[Article] Tempo IS Interesting

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=7601

Mike Flores speaking about tempo wrote "[m]uch as you would like, you can't quite put your finger on it... but you sure know it when you see it." Mike is more perceptive than he probably realizes. The difficulty in identifying tempo is that it has an effect that is different from what it is.

==============================================

I busted my hump on this one and it went through like 10 different drafts.   In the end, there was only one thing I wanted to say - and it was my definition of the effect of tempo - and why it's important.  Hopefully I've not only made an important statement about type one, but made a small advantage to magic theory.

[Magi]

Great article Steve.

The guiding principle behind aggro-control is board advantage at the expense of card advantage.

Would you advocate the use of Elvish Spirit Guide in any deck running green and Null Rods? More specifically, in decks like WTF and Madness, to power out first turn Rods.

I ask this because to me it seems now, that any aggro deck needs 3 cards to be able to even remain competitive at this moment:

Force of Will
Null Rod
and a full compliment of Strips

A reason why I believe that Madness, WTF and Gay/R have quite successful strategies. More often than not against combo decks, that's all you can do, is pray for the FoW draw and second turn Rod. Most of the other cards in the respective decks do most of the work against the control decks, but you really need Null Rod early to even stand a chance against combo.

Anyways, I guess that would apply only in combo heavy metagames.

Again, great article.

[jazzykat]

Hmmm...since it is obvious that I am in your fan club... Great Job!

What I found most useful in the article besides putting mr. teeth (one of the 3 decks I play regularly) as the main deck is that you were able to write in words things that I already knew on a subconcious level but was not able to cognitively realize or discuss.

The most important example for me, was the idea that ditching your hand (ie through pitch counters) to gain superior board position (dryad resolution or whatever) was OK in a lot of situations.

To be honest my control mirror skills need to be worked on because normally when I drop blood moon my opponent just looses provided the board is at some level of parity (silly non basics).

[PucktheCat]

Mike Flores says "Card advantage is nice, but when you've got the Tempo, you dictate the terms of the game. I like to talk about situations where you generate so much Tempo that you have such overwhelming virtual card advantage that your opponent can never win." Flores is onto something, but he overstates his case. The reason I say that Flores overstates his case is because that game isn't at all about card advantage - it's about just winning.
…
The effect of Tempo is to create a situation where the opponent's tactical options, and eventually strategic options, continually dwindle until the game ends.

Steve, what do you think the term virtual card advantage means?  I would say that it is pretty close to EXACTLY what you describe as the effect of tempo.  You aren’t saying anything different from Flores, you are just objecting to his terms.

Here is why that objection is silly, as is your statement that

Tempo displaced Card Advantage in this format.

Tempo and Card Advantage are so interwoven in this format that to say one “displacedâ€? the other has almost no meaning.  The best decks in the format are the ones that trade tempo for cards and cards for tempo most efficiently, but in the end both are irrelevant and what becomes relevant is quantity of effect.

Here is an analogy for how I think T1 decks work.  Do you remember the old stories of great traders who would trade in a circle ending up with the same cards they started with plus a few more?  Here is a made up example of that:

Bob has an Air Elemental.  He trades it for a Sengir Vampire, then trades the Sengir to someone else for an Air Elemental and a Counterspell.

What should Bob learn from this experience?  That he should always trade for Sengir Vampire?  Of course not, the lesson is that he should always trade for a profit.

The same thing applies to resource exchanges in Magic.  Here is a classic Fish opening:

T1: Land
T2: Land, Cloud, Cloud, Standstill, Draw 3 and Force the opponent’s spell

The Clouds trade card advantage for tempo, then the Standstill trades tempo for cards, then the Force trades cards for tempo.  The game will continue like this for as long as the Fish deck is performing correctly, making trades back and forth between tempo and card advantage.  Should we look at this and see a tempo deck trying to draw more cards use to gain more tempo or as a deck with a potent draw engine using its tempo advantage to power its draw?  Really, although both descriptions are accurate, neither is correct.  Fish, and I would argue the same is true of every other deck, is trying to get ahead on BOTH cards and tempo by trading the two resources back and forth and making a profit each time.

In other words, I think card advantage is a very important part of any competitive Vintage deck and has not in any sense been displaced by tempo.  This is especially true since almost the only way to gain a tempo advantage in magic is by spending cards and almost the only way to gain card advantage is by spending tempo.  Both of these resources are important and both are concerned with measuring the same thing: the accumulation of sufficient effect to win the game.

In practice I tend to think of both of them as subservient to a third concept that one might describe as ‘throughput.’  What I mean by this is that both tempo and card advantage are ways of making sure that your deck can have a consistent ability to play a lot of relevant spells.  The proper balance of the two elements will reduce the occurrences of mana limiting and card limiting on your throughput.

