[Community Discussion]: What kind of theorist are you?
General forum
Posted on Oct. 2, 2014, 2:15 p.m. by Epochalyptik
Magic is a game of careful thought and planning. There are many different philosophies about what works and why, and every player has his or her own preference. Theory and playstyle are so interdependent that they're typically inseparable.
Are you the poker player who thinks about the probability of a given play or draw? Are you the chess player who tries to picture approximately how the game will develop over the next three turns? Do you work only with what's you know for certain? Do you try to feint your opponent into plays or bluff your way out of dangerous situations?
Feel free to talk about both gameplay and deckbuilding. How does your Magic theory influence your decisions?
I'm personally not smart enough to plot out more than three turn in advance...not that that stops me from trying. I often end up forgetting what I planned for turn 4 when it comes around. Plus in EDH it's really difficult to predict what the other players will react with.
As scatterbrained as I can be, I tend play when if fun/helpful NOW as opposed to the patient route. As such control is an interesting challenge for me.
October 2, 2014 2:24 p.m.
I run statistical models in all my games. When deck building and designing I analyze the number of cards that fulfill a particular role and tweak the numbers based on which turns I need them etc. I make sure my deck is likely to do the things I want it to do at any given moment.
When playing against an opponent I'm always confidant that my deck is mathematically reasonable. Once a game starts I run models that estimate their likely plays based on the lands they play and the kind of cards I see. This is basically like guessing what they'll do next based on a knowledge of the current meta and the land they have open, the cards they already have on the field, whether they've attacked or not etc.
I don't deal with certainty, but I deal in mathematical likelihoods. An exceedingly high probability is as good as certain anyway.
I do play mind games against control players such as baiting out plays or bluffing about the state of my hand and board. I don't bother against aggro or midrange so much.
Essentially this is me here
October 2, 2014 2:25 p.m.
trentfaris242 says... #5
I tend to only focus on statistics or known facts. I generally don't like it when I see side boards full of 1-ofs for individual match ups, because the likely hood that you'll draw what you need is pretty insignificant at that point (unless it's a deck like Birthing Pod that can easily fetch those 1-ofs).
I tend to have this spill over into deck building. "Combo" decks for Standard that have little or no way to acquire the 3 or 4 piece combo make me go "ugh" inside. I tend to not look too much into the future when playing and deck building because it's completely left to chance. You should play and build in a way that is both consistent and strong.
"If I could just draw this card..." - random crappy player
"No, dude. Shut up. You shouldn't have built your deck that way." - me
Bluffing is way too risky and often way too easy to detect. Open mana, or even just playing a specific archetype, generally gives it away.
October 2, 2014 2:28 p.m.
When it comes to deck building I tend to shy away from common archetypes. I have a goal of coming up with a cool combo and making people go "Woah, that's cool". Like in pauper, affinity reigns, and if you want to win that's what you build. I go out of my way to avoid those decks. I want to bring something new to magic and in that pursuit I tend to build lesser used generals for Edh.
When you run something as common as elves or something, everyone at the table is going to know that a Black Sun's Zenith for 3 will probably wipe you out. When running a common archetype, there are certain staples that you just have to include. Due to this the decks that share archetype often share a common weakness. When building something new, you can take people by surprise and at first at least they may not know how to deal with you.
October 2, 2014 2:35 p.m.
I generally plot out things to some extent and will think maybe not three turns ahead, but a couple of turns ahead, knowing what I'm generally going to play from my hand. Then when it is my turn I go through all the details trying to verify that all the math is still right, and that my opponent hasn't changed too much.
October 2, 2014 2:44 p.m.
Oh, and as a deck builder, I am generally very good at building crazy decks and trying to figure them out to make a card that doesn't look to be all that good into something that's very good. I also tend to build decks that will win from time to time, but have a good chunk of chaos to them.
October 2, 2014 2:46 p.m.
It mostly depends on the deck that I play and is also very dependent on the board-position. All in all though I guess I can get rather defensive and will restrict myself from casting something vitally important without having an option of protection open if I see my opponent has enough mana left to bomb a counterspell in my face.
I make a lot of decisions in game via gut instead of careful planning and most of the time will work with what I have. But thats fun; I prefer an interestingly set up game that I might be likely to lose over a game thatll assure me a win. Scry is great to prepare yourself better, because as much as you put playsets or thinners in your deck you can still end up mana screwed one way or another.
