantment removal in the maindeck. Cards like Engineered Explosives, Vindicate, Pernicious Deed, Trygon Predator, and most recently Maelstrom Pulse are played in large part because they can remove an opponent’s Counterbalance. While these cards are relatively expensive to cast this is actually a benefit rather than a drawback because Counterbalance decks often have difficulty countering spells at 3 or more mana. Another way to deal with Counterbalance is to simply answer it before it enters play. Force of Will, Daze, Thoughtseize, and Duress are common ways to stop a Counterbalance.
Some decks will also include spells of mana cost 3 or greater so they have some ability to resolve spells even if they are unable to remove a Counterbalance. Some of the creatures mentioned earlier such as Sower of Temptation, Tombstalker, Countryside Crusher, and others generally evade Counterbalance. Other decks simply do not play 1 and 2 mana spells. Dragon Stompy and Armageddon Stax generally do not care about Counterbalance because it does not counter most of their spells. These decks deal with the design constraint of Counterbalance by simply avoiding the spells that Counterbalance can reliably counter.
Finally, the aggressive decks try to play many low casting cost creatures in hopes of putting enough pressure on the board before their opponent can play a Counterbalance and reliably manipulate their library with Sensei’s Divining Top. Some of the tribal decks opt for Aether Vial, which is another way to deal with Counterbalance.
III. Conclusion
There are of course other design constraints in Legacy. Every competitive deck that is prevalent enough in the Legacy metagame is likely to present its own design constraints. However, Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance are so prevalent right now that they should be viewed as the most important design constraints for any Legacy deck. A player looking to design a new deck or trying to revamp an old one should really consider how a Tarmogoyf or a Counterbalance would impact the ability of their deck to win if faced with the situation. If the deck can reasonably deal with these two design constraints then it is likely to have a better chance of success. If this is not the case, then the design should be seriously reconsidered especially if the deck is vulnerable to both cards. Not every deck in a Legacy tournament will be playing one or both of these cards, but they are common enough that succeeding in Legacy requires having a plan for them when they are encountered.
AnwarA101 on The Source and StarCityGames Forums