Leo

[DB]

This is some sort of wierd timewarp.  The article is set for tomorrow.

I was confused when I didn't see this on the front page.

oh well, I don't get to read too many articles on fridays.


good work on the article.

[Smmenen]

Leo:
By displaced I didn't mean it *replaced*.  What I was saying is that it has been dethroned in terms of importance, not that card advantage is irrellevant.  Clearly my example of LOA and Fire refute that.

How would you define virtual card advantage then?

[VGB]

How would you define virtual card advantage then?

Virtual card advantage is often situational, but can be defined simply by cards that supply it, such as Brainstorm, Null Rod, and Chalice of the Void.

A more general definition would be that virtual card advantage is obtained when you obtain increased card quality at no loss of tempo or increase of resources, or when you neutralize a greater portion of your opponent's potential resources than your own.

[PucktheCat]

How would you define virtual card advantage then?

I would define virtual card advantage as the advantage one has when an opponent has cards available to him that he cannot use due to board position.

I guess the reason I objected to the term 'displace' has more to do with some previous discussions on this site (earlier this year).  If my criticisms don't apply to what you said then they don't apply   .  I think it is important to note, though, that the huge increase in tempo cards in the format has powered a huge increase in card advantage cards as well.  Hulk has more tempo cards and more draw cards than any previous control deck.  Combo decks are usually 1/2 mana acceleration and 1/2 draw.  Gay/r is a huge pile of tempo and card advantage.  The two feed each other and figuring out how to break tempo broke card advantage and vice versa.

Leo

[Smmenen]

The sole goal of my article was to try and articulate how tempo plays out.

There are many other examples I could have used - GroAtog is a great example.  With GAT, the Dryad gets so large that the opponent has to go on the defense just to survive, and then too late a Berserked Tog or Dryad kills you.  I wanted to show how Combo creates a space for tempo and the affect that has on the control players midgame.

I also wanted to bring to the attention of T1 players how important Tempo is.  I think it often gets overlooked due to muddied terms like Virtual Card Advantage - but hopefully I've crystalized that a bit so it more clear to people.  To me Virtual card Advantage is what Back to Basics does.  It isn't actually a multiple for 1 - but it functions as a conditional multiple for one.  

I think the statement I am trying to make is that Tempo is the most defining feature of T1 at the moment and that has to be recognized.  Aggro-Control's success in the post Long and even in the midst of an Artifact invasion is testament to that.  

I also hope that this recognition will bring new life to cards that a powerful in tempo but underplayed.

[PucktheCat]

To me Virtual card Advantage is what Back to Basics does. It isn't actually a multiple for 1 - but it functions as a conditional multiple for one.

Well, that explains why you disagree with Flores.  However, I think you will find that you are defining the term too narrowly.  Writers often use the term virtual card advantage to refer to the effect of land destruction or the like.  There is a huge body of theory that doesn't make any sense using your definitions.

I also wanted to bring to the attention of T1 players how important Tempo is. I think it often gets overlooked due to muddied terms like Virtual Card Advantage - but hopefully I've crystalized that a bit so it more clear to people.

This is exactly where I disagree with you.  I think removing terms like virtual card advantage from the discussion of tempo is exactly the kind of thing that confuses people because it creates an artificial seperation between tempo and card advantage that doesn't reflect the reality of the game.  Cards create tempo and tempo translates into cards.  Virtual card advantage gained through tempo is a classic example of that phenomenon and describes perfectly a particular instance of this interplay.

Also, I think you are, in some cases, confusing tempo with card quality.  When you say that the 'tempo' that an early Dryad or Dragon's Animate gains you puts your opponent on the defensive, what you mean is you have a hugely powerful effect early in the game which alter's your opponent's play.  That hugely powerful effect forces your opponent to use his resources reacting instead of executing his own strategy.  Understanding good cards with strong effects like Quirion Dryad or Animate Dead (in Dragon) is neither a matter of card advantage nor tempo but something else entirely.  It often translates into one or the other as people waste cards to Force it or tempo to Cunning Wish for an answer, but in and of themselves they are simply strong effects.

Leo

[Jacob Orlove]

Also, I think you are, in some cases, confusing tempo with card quality.  When you say that the 'tempo' that an early Dryad or Dragon's Animate gains you puts your opponent on the defensive, what you mean is you have a hugely powerful effect early in the game which alter's your opponent's play.  That hugely powerful effect forces your opponent to use his resources reacting instead of executing his own strategy.  

No, he is arguing that altering your opponent's play in that fashion is the effect of something that generates tempo. Your opponent is forced to use cards and mana inefficiently, which is equivalent to denying them the use of some cards/lands--the "classic" example of tempo.