Often times I find it hard, not to add cards to a deck, but to let go of something that I can replace the new addition with. For that I usually tend to give a deck a few test-runs and will kick cards that on their own might have made a good appearance, but that I catch myself regretting to draw when I would have needed something else more. Hence I dont play decks that are entirely made of playsets and have a few (mostly CMC expensive or chance encounter cards) in it that are only represented twice, so that by the time I actually draw them I will definitely have a use for them and/or can instantly cast them instead of having them rest on my hand for several rounds.
As far as non-competitive fun-decks are concerned though, I really love the craziness of a deck that is wildly mixed with cards only appearing once or twice, because you never know just what youll draw and it gives the entire game a little Commander-Edge.
October 2, 2014 2:58 p.m.
sergiodelrio says... #11
Although I enjoy poker, I don't wanna play magic like that. I have homebrewed my flagship deck to be able to focus entirely on itself and taking into account the opponent's actions as little as possible. It was quite a challenge to come close to that goal.
That being said, I like to build around cards that change the game rules. People don't expect that, and in case they're playing pokermagic it screws them.
I think that homebrew decks have easily the potential to be stronger than common T1 as they have the advantage of information. If the homebrewer keeps the competitive meta in mind while building a deck your opponents won't know what's coming at them.
October 2, 2014 2:58 p.m.
I change my approach to deck building depending on what format I'm building for. For Standard/Modern Constructed I like to make sure my mana curve and threats/answers are appropriate with what I want the deck to do. For Commander I like to throw caution to the wind and build off of themes & gimmicks moreso than a competitive curve.
When I'm playing I really embody the Red philosophy of "Worry about the now." Many of my decks don't play a particularly long game, so I focus on what's in front of me and deal with what I see. I'm capable of playing the control role and thinking long term, I played a Jeskai Control deck last Standard, but I really prefer to beat down with dudes. My Limited decks really accentuate this, where my best performances in Limited have been with combat oriented decks with a good curve and resilient/consistent threats. E.g. My best M15 draft deck was Boros beats with Triplicate Spirits and a Soul of Shandalar and Hoarding Dragon as the top-end. So I guess I'm an aggro player who can play control when he needs to.
October 2, 2014 3:08 p.m.
I play around everything at all times(, unless I have no choice) and trust in dumb luck.
Got me here, I guess.
October 2, 2014 3:08 p.m.
I'm they type of guy who tries to perceive what will happen when playing a card.
Will it get countered? Will it survive it's summoning sickness?
Should I play this support now? What can happen?When Is the right time to bounce/kill?
What answers could they have if I play this or this?
These are all things that go through my head when i'm playing lol.
October 2, 2014 4 p.m.
I get all the good cards in the deck. I usually don't do playsets, so more options are available. I hope for the best, and always expect the worst. It may seem oxymoronic that I may have more differences in my cards so that i never get what i need, but it makes the game more fun, and i might even find a different way to get around the same problem I had trouble with and needed "that one specific card" for
October 2, 2014 4:25 p.m.
I'm varied and it's weird. I'm reactionary and thoughtful at the same time. I'm not going to say this is the best combination, cause sometimes it's not. Especially when playing new opponents and rogue decks. I'll let myself get out of my game plan and play to the game and this usually will kill me. This is where I'll try to make the best play that I can with no direction towards where I want to go, because I want to study my opponent and their deck.
If I'm against the familiar, I play to my deck, while staying reactionary, I already have a good idea of what my reaction should be for any given situation that comes up and plan accordingly.
I think allowing myself to get of my game plan against the new and unfamiliar is one of worst traits as a player.
October 2, 2014 5:02 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #17
I'm a notorious planner or Foreman.
I like to see things work out the way they were intended, I'll subtly move the pieces around, toolboxing until I have things lined up how I want them to then I'll alpha strike. I consider the probabilities of what the opponent(s) may have with regards to what needs to be dealt with, and I act accordingly. I find myself getting better at drawing out removal or counterspells where required (or baiting other players to use their answers.) I often find myself playing multiplayer/EDH and as a result it's a careful consideration of the balance of power, and a strong awareness of when I'm becoming the contender.
It's almost Machavellian to see the Red come out in me. If you're going to hit, hit hard so there is no option to seek retribution. Otherwise it's just Mutually Assured Destruction. Sometimes the red influences my ability to aptly choose what needs to be dealt with. Usually though, I find it important to mind the balance of power...until someone picks a fight, or I'm in a position to take over the board and I strike out with holy retribution...
