![]() ![]() I’ve been thinking about this sort of thing a lot recently. ![]() Here’s an example of what that deck looks like from the most recent SCG Open: In my opinion, the foremost example of a fair deck in this format is currently Jeskai Tempo. Now that our scale and ranges have been defined, we can move on to the next step, which is to define our extremes. Mostly or totally composed of fair elements Mostly fair elements, but has some unfair elements specifically intended to generate advantage Score on ScaleĬontains some unfair elements, but has fair “backup plan” To aid us in our categorization, we will establish ranges in which certain decks can be grouped, as summarized by the following table. One thing that becomes apparent when looking at Modern’s current top decks is that very few decks truly sit at either extreme most contain fair and unfair elements. ![]() we’ll set a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is a completely unfair strategy, and 10 is a completely fair one. Now that we know what we’re looking for, let's dive into the fair-unfair axis. While it is true that virtually every combo deck contains unfair elements, not every deck that contains those elements is a combo deck. It's readily apparent from this definition that unfair decks tend to have characteristics that many players associate with combo decks, but this relationship does not go both ways. Whether it be by cheating on mana, cards, or by winning in unconventional ways, unfair decks try to do things the game typically does not allow a player to do. Unfair – An unfair deck circumvents these rules. These decks generally pay full price for their spells, look to win by reducing their opponent’s life total to zero, draw one card per turn, play one land per turn, and feature lands that produce one mana. Many perspectives have been written on this topic however, for the purposes of this article, we will use the following definitions:įair – A fair deck looks to operate under the base rules of Magic. For the purposes of this article, I'll be focusing on diametrically opposed terms fair and unfair. Now that we’ve gotten our purpose defined, what categories can we use to characterize decks? Fortunately, we don’t need to lay the groundwork from scratch – many terms used to describe how a deck operates are already part of the Magic players’ lexicon. These sorts of decisions can make a real difference in how useful a deck's pilot finds their flex spots to be in any given tournament. In general, it behooves Eldrazi Tron to zig when the metagame is zagging this means leaning harder on its unfair plan when fair decks are ascendant, and doing the opposite when unfair decks are the order of the day. As will be discussed later on in the article, this deck is composed of a mix of fair and unfair elements. Making these sorts of calls can make the difference between showing up at an event or placing at an event.Ī practical example in which tuning your deck to be more fair or unfair can be to one's benefit is when preparing a deck like Eldrazi Tron for an event. The natural counter to that sort of deck is to go over the top and play cards that are individually too powerful for midrange to handle, such as with a big-mana deck like Gx Tron. Take an expected field full of midrange and control decks that care about accruing card advantage. Second, one of the best ways to attack a given metagame is to figure out whether the decks in it share a common thread, and play cards (or sometimes an entire deck) dedicated to a strategy that they can’t handle. A glance at the ranks of professional Magic players will show this is true – many among them (notably the likes of Frank Karsten and Paulo Vitor Damo da Rosa) understand Magic at a high level, and that aids them in their play. The first is that improving one’s theoretical understanding of the game is a way to improve at the game itself. I believe that this type of assessment has two major plusses on its ledger. I will also touch upon the utility of categorizing decks in this manner. This article will define the terms fair and unfair in the context of Magic gameplay, and introduce a comparison scale using some of the more common decks in Modern as references. However, after discussing these categories in some more detail, it occurred to me that the terms I used in these articles are somewhat clumsy, leading me to think on Magic terminology generally. In these articles, I differentiated between proactive and interactive decks for the purposes of determining what strategies should be employed by the decks that fell within these categories. This week, I’d like to expand upon some of the ways to categorize and define decks that I initially touched upon in my articles on how to tune a deck’s mainboard flex spots and sideboard to an open meta. Fair and unfair can prove contentious terms when it comes to deck discussion, perhaps especially in Modern. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |