Multiple Paths to Victory: Good or Bad?

[thorme]

Most of you are probably familiar with the concept of Paths of Victory in an MTG deck.  My question to you is:  What type of deck (if any) want multiple paths to victory, and what type of deck (if any) wants to focus on a single path to victory.

Let me run down a few arguments I've seen recently:

Mask:  I've seen folks claim that non-Dreadnought creatures simply dilute the deck, and it should focus completely on getting the combo out.  They seem to espouse the idea that in a combo deck, multiple paths to victory is a bad thing.

Keeper:  Some swear by the Power Artifact / Monolith combo: giving the deck another path to victory besides Morphling.  Others stick to the game plan of dominating board control and having one kill card.  In this style of deck, is having multiple paths to victory a good thing?


These are just a few examples I've seen.  Try not to get into a protracted discussion of Mask or Keeper card choices.  I'm looking for opinions on when having multiple paths to victory in a deck is a good/bad idea.

[MoreFling]

I'm not sure about Mask, but for Keeper, the Combo adds great flexibility to the deck, apart from an "instant win condition."

Morphling still takes a few turns, and is sometimes very time consuming, especially if you are already behind and the 50-minute clock is ticking. If you tune your keeper to run the combo, naturally you have 1 or 2 extra tutors to fetch it somewhat easier.

[Akuma (gio)]

IMHO all decks need to have focus. Multiple paths to victory are acceptable, provided that they do not deviate from the overall strategy of the deck.

Legend Sligh, as an example, is something I would consider to have multiple paths to victory: the creatures, the burn, the Scrolls, and the Ankhs. These all compliment each other, and thus work well together.

Mask decks need to have more than just the Mask components, search, and disruption. If that is all you have, then you become a one trick pony that is easier to neutralize.

If these "paths" have synergy, then by all means go ahead and try them out.

[Grand Inquisitor]

from my experience any aggresive deck benefits from more diverse threats so long as consistency isn't sacrificed.  if all i had to worry about from mask was dreadnoughts, it would be a cakewalk.  similarly, i feel much safer running 1 morphling in my gro build just in case someone resolves a moat/u

i'm not sure if the same rule applies to control and combo.  in the first case, you expect to have control of the game when you drop your threat, so it should be as efficient as possible (morphling) and should be 1 card (PA keeper players jump in here).  in the case of combo, it depends what you're playing against.  against aggro and other combo you want to go off as fast as possible; your deck must be streamlined.  against control, combo often has a transformational plan.

[Khy]

power monolith sure is good, but a keeper deck shouldnt care that much about speed. When they have controll, they dont care if they win on 1 round or 4. Tho I still think that it gives the deck more variaty, since stroke or grasp your opponent. (if you now play any of them?)
The main reason I like morphling better is that the combo is two cards, and that power artifact is a dead card unless you have the monolith. Dead cards in a keeper can be devesating.
But I'm not sure if it still applies since it was a long time ago I mett a guy playing keeper. You just dont see "the deck" anymore, but only TnT, gro, sligh, mask, sui... and so on.

IMO is disruption better then mobility in a Mask deck. But in most combo decks I like to play with spells that kill in diferent ways. Well I dont play a "real" combo deck (Chains of Mephistopheles), but it seems as I'm not the onlyone that think it's good when playing combo decks.

[rozetta]

I'd say that ever since Wizards printed cards like cap and extract, diversifying on your threats is a good thing. As stupid as those cards are in general, you never know when you'll be the victim of someone deciding they're a good idea and maybe stealing a match off you. My experience tells me that losing even one match to random nonsense like that can effectively keep you out of the top 8 if you've not had a perfect run otherwise ,and you'll kick yourself for it for the next month.

