tactical magic
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Feb. 10, 2015, 2:02 a.m. by HorrorAvengers
When i was younger, i was an avid chess player. Chess club was where i usually ended up on my Wednesdays, and i deticated a lot of youtube hours to studying strategys, as well as watching the legendary games. it was always the mental battle i loved. I love walking away from a game of chess feeling that i outsmarted my opponent.
Recently that love has been revived (not saying it's because of an anime but code geass is pretty great). and it got me thinking, could i build a magic deck that replicated that feeling, that i couldn't rely on topdecking to win. I need to predict my opponents moves, and be able to appropriately counter them. What generals / colors / strategies does the tappedout community feel would be thebest starting point for this? It doesn't nessicarily need to be edh, i just feel that's the best place for it. I currently run a derevi edh deck with that concept in mind, however I'm quickly finding out that derevi gets hated out a lot. I guess part of that was how i used daring theif to completely screw with people, but they should've known better than to just leave a 26 loyalty karn liberated out like that. I've been considering sen triplets but i feel like it would hit the same issue.
Thoughts?
Epochalyptik says... #3
Dominus - Dreamcrusher Edition Playtest
Commander / EDH
SCORE: 435 | 137 COMMENTS | 123659 VIEWSGo.
There's even a thought challenge in the primer.
February 10, 2015 2:21 a.m.
Control decks are really going to be the only decks that give you that feeling, sorry. If you want to do something less hated-on, considering Grand Arbiter Augustin IV, Daxos of Meletis or maybe even something less easily spotted, considering (mostly) monoblue Maelstrom Wanderer could be fun.
Or Phelddagrif for literally controlling the power shifts of a match. Run group hug, but one that attempts to "win" by way of beating people down. Or attempt to crush everyone's hopes and dreams by forcing everyone to be reliant on you, then killing yourself with Drogskol Reaver + Horizon Chimera . Throw Laboratory Maniac in there if you actually want to win.
February 10, 2015 2:24 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #5
And if you want to go really hardcore, you could try Ad Nauseam. It's basically the Eggs deck of EDH.
February 10, 2015 2:26 a.m.
HorrorAvengers says... #6
Tempo works exceptionally for it as well. Aggro just isn't my thing, i like puttingnin more thought than turning red things sideways. My comfort zone is control combo so I'm perfectly fine sticking to what i know
February 10, 2015 2:28 a.m.
HorrorAvengers says... #7
I like it. I'll see if i can find a decent decklist
February 10, 2015 2:29 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #8
Combo-control is traditionally where you'll find the most chess-like planning to your turns. You have a lot of options within that archetype, though.
I main BUG combo-control, and there are a lot of games that have to be played with to-the-tap precision to win. You only really get that in competitive metas, though. And I wouldn't exactly call combo-control an appropriate casual pod pick, so you'll need a playgroup with similar interests.
February 10, 2015 2:38 a.m.
HorrorAvengers says... #9
i generally dislike casual players outside of when my competitive group sits down for a casual match. I get tired quickly when people cpmplain about t1 thoughtseize, then have no problem with entwined tooth and nail for avenger + hoof. All of my decks hold their own in tournaments, both pod and 1v1. Some better than others, but nothing really gets blown out.
A few conclusions I've come to its that black and blue are gonna be must-haves. Black for its thoughtseize-esque cards, and blue for disruption. I feel like red is theleast skill intensive color and arguably the worst color in edh, so it's between dimmir, esper, or bug.
February 10, 2015 2:52 a.m.
Schuesseled says... #10
I always feel this way playing magic.
How many creatures should I leave to block?
Should I leave this mana open for this ability or this spell if Player X does Y?
Top decking is where you get into a situation where all you can do is simply cast the card on top then end turn. Little bit like trying to get your Pawn over to the opponents side to turn into a Queen in order to win.
February 10, 2015 4:39 a.m.
look up any budget list with Maralen of the Mornsong.
