Every military academy teaches its young cadets the principles of war. Although these principles can diverge in some details, they are basically the same. Surprisingly or not, they are no less relevant to MTG. We can call them the ten commandments of good play. Some of these principles work well together, while others are in tension with each other. Which principle to prioritize depends on the specific conditions in the game at that moment. We will look at each principle individually.
13.1 Adjustment
One of the most common challenges that MTG players face is what can be called the inertia problem. Players tend to stick to a particular course of action even after the conditions on the battlefield change and make this course of action inappropriate. In order to simplify the problem, let us repeat the classic game modes as described in one of the first chapters. As you will remember, we defined four typical modes in the game in which the player can find herself: offensive, defensive, race and standstill.
These modes are a combination of the line of action taken by player A and the line of action taken by player B. These lines of action are of course subject to change according to the development of the situation on the battlefield. Yet players often do not have the flexibility needed to adapt their line of action to the developing situation. It is very important that players be aware of the turning point between the different modes: the point at which the previous line of action is no longer effective and another line of action must be adopted. We cannot even attempt to describe all the possible turning points in the game: they are numerous. However, it makes sense to refer to some typical examples:
Standstill—> Attack: One of the most common misplays in the game is not recognizing a development on the battlefield that requires the player to abandon the passive line of action in a state of standstill and begin attacking. The difficulty in identifying this change stems from the fact that a standstill is usually characterized by a multitude of creatures on both sides. A player often finds it difficult to assess whether the new advantage she has obtained following a draw allows her to get out of her passivity. Sometimes, identifying such a moment is relatively easy. If you have drawn a creature with evasion that cannot be blocked, this obviously gives you a way out of the stalemate. Yet in most cases the breakthrough cannot be detected so easily. No simple rule-of-thumb exists that allows a player to identify the right moment to break the deadlock. This involves calculation, which is sometimes quite complicated. The player must try to imagine what would happen if she attacked with all his creatures, or some of them. She must try to put herself in her opponent’s place and evaluate how she will block and calculate how the battlefield will look afterwards. She must figure out what are the optimal blocks for her opponent and then decide whether attacking is indeed a fruitful option.
Easier said than done. Calculating all the blocking options of a multi-creature combat phase is as challenging as planning several moves ahead in a game of chess. Very few can do it so quickly. Yet shortcuts exist. In order to determine whether you should attack with all your folks, subtract the number of creatures the opponent has from yours. The number [x] represents the surplus in creatures you have. Now, add the power value of your weakest X creatures. This is the guaranteed amount of damage you will inflict on the opponent (not taking into consideration instant tricks such as removals that the opponent may have in hand). If your opponent wants to enjoy the benefits of the defender advantage, she will need to let more of your creatures get through her defenses. The advantage grows for every other creature she can afford not to block. This gives you a rough estimation of how effective an all-out attack will be.
Alpha attack is not the only option, though. You may attack with one or more of your biggest creatures as long you are holding combat tricks in your hand. This way you can trade them for your opponent’s toughest guys and break her defenses.
Race—> Defensiveness: A common misplay is a situation in which the player keeps racing with her opponent (both attacking each other) while a development on the battlefield requires that she stop attacking and move to defense. There is a psychological difficulty in stopping attacking as long as it is not completely clear that this attack will not be worthwhile (for example, a situation in which the opponent is able to block the attacker(s) without losing a creature). This difficulty even increases when the transition to defense does not completely prevent the opponent from continuing to attack but only reduces the number of his attacking creatures. However, when the opponent is leading the race, it is important to overcome the tendency to persist in attacking. Reducing the number of creatures with which the opponent is able to attack ‘buys’ the player more time and allows her to draw a solution. That is why it is important that the player always maintain a calculation of the damage she causes to the opponent versus the damage the opponent causes to her considering the current life score of both players.
A good player is not satisfied with that. she should consider the expected developments on the battlefield in the following turns. If there are no cards left in his hand and the opponent still holds several cards, she can estimate with a great degree of certainty that the race is expected to develop to his detriment in a short time, and therefore often it will be wise to move preemptively to defense. Paradoxically, even in the opposite case, when a player has a considerable advantage over his opponent in terms of cards in his hand, it is sometimes worthwhile for her to break the race by moving to defense and establishing a temporary standstill. This will prevent the opponent from winning the game by using a finisher before the player has time to realize her card advantage. Having gained a real advantage on the battlefield, the player can resume the attack without the opponent getting a chance to counter-attack.
Defensive—> race: When the opponent’s attack becomes particularly heavy (attacking with all or most of his creatures) and the defender is not able to establish an effective defense but only make exchanges that will leave her in a very inferior position or merely postpone defeat by sacrificing her creatures (champ blocking), the player should consider passing to attack. Sometimes it pays to risk additional damage and prompt at least some of her creatures to counterattack. Even if the opponent is leading in the race, this line of action leaves a chance of a surprise victory by pulling off a finisher. This situation is possible only when the opponent is over-committed to the attack, opening up her defenses.
13.2 Resourcefulness
Resourcefulness is the ability to deal with changing and surprising situations effectively by changing the usual pattern of action. An important principle in the game can be derived from this: the necessity to take risks when the situation on the battlefield is clearly developing against you and defeat seems almost inevitable. In MTG, players are frequently required to make decisions while anticipating the opponent’s reactions. This is what defines the game as strategic. But how should these reactions be evaluated? Most players, even the absolute majority, choose to assume that the opponent will play optimally. For example, they presume the opponent will make the right blocks, get rid of the right creature, etc. Consequently, their own decisions are made under this assumption. Therefore, they choose their moves in such a way that they will be rewarded even if the opponent ‘does the right thing’.
This is a safe form of play that minimizes risks, although at the cost of giving up the rewards that can be reaped from possible mistakes by the opponent. For example: players assume that the opponent will block optimally and based on this assumption choose whether to attack and with which creatures. However, this strategy makes sense as long as the situation on the battlefield leaves us with a reasonable chance of winning. When losing is almost certain, whether due to a balance of creatures clearly leaning in favor of the opponent, a ‘bomb’ thrown by the opponent that we are unable to deal with or any other reason, we should abandon the risk aversion strategy and try to rebuild our position from the opponent’s mistakes. In fact, it is about changing strategy: from a cautious strategy to a gambling strategy. Gambling strategy is a kind of play whose success depends on mistakes made by the opponent. If the ruse succeeds—that is, the opponent plays it wrong—the profit is usually big. Yet if the opponent plays it right, then the damage to the player’s position is greater than it would have been if she had acted on the assumption that the opponent would play optimally.
When a player finds herself in a desperate situation or close to it, it pays for her to switch to a gambling strategy that alone may rescue her from dire straits. For example: the player can attack with a creature in unfavorable conditions in the hope that the opponent will hesitate to block it for fear of a possible CT in her hand. The problem is that the opponent is also aware of the fact that the player is in a desperate situation and can assume that under these conditions her tendency to gamble will increase. This reduces the chance that gambling will succeed. Therefore, a good player is one who manages to read the game map even before it becomes clear to the less experienced opponent and choose a gambling strategy before it seems like the logical thing to do.