[Amosw99]

I wanted to chime in and say that if you build your keeper correctly then the power artifact/grim monolith combo is really a terrific win condition. Often, aggro decks will give you a little while after you have weathered the intial creature rush to set up for a secondary attack using other threats. In this window being able to set up for a one turn kill is a really good way to do things.
The combo is also good vs. control, let me give you an in game example:

I am playing against my friends BBS deck and he has been owning me all night because I am relatively new to keeper and he has 3 maindeck back to basics along with all his counters.
We play alot of land and have some minor counter wars, i'm able to drop an abyss to shut down his ophidians and have been out landing him, my 8 to his 5 and I have a grim monolith in play. At the end of his turn I play fact or fiction, he drains, I FOW, he drains again, I let it go and then cast cunning wish for enlightened and tutor for power artifact.
On my turn I play the power artifact, braingeyser myself for 25, then fireball him for 100. He tried to misd the fireball but i had counters.

The point is you can go from a slightly advantagous board position to a win in just one turn instead of 5, also, you can steal games from decks without countermagic by just racing them.
Against a TnT deck last week, he played a first turn juggy, and turn 2 he tinkered a mox for a phyrexian colosuss, and I combo'ed him out on turn 3

Amos

[thorme]

Thanks all for the responses.  It seems like most folks are in favor of having multiple paths to victory in their decks.  Aggro decks like to have a variety of threats so that when control stops one, others can finish the job.  Control seems to like a few paths to victory as well (one path being a 4-turn superman, the other a 1 turn combo)  Combo....well, my thinking is that combo traditionally is a one-trick pony, and I'm having trouble thinking of a strong diversified combo deck (I've yet to see a successful meld of Academy and Dream Halls for example)

It seems to me that the issue then is trying to find a balance between diversification and focus.


P.S.  Amos, why didn't you Braingeyser him for 100?  Also, why wouldn't he misdirect the Braingeyser rather than wait for the fireball?

[j_orlove]

Quote Combo....well, my thinking is that combo traditionally is a one-trick pony, and I'm having trouble thinking of a strong diversified combo deck

Well, Academy runs capsize/candelabra and MoMa to get infinite mana--that's 2 "paths to victory".

Squirrel Craft also typically runs a kill card (eg stroke SB with cunning wish main), just in case the "attack with a million squirrels" plan fails.

[thorme]

Quote (j_orlove @ Feb. 12 2003,14:46)Well, Academy runs capsize/candelabra and MoMa to get infinite mana--that's 2 "paths to victory".

Squirrel Craft also typically runs a kill card (eg stroke SB with cunning wish main), just in case the "attack with a million squirrels" plan fails.

Your Academy example doesn't jive with my understanding of paths to victory.  The Path to Victory is to generate vast amounts of mana and force the opponent to draw their deck.  Candelabra and MoM are just 2 cards used in this path.  Similarly, Stompy's path is to attack with creatures to deal 20 damage, it doesn't have 30 paths to victory, it just has 30 cards which facilitate this one path.

(BTW: I don't know if Stompy actually runs 30 creatures, its just an example)


Having said that, I think you have a strong example in  Squirrel Craft (with Stroke) of a combo deck which utilizes an alternate path to victory.  Thanks.

[Spizzard]

Extended Aluren runs multiple win conditions.
Dragon does too.  Ambassador/Cursed Scroll are in some versions.  Even a Verdant Force.
  I generally feel better if I have more than one way to win due to something like extract and rootwater theif.  It allows me to react to situations differently ly.

[thorme]

I agree with most everyone here that multiple paths to victory are essential to many decks.  One of the main reasons, IMHO, is that there exist cards which do more than 1 for 1 trades, but actually shut down entire paths to victory.

In my earlier example about Stompy, I mentioned that the deck had 1 path to victory (attacking with creatures for 20+ damage), it simply has 30 cards which facilitate this path.  When playing against Keeper, a Swords to Plowshares means that one of your 30 cards is no longer available.  A Moat, however, means that your entire path to victory has been shut down.

Academy suceeds despite its single path to victory since there are few playable cards that thwart this path.  (When's the last time you saw 2 Sterling Groves, an Obstinate Familiar, and a Steely Resolve naming Lizards in play...sorry, couldn't think of a more realistic example)

As several have mentioned in this thread, if your path to victory relies on very few cards, Extracts/Jester's Caps/etc. can make it virtually impossible to win.