In 1v1 it's different but similar. There's no table talk and/or manipulation, it's all about the deck doing what it's intended to do. I usually build combo or midrange decks, so I choose my win condition then put in the cards to make it happen early and consistently. Then I add cards to ensure the other person doesn't fuck up my plans, and I tweak until I find a balance. I appreciate a large finale, so sometimes it's harder to accomplish than it sounds.
October 2, 2014 5:10 p.m.
VampireArmy says... #18
I can and have successfully baited players out of entire games. That's me though, I'm a boros freaking made to the core. I'll happily make an opponent waste valuable resource on something I'm not entirely planning to win with.
October 2, 2014 5:10 p.m.
As for my decks, I'm looking for the most value out of my cards to accomplish a game plan. I find a card or idea and want to build around it and make a deck that works to accomplish the goal. I try very hard to not deviate from the goal, so a tribal deck, will be extremely tribal and find the best value out of them. If I'm trying to build something that will do good in a major tournament. I look at the meta and build a deck that's made to compete in the meta and usually that ends up being control (last year I built esper control before pt-theros, this year it's grixis control). That's mainly because I prefer the control draw-go decks to any other deck and fits my style of play best.
October 2, 2014 5:12 p.m.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #20
Game theory and principles I subscribe to:
In almost all cases proactive strategies are more effective than reactive strategies.
Power trumps synergy.
Play to win and not to not lose.
50% match win rate is normal, that means you should expect to lose half your games as an average player. Embrace variance and prepare yourself to take advantage of it when the opportunity arises.
Virtual card advantage is just as important as actual card advantage.
If your deck can not break serve and leverage the advantage it creates it is not worth playing.
Dies to Doom Blade .
October 2, 2014 5:13 p.m.
Dalektable says... #21
I always describe magic to people as a combination between chess and playing cards. Seeing as I was a chess player long before a magic player, that is how I approach a game. I like to think ahead, be able to accurately predict and plan how the board state might look in a couple turns.
October 2, 2014 5:15 p.m.
I play magic like I play music, write, draw, etc: unplanned and in the moment. Hubris aside, I'm genuinely fairly intelligent and can process information quickly so I tend to play quickly and erratically to keep the opponent on their toes. Usually I only lose to my own ridiculous bluffs. Is it as statistically effective? No. But it's a hell of a lot more fun and I'm still the top player at my LGS.
October 2, 2014 7:05 p.m.
aeonstoremyliver says... #23
My personality definitely comes out in both deckbuilding and whilst playing games. I'm social, confident, and can bluff my ass off. Although I often do have an answer... I love leaving lands untapped with cards in hand.
I pick up on what the opponent is playing rather quickly and plot a strategy to expose the weakness, remove threats, and sideboard accordingly. I instantly plot out my plays by turn, anticipate my opponent's turns, and react to the board state with a contingency when necessary.
My deckbuilding is rather creative, analytical, and tool box, pending the archetype. I like to play with cards that others don't. I like to have answers instantly and win with one large bomb, Emrakul, the Aeons Torn being my go-to. My mana base, curve, utilities, functions, and synergy has to be perfect, including 61 cards in most builds (it's a thing I have). However, MTG is not only about numbers but also chance. This I enjoy greatly, unless I top draw land for a few turns... Haha! I tend to include a few 1x ofs, depending on the deck. I also love to play with tutors such as Green Sun's Zenith , Eye of Ugin , Birthing Pod , Chord of Calling , which can even things out.
I favor MeliraPod and RDW/Burn in Modern as well as RDW/Burn and 
12 Post in Legacy.
October 2, 2014 7:12 p.m.
Oh yea, I build decks the same way as I play. I just keep throwing things in how they feel right without worrying about numbers. Somehow it always lands on 60. As I use it I tweak and adjust, but never write out the problems n shit.
October 2, 2014 7:19 p.m.
I like to play games with this mentality "I'm the only one allowed to have nice things" so I blow up their land and make them discard like crazy.
You're only sure you will win if your opponent has no mana nothing on the board and is top decking.
October 2, 2014 7:28 p.m.
I like to play games with this mentality "I'm the only one allowed to have nice things" so I blow up their land and make them discard like crazy.
You're only sure you will win if your opponent has no mana and is top decking.
October 2, 2014 7:29 p.m.
Nigeltastic says... #28
I tend to play the game in a very tactical and analytical way. Having watched a ton of magic coverage and having a knack for memorizing cards, I can usually intuit what's going on with the board, my opponent's deck, and the lines of play that will transpire. Because of this, I tend to see the outs that other people don't sometimes. My worst match-up is actually against inexperienced players, as their play is sometimes wildly erratic, and it's much more difficult to anticipate their actions.