February 10, 2015 4:58 a.m.
For not edh there is a modern deck strategy with Codex Shredder + Lantern of Insight .
Draw Control Playtest
Modern
SCORE: 14 | 17 COMMENTS | 3330 VIEWSFebruary 10, 2015 7:51 a.m.
lemmingllama says... #13
Esper would probably be best, since it has the best control cards. You sound like you would prefer a control matchup, one that requires you to have all of the answers and responses in order to win. BUG might be better if you plan on going for combos as your finishers, but that is normally more focused on "get the combo, proceed to win".
Now you have a couple options for Esper. Sharuum the Hegemon is the combo general of choice, with Sydri, Galvanic Genius as a second option. Sen Triplets lets you play control where your opponents can't respond on your turn, and Merieke Ri Berit lets you capture their pieces similar to Shogi. All are fun.
Alternatively, maybe try out Azami, Lady of Scrolls. She is one of the most combo/controlly generals in existence, and even if she doesn't win instantly via combo, she will draw into more control.
Also be sure to run cards like Sensei's Divining Top and Scroll Rack that let you control your topdecks, planning ahead is sometimes the best thing to do.
February 10, 2015 8:08 a.m.
lemmingllama says... #14
Also if you want to spend lots of money for other formats, Miracles in Legacy sounds exactly like what you want to play.
February 10, 2015 8:09 a.m.
rob_shifflett says... #15
Combat control decks have always given me that feeling(Odric, Master Tactician). Nothing quite like swinging all out and telling your opponents how they will block or throwing out spells before combat damage.
February 10, 2015 10:32 a.m.
HeroInMyOwnMind says... #16
I would imagine any toolbox deck would get the job done.
Honestly though... any deck that makes itself too busy with adversely effected the ability of other players to handle their own deck is going to get "hated out" because that is what you do to those kinds of decks. If you are playing any deck that runs heavy control, stalls, or chaos, why wouldn't people just kill you before it got too obnoxious?
If you want to play a "chess-like" game of magic, running a toolbox deck with a lot of instants that doesn't combo out would be the closest thing to it. Outsmarting your opponent seems like it would be geared more towards a reactive deck that tries to provide answers, not a control deck.
February 10, 2015 12:52 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #17
@HeroInMyOwnMind: As an avid control player, I have to disagree completely.
Control is the best emulation of the chess experience of predicting moves three turns in advance. If you're going to be an effective control player, you need to understand many things:
- The value of each permanent in the current board state.
- The number of options available to each player, including cards in hand, abilities, etc.
- What your opponent is likely to play next.
- How valuable your opponent's current play is compared to how valuable future plays may be (this is absolutely crucial to allocating control spells effectively).
- Assessing how your opponents are setting up for something else.
- How to deceive your opponents into thinking you're going for a certain play or have a certain response waiting.
- Evaluating what plays you'll make if outcomes A, B, C, and D result from the next turn.
- Finding the most efficient and reliable path to your win while still suppressing your opponents.
Most of the strategy is in preempting and predicting plays, not in responding to them. And part of the challenge of being the target is surviving the focus.
Further, combo decks have to be careful about how they set up and execute a win even if it's effectively guaranteed in the board state. In Dominus - Dreamcrusher Edition, I have to plan the exact details of the combo turn, including which lands to tap at which times and the order of importance of counterspells, in order to give myself the best chance of winning.
Non-combo decks tend not to entail that level of consideration. Combat does take some thought, but it isn't quite the same, and neither are alternate strategies like mill.
February 10, 2015 1:39 p.m.
rob_shifflett says... #18
Chess has a lot to do with sacrifice. While Control does emulate Chess in the ways you stated, it does not have the give to get feeling that Chess gives me.
February 10, 2015 2:22 p.m.
