[article] Strategy Superiority in Type 1

[jpmeyer]

This Also Just In: I Win The Prize
{DrSylvan} "Themes: Femmes Fatales, Hired Killers, Out For Revenge, Mistaken Identities"
{jpmeyer} "Lesbian assassins at war provide the focus for this outrageous Hong Kong martial arts film that is already becoming a cult classic."
{DrSylvan} i have no idea how you find this stuff
{jpmeyer} by spending all day
{jpmeyer} every day
{jpmeyer} learning more about asian movies
{jpmeyer} my film profs mad defer to me on the subject
{DrSylvan} see, you could've competed for nerdiest TMDer. dave was such a lightweight, giving in after just exhibit B.
{DrSylvan} but i think you've one-upped me on that score

[Matt]

I see you've taken two pages from Oscar and blended them to make your modus operandi "name dropping Asian movies."

[Dr. Sylvan]

OMG! JP has a FW pic now!

Edit: This article is the hotness. <3 injokes and random references. The explanation of Suicide's badness is right on.

[Shadow Ninja]

Dude, you out-nerded Phil?  I think that deserves a hearty round of applause.

Nicely written article, though I'm irked you insist on making fun of a deck that I still feel all sentimental about (even though I'll be the first to admit it isn't competitive).

[firebird365]

I really liked it, but the links really came out of nowhere.

Also, it seemed to abruptly end.













But really, how does Madness do against decks like FCG, Landstill, and Dragon? Are you relying on other people to hate out Dragon?

[Klep]

Solid article.  I have a friend with Bazaars I hope doesn't read it.

I love you for linking that Star Wars Kid video.  I've wanted that forever but have been too lazy to find it on my own.

Don't read too much into Oscar's defection though.  Us Keeper players sometimes just sprain our brains and have to try an easy deck for a while.

[jpmeyer]

Since we mostly felt that for the tourney, we would have to deal with Tog and Slaver, that's what we worked on tuning the deck against.  As I talk about in the article, I didn't however just want to resort to just tossing out random hate cards and hoping that they would work because hate ends up being an answer rather than a threat.  Eventually we'll get around to testing other matchups like Dragon.

[Swanky]

SCG's newest Featured Writer: Ash Catchum.  :)

I found Oscar Tan's departure from Keeper to be pretty funny too.  I look forward to half-heartedly-constructed fantasy prose in his next article along the lines of: "As my enemy sped toward me with a passion in his eyes unmatched by any to have lived, I smiled a wry smile as he was hastily devoured by my pet smiling lizard-thing."

Oscar Tan = Poet laureate.

[ump]

The shortened definition of strategy superiority is the ability for a deck to beat another deck even if both decks are permitted to operate in the manner that they normally want to. This means that you typically cannot use hate cards in order to gain strategy superiority over another deck, since hate cards usually disallow an opponent from using an aspect of their deck, and strategy superiority only exists if both decks are capable of functioning.

Although I can see the benefits of strategy superiority, I would argue that there is still a place for the opposite strategy of running hate cards specifically disallowing an opponent from using an aspect of their deck.  I think the most effective is the use of mana denial through the use of Strips/Wastes, Null Rods/Shamans, Blood Moon or Back to Basics, and now even Stifle.  I guess what I am trying to say is why let your opponent operate as they normally want to?

[jpmeyer]

Because it means that your DECK isn't what's winning.  It's like going "Yay I can win if my opponent doesn't cast spells!"  Of course you win if your opponent isn't allowed to cast spells!  Any deck wins win its opponent can't cast spells or can't use its creatures and whatnot.  The difference here is that now you know why you are winning and not only that, but it shows that your deck can trump what your opponent's deck is designed to do.  Xantid Swarm, mass discard effects, and permanent answers to creatures like Moat all work the same way, in that you're winning the game because your opponent isn't allowed to do what his deck wants to whether it's play counters or attack with creatures or whatever.

I'm not singling out mana denial when I say this.  Mana denial is just a really good example since as a strategy, it's predicated on not allowing the opponent to play his game.  I've got a fair amount of mana denial in U/G Madness for instance, but there mana denial isn't a goal in and of itself (I'm just trying to buy time,) since the problem with it is that if your opponent gets to "do their thing," that almost always trumps mana denial if mana denial is your "thing."

It helps to reduce your opponent's outs as well.  You've got a much stronger deck if you can say "Even if you kill my creatures and counter my spells I can still win" or "Even if you kill my land and attack me I can still win" rather than "I can win if I draw card X at time Y before you've done strategy Z."

[defector]

Nice article JP.  I apply the same strategy to sidebaord design, instead of adding cards that hate out a few well defined archetypes, I try to add cards that antagonize my build.  sheilds vs silver bullets, if you will.
defector