Overall, I believe there is always a 100% correct play given the information you can see (note this is not always the 100% correct play given perfect information), and I attempt to play to that. That means hitting triggers, using bluffs when appropriate, and avoiding other people's bluffs when you can.
October 2, 2014 7:59 p.m.
HorrorAvengers says... #29
I am very much a chess player at heart when it comes to magic. I try to predict that will happen so I know how to prevent it.
October 2, 2014 8:03 p.m.
I'm a mix of everything. Probably one of my downfalls is that I make a main deck that has a decent probability of doing "ok" against a large variety of decks, which probably makes me lose more often in game 1 by decks that really commit to my particular weaknesses.
While I'm playing I'm conscious of what cards do what assigned jobs when I put them in my deck and that dictates how I use them unless necessary. That being said, knowing a bit about a deck I'm facing puts me more into the "chess" mindset where I could use a card to answer threat X, but I'm sure they're feinting to play threat Y, so I should do Z instead for now.
October 2, 2014 8:07 p.m.
I play magic be very precise. A play knowing just what I have, expecting anything, and only thinking about the cards I know about. I don't think about what my next 3-4 moves will be, because there's always that one card on the top of your library that may change the game completely. Sometimes I do think out my turns, but that's usually when the opponent is top decking and I have the game in my hands.
I also play magic very carefully. I don't rush into it. I protect my one creature, who is going to win the game. For example, I play infect a lot. If I am playing against a BG Rock player and have a Glistener Elf out and I attack. I may have lethal pump in my hand, but I'm not going to tap out so that I can present lethal. I'm going to use one pump, and then leave up counterspell/protection mana.
Another example. If im using BUG Delver in Legacy, and I have a True-Name Nemesis out... Im hoping he wins the game for me. I'm not going to tap out and slam down a Delver of Secrets Flip or Tarmogoyf . Im going to leave up Brainstorm mana so that I can find that Force of Will .
As for deckbuilding, im just cruel. Every standard deck I build is usually either a Meta Puncher, or a cruel control deck. At Game Day I used an American Control deck with one win con... Mutavault . No Elspeth, Sun's Champion , no AEtherling . Just lands (including 4 Mutavault s), counterspells, and burn spells.
October 2, 2014 8:19 p.m.
Ohthenoises says... #32
No lie, that's what goes through my head when I play. I track so many possible plays that sometimes I confuse myself.
Me playing against control: "So much death; such an infinitesimally small chance for success."
October 2, 2014 10:09 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #33
I go about deckbuilding as thoroughly as I can. I look extensively through online decklists to find any and all cards people play for the archetype I am building, and include some cards that I myself may be interested in trying out. I establish a rough list, with any cards that don't fit in yet sent to the maybeboard. I test each option/package of options to determine if the advantages/disadvantages of each are worth my while. Having played Infect for a while, I know the most minute packages of cards between maindeck and sideboard that I could register for an event, and so can choose between those tweaks as needed. I like to know exactly which cards I have access to are good where, and how that relates to other cards in the deck to form such packages. An example of this is playing Telling Time and Serum Visions in a Scapeshift deck versus running Peer Through Depths and Farseek . The former allows for increased versatility and a little more robust of a controlling game, while the latter is a lot better at goldfishing.
Deckbuilding is by far my favorite part of Magic, as the options and thought processes that go into each and every card slot are so enjoyable to decide upon.
When it comes to playing games, I prefer to play the cards I see, and guess vaguely at those I don't. I won't play around Cryptic Command , but I will play around a counterspell. I won't play around my opponent drawing Abrupt Decay , I will play around them drawing a form of interaction I need to deal with. Understanding the more general impacts of certain groups of cards on the given game state is much more useful for me. I mostly don't care which counterspell I'm drawing so long as I can cast it, be it Swan Song , Counterflux or Remand . While this may seem loose, it's actually helped me quite a bit by not being forced to think about everything and thus playing less aggressively than I might have to.
October 2, 2014 10:12 p.m.