HeroInMyOwnMind says... #19
Except in Magic you have methods of control that do not exist in a chess environment, and the tools at your disposal are not equal. There is also a significant amount of luck involved in Magic that does not exist in chess, and an opponent can often beat himself with poor deck construction, bad draw, and multiplayer politics. You are not predicting moves three turns in advance, because the plays can change too drastically in Magic depending on factors that just do not happen in chess. With control, you are not trying to play chess (an interactive game), you are trying to play solitaire.
Instead of trying to force your opponent into certain plays with your strategies and responding and giving them a chance to respond, you are essentially trying to dictate what plays they can make. A counter in chess does not equal a counter spell. Imagine a game a chess where someone tells you Bishops can't be moved and that they know get to control all your Knights. The level of control in Magic is way too significant to compare it to the methodology involved in chess.
This is too much of a loaded of a concept to debate over a forum post and I am assuming at the end of it we would end up agreeing to disagree, so I wont go into anymore detail.
I stand by my original response though. If you want a "chess feel" the best route involves tool boxing and having a win condition that doesn't rely on combo'ing out.
February 10, 2015 2:23 p.m.
HeroInMyOwnMind says... #20
I agree with @rob_shifflett. Chess is tit-for-tat and giving an inch to take a mile. You can't be in control in Chess unless you are playing against someone significantly less capable than yourself.
February 10, 2015 2:25 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #21
There is give and get in control. You don't magically counter everything and stop every action. You have to choose what to counter and when. You have to allow spells to resolve, effects to happen, and so forth. The give and get is in the small trades you make (the spells you allow to resolve or the threats you don't answer) in order to achieve the long-term goal.
You absolutely do (or can) predict moves three turns in advance. You aren't forced to (neither are you in chess), but it's wise to envision how the game state may continue to develop. For example, I can tell when an opponent is likely to cast his or her general, and how much he or she might budget for countermagic, and what combo he or she will probably go for first. You may not be able to predict with as much accuracy as you can in chess, but the practice is certainly possible.
Control is indeed interactive for the reasons I listed in the first paragraph. You may have a specific game plan that you're trying to execute in the background, but that doesn't mean you aren't anticipating and responding to your opponent's moves or trying to force certain outcomes if you have the option.
I think you're trying too hard to achieve a literal interpretation of chess in which there's as little chance as possible and the most amount of interaction and piece trading you can replicate. It's difficult and, I would argue, not worthwhile to try to force Magic to be a literal parallel of another game. Just because Magic tends to have fundamental differences doesn't mean that those differences are bad or should be overridden when possible.
I'm taking the principles of chess (thinking turns in advance, strategically making trade-offs even if your opponent is unaware of your underlying plans, constantly reevaluating the best route to victory) and applying them to the way Magic naturally works. I think that's the most honest way to emulate the feel of chess through the medium that Magic offers. You can't fine-tune this game to not have random chance or to always be tit-for-tat.
The original post makes it pretty obvious that the feel, not the mechanics, are what are important here.
February 10, 2015 2:35 p.m.
rob_shifflett says... #22
It seems as though most of the posts are 'Facts' instead of opinions. Not everyone is going to compare and contrast Magic to Chess the same. The feelings we get from both will correlate differently from person to person. Other than planning steps in advance(which every Magic player of every format and style should do), I just don't get the Chess feeling from Combo-control.
As HeroInMyOwnMind aptly said, "With control, you are not trying to play chess (an interactive game), you are trying to play solitaire."
February 10, 2015 5:16 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #23
That last part is simply wrong if you're trying to state it as a fact to back up your position (if you're using it as wording for your opinion, then it's fine, although I do disagree with it).
Control often gets accused of being uninteractive or trying to play solitaire, but you're actually doing the opposite: although you're trying to execute some kind of win exclusive of what your opponent is doing, you're constantly interacting with the other player to change the flow of the game. It's like a deck can't be considered interactive unless it's ramming creatures into its opponent, and that doesn't make sense at all.
And my point in the last quarter of the posts on the previous page is basically that you can't look for exact parallels between chess and Magic. There are a lot of things that are strategically or philosophically similar between the two games, but you're obviously going to have a hard time equating the two mechanically, and that's not at all the point of the thread.