TheNinjaJesus says... #34
Probabilities are what work best for me. If I see them slap down a Llanowar Wastes and then a Plains, I start calculating probabilities and odds, factored against "What kind of person generally plays color combination X?" For example, I'd operate that they probably have a Garruk, Apex Predator, but less likely to have an Elspeth, since you generally see those in blue/white control rather than Abzan control. Likewise, if they play a Llanowar Wastes, they care more about having flexibility with black and green as opposed to black and white with a Caves of Koilos. If they follow up that play by casting a Sylvan Caryatid, I start planning around countering a Siege Rhino, since they just shored up their defensive board state, and got a reliable wall multi-color mana producer in play, and an Abzan player with a Sylvan Caryatid cares a touch about ramp, demonstrating an inclination towards aggressive creatures. All of these are just greater or less percentile chances, of course- they could just as easily slap an Ivorytusk Fortress in play and completely throw my calculations out of whack. It's just easiest (and usually correct) to infer the deck they're playing and its relative makeup based off the big standard staple they put into play. Thoughtseize? Signs point to G/B (probably rock). Turn 1 Frenzied Goblin? Assume a rabblemaster red deck. Elvish mystic? Midrange big dudes.No matter what, though, you can usually figure out their A) relative deck makeup B) likely plays with very few cards on board.
October 3, 2014 12:06 a.m.
I bluff and work only with what I know for certain. I'm big on beatdown decks, but I always make sure to not overextend and also try to leave counter mana up whether I have one in hand or not. Even if you hesitate for a single turn to play that spell, it may be the turn that my creatures put you at 0.
October 3, 2014 8:49 a.m.
I also subscribe to the Chess meets Poker metaphor, and I play like this as well. I tend to play more to have fun than be the best, but I like to win. When playing in competitive formats I have a completely different playstyle. In competitions I tend to change my visible personality including body language to meet my opponents opposite. If they are nervous I am confident, etc. I think about the best card in my colors for each situation and leave mana up for that card whether I have it or not. based on the mana my opponents have and the amount of cards they are forcing themselves to draw, I can usually guess what their most likely routes of play are. While I like to 2-0 someone, I am not above drawing out game 1 to get better info on their deck without revealing too much of my own.
Based on my opponents' playstyle in game one I tend to try to guess what they may SB against me and plan my SB usually to defeat theirs, instead of trying to defeat the deck itself. I find that most non-Pro players will over SB and undervalue specific use cards. My color choice varies with every deck and I play every archetype of deck. I like to homebrew, but I am not afraid to take a mainstream concept and make it my own.
While I used to think of myself as a combo player, I found that I really just like complex card interactions. I know focus on synergy. I really like to take an established deck in a format and try it in a different one. I have been playing this game since around the end of Beta and have never grown tired of its intricacies. This is my game and I am proud to play it.
October 3, 2014 12:12 p.m.
I generally plan out a few turns in advance, adjusting my strategy depending on what is played and drawn.
October 3, 2014 1:12 p.m.
GreatSword says... #38
It's so rare I actually get to play I just try to have fun. I like to explore interactions with my deck against another deck and see what it can or can't do well. I dislike it when I win or lose a game quickly because I don't feel either of us got much out of the experience.
October 3, 2014 2:14 p.m.
EndStepTop says... #39
I am generally the type to plan out moves and prepare for what my opponent's turn will entail. I'm usually building control decks for this reason, as they are easier to tailor to how I think when I play and more enjoyable with this mindset.
October 3, 2014 3:57 p.m.
CommanderOfBolas says... #40
I am much like the chess player that plans for nearly every situation, always sizing up my opponent. I think playing the cards is only half the game, and the rest is all about playing the opponent. This brings me to bluff the shit out of my opponents all the time, often times acting like I have something, actually having it, and still neglecting to play it just to gain the advantage of having a more reckless opponent. Then, I become ruthless and unforgiving when they misplay, exploiting every advantage I can get, which is largely why I find that the Grixis colors support my play style so well.
October 3, 2014 4:40 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #41
It's like the cruelest kind of permission available...
October 3, 2014 4:56 p.m.
As an avid blue player in most formats I play in, I have the same mentality I'd imagine most of my kin do. "The more card advantage I have, the better chance I have to win."
More often than not, I find that people never fully understand how to fight control decks unless they, themselves have piloted one for a while, which leads to my gameplan. I tend to be very reactive to what my opponent is up to and i adjust my style accordingly. "Do I want to counter this?" or "Will this Mana Leak even be relevant later on?" Things like that are questions that pop up in my mind all the time when I play. Also I try to squeeze every last bit of value out of my cards that I can. If I can Abrupt Decay a Bitterblossom while a Mistbind Clique is on the stack and he has no other faeries on board I'm as giddy as a was on Christmas when I was 8. Thinking ahead also comes with the territory for a control player. (I realize how unlikely that scenario is, but I think you get the point)
Only until I'm almost certain my opponent doesn't have a rebuttal play do I tend to go for my win condition whether that be winning with a planeswalker ultimate or just with manlands. It's a pretty miserable thing to have happen to you, but I that's just the playstyle I prefer to go about.
October 3, 2014 5:35 p.m.
CommanderOfBolas says... #43
@MindAblaze!: Exactly. that's why it suits me so well ;)
October 3, 2014 7:21 p.m.
I'm a kitchen magic player most of the time (basically whenever I'm not at a pre-release, where my thought process is a much more streamlined did-I-follow-BREAD-and-not-stupid-it-up procedure), and I typically play with the same four or five people. It's been years, so learning their playstyles is what occupies my mind during each game. At this point I've got it pretty down:
I've got the friend whose entire deck is min/maxed, and if he didn't read it off the internet, he divined the method himself and basically came up with the same thing. Eclectic deck choices catch him off guard.
I've got the pal whose luck rivals that of a leprechaun with rabbit's foot tied to a heads-up penny embroidered into a wreath of mistletoe. He buys packs when he can afford them, throws together dirty piles of nonsense that shouldn't work, and mises the rest. Building my decks to be consistent, and with a game plan, typically works vs him, but it's seriously a crapshoot.
I've got the buddy who embodies the power of the great and mighty Timmy, and only recently have his decks begun to mature in scope and utility. Why just the other day he figured out that piling cipher and auras on a hexproof unblockable guy was a good plan! So proud of him. Beating him depends on whether or not he runs the Premium Sliver precon.
So basically when I'm playing, I guess my thoughts are primarily on my opponents, whom I know from fairly in-depth experience. The decks are usually an afterthought, though I'm typically bringing my newest kitchen brews to the table to see how they fare against my friends' usual decks, since I'm typically the only one with totally new builds each time we play. (Of note, very boring to keep playing the same dozen-odd decks when we get together. Ah well.)
October 3, 2014 7:55 p.m.
quesobueno123 says... #45
Hm... I don't really do anything like this guess that is the typical burn player.
October 3, 2014 8:30 p.m.
I pretty much play by the Heart of the Cards theory: If my deck likes me, and I like it, it will give me good cards. Decks have personalities and occasionally they're in shitty moods and feel like giving you half your combo and no tutors or draw spells, or all your good creatures an no mana until the turn after you die. I know it's stupid, but it's surprisingly accurate. I can play a deck myself, and it hates me for 3 games. I'll shuffle it and have a friend play it, he gets the combo to go off turn 4, or curves out his creatures perfectly.
but as for actual strategy, I tend to go for subtle, mindgame type bluffs. I'll leave 2 mana open despite having only lands in my hand just to make my opponent wonder if I have a kill spell. "Does that one untapped mountain herald a lightning bolt?" is a thought that I'm sure often crosses opponents' minds (as it's probably my favorite card in the game)
For deck building, I build things to handle as wide a variety of decks as possible, almost always packing either removal, counters, or card draw, because sometimes the Heart of the Cards likes to make you ask nicely for your good cards.
October 4, 2014 12:10 a.m.
Jace the Firebrand says... #47
I think in what I have, and what I expect my opponents to do with the field. I plan 2-3 moves ahead, and adapt when things happen counter to my strategies. In between games, I analyze what I've seen of their deck and modify my strategy accordingly. Chess is my approach, i suppose.
October 4, 2014 2:42 a.m.
elpokitolama says... #48
When I play MTG, the poker player within me awakes. Being a Johnny, Combo Player since day one, if I can kill someone in a very explosive and incredible way, I'll be able to wait for one or two turns in order to do so - even if I can kill my opponent before, but without all my might - even if I can lose by doing so.
Bluff and analyse are my main win conditions! Or tokens, because I also like having a huge army. But who doesn't? ;)
October 4, 2014 6:21 a.m.
Sweeden. Does anyone else ever realize that there can be such thing as a control hybrid that has about 15 creatures? I ran it in past standard and it was ridiculous. I win soo many games. I win my own way, because F**K the norm
October 4, 2014 11:35 a.m.
TheSeventhNinja says... #50
Is it just me, or does anyone else just play Magic to play Magic?
Never mind the strategies and math, here's Door to Nothingness !
ChiefBell says... #2
I'm the best kind.
October 2, 2014 2:17 p.m.