February 10, 2015 5:25 p.m.
rob_shifflett says... #24
About this: "That last part is simply wrong if you're trying to state it as a fact to back up your position (if you're using it as wording for your opinion, then it's fine, although I do disagree with it)." Opinion. It would be highly hypocritical, otherwise.
I am not trying to equate them. Mechanical similarities or discrepancies are irrelevant. The feeling is what is important. While this, 'It's like a deck can't be considered interactive unless it's ramming creatures into its opponent, and that doesn't make sense at all.' is true; the opposite is equally(if not more so) true. Combat is an essential part of Magic and Chess. How many games have you played, that You did not attack the entire game? Based on your decks, I would venture to guess more so than not. Playing a style that almost completely leaves out a third(arguably) of the game, seems counter-intuitive. Maybe I am alone in this Feeling, but there is nothing wrong with sharing an Opinion.
February 10, 2015 5:49 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #25
I attack maybe 2% of all of my games. But that's irrelevant. Combat is there, and it's part of the game, but if you're running a strategy that prioritizes other things, you can hardly be faulted. That's like saying not castling is leaving out part of the game. There are many, many, many ways to play Magic, and all of them involve choosing some kinds of approaches over others.
Anyway, my disagreement is primarily with HeroInMyOwnMind. I just hate when people say that playing control is playing solitaire, or that control isn't interactive.
February 10, 2015 5:55 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #26
By definition, control obligates you to interact with your opponent. As an aggro player, you are trying to interact and win the game through superiority in combat. As a midrange player you are trying to interact and win through board presence and value. As a control player, you are trying to interact through card advantage and removal. If there's any archetype that tries to solitaire, it's a combo deck, and in every format those are forced to interact as well.
HeroInMyOwnMind, I will point out that a deck that is "geared more towards a reactive deck that tries to provide answers" is a control deck. That's very often the way those decks are built.
Control in Magic is far from dictating to your opponent what he/she can and cannot do. If that was the case, control decks would win everything. As it stands, control decks have to account for being lower on resources than opponents, and have a variety of answers that will sometimes match poorly to the given board state or matchup.
I'd say that in chess you can play the game to a point where your opponent is significantly behind due to misplays and superior play on your part. Adding the element of uncertainty to Magic makes it a very different game, but games are decided far more by playskill than you may think.
February 10, 2015 6:06 p.m.
rob_shifflett says... #27
Very Well said.
I would have to disagree with your not attacking \ not castle ing analogy, epoch. Combat is a big part of both games.
February 10, 2015 6:42 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #28
It's a big part overall, maybe, but you aren't somehow missing the point of the game if you choose not to run a combat strategy. You aren't compelled to attack. Sure, you still need to consider that other players may attack you even if you aren't going to be attacking at all, but the principles are not the same.
It's actually impossible to play chess without taking opponent's pieces (which, I'm assuming, are being equated to creatures or at least to cards). It's not impossible to play Magic without killing creatures or attacking. You can go for a combo win or a hard lock that allows you to win without attacking.
February 10, 2015 7:03 p.m.
Deckologist says... #29
Chess is never about the turn you're on. It's about the turn you take three turns from now. Playing control combo in EDH, well magic in general is always being a step ahead of your opponent. Waiting for him/her to overextend and attempt their goal only to stop them and then take control and win. sometimes you need to let smaller spells resolve in order to help your next play. Just like sometimes in chess you have to lose your queen to be able to get firm position on your next turn. Both games are all about setup, execution, and response. I play an EDH deck that in all honesty isn't the most competitive and I play a legacy deck that hasnt been top tier in years yet I always manage to squeeze in a win because it's all about the next few turns.
HorrorAvengers says... #2
Sen Triplets Karn Liberated Daring Thief Derevi, Empyrial Tactician, sorry.
February 10, 2015 2:06 a.m.