[WildWillieWonderboy]

tempo- the advantage one has over his opponent due to the position in one's gameplan with respect to the position of the opponent (assuming a winning gameplan ).

card advantage- an advantage that is a function of the amount and quality of your cards relative to your opponent's state with respect to the same factors.

virtual card advantage- a misnomer assigned to a type of card advantage that one doesn't understand because they have an incorrect definition that insists it has to directly affect the cards on the board or in hand or that is assigned to something that is not any kind of advantage.

I feel that Steve's article was helpful because it provided examples of tempo in type I and an analysis of its role in the format *props*. There's always some blurring between one facet of the game and another (tempo and card advantage for example) because they affect one another directly or indirectly. As such the correct definition of any such factor must be assumed to include "...and all the ramifications of this."

Thus, my definition from earlier becomes:

card advantage- an advantage that is a function of the amount and quality of your cards relative to your opponent's state with respect to the same factors and all the ramifications of this.

On Leo's card quality arguement: card quality at a specific time relative to your opponent's card quality at the same time can be a part of tempo depending on the deck's involved. The big dryad example is part of tempo when the other deck is one that would be winning by similar means (with creatures) and/or allows for some interaction with the said face smasher. If the other deck is belcher though, the gameplan of which is not affected by that of its opponent, then this has nothing to do with tempo.

These thoughts in mathematical terms:
f(t)= position in gameplan
tempo= g(f(t))= [your f(t)] /[opponent's f(t)] where t is measured in the total number of non-timewalk turns.

[PucktheCat]

Jacob, in your response I see two seperate points

No, he is arguing that altering your opponent's play in that fashion is the effect of something that generates tempo.

Here you are saying that a play that generates tempo forces your opponent to respond.

Your opponent is forced to use cards and mana inefficiently, which is equivalent to denying them the use of some cards/lands--the "classic" example of tempo.

Here you are saying that a strong play generates tempo because your opponent is forced to respond.

Which reflects your understanding?  Or do both?  Does playing a Quirion Dryad generate tempo inherently and as a result force your opponent to respond or does it generate no inherent tempo but tend to force your opponent into weak plays that cost him tempo?

virtual card advantage- a misnomer assigned to a type of card advantage that one doesn't understand because they have an incorrect definition that insists it has to directly affect the cards on the board or in hand or that is assigned to something that is not any kind of advantage.

Virtual card advantage simply refers to card advantage due to an effect of board position.  The word "virtual" may be somewhat confusing because it seems to imply the card advantage gained from board position is less real than draw or discard, but it makes a useful distinction between two types of card advantage that have fairly different properties.

Leo

[Jacob Orlove]

Which reflects your understanding?  Or do both?  Does playing a Quirion Dryad generate tempo inherently and as a result force your opponent to respond or does it generate no inherent tempo but tend to force your opponent into weak plays that cost him tempo?

Let's break down Smmenen's explanation of the effects of tempo:

The effect of Tempo is to create a situation where the opponent's tactical options, and eventually strategic options, continually dwindle until the game ends.

Now, if left alone, the dryad will create tempo by reducing your opponent's life total, thereby cutting off potential tactical options (someone at 1 life can't use force) and strategic options (low life means you can't ignore threats while drawing cards). Thus, your opponent will generally have to respond to the Dryad, and usually that response will cost them (in tempo, cards, or both). Sometimes, though, they can just play Boa or Swords, and avoid most of that loss.

It's easy to see that Dryad can do nothing offensive against an opponent with 5 million life; it can only serve in a defensive (blocking) capacity. Lifegain can thus generate tempo by negating damage-dealing strategies--Exalted Angel is another great example of this.

Tempo itself can be measured to some extent in "time walks" (does that life gain erase five attack phases or one?), but it's the effect of tempo (reducing the opponent's options) that's so crucial.

In fact, tempo can thus be seen as the opposite twin of card advantage--card advantage adds to your tactical and strategic options and tempo removes your opponent's tactical and strategic options. Card Advantage actually isn't quite the right word here, because the term should incorporate everything that increases your options: card effectiveness/impact, card quality, etc.

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

You describe something most of us new by intuition (hopefully), but you explained the concept extremely well. Great article.
The games actually showed a different point of view, too, that in t1 tempo almost always results in overhelming card advantage anyway. Probably because most threats simply are card-advantage spells (the delayed important spelss usually allowed the other player to simply produce so much card advantage, that the opponent couldn't win anymore with only combo actually killing directly because of their tempo-advantage alone).

That's one reason why Fetchlands are so ridiculous. That one point of life doesn't matter. In fact, that's one reason that Necropotence and Yawgmoth's Bargain are so good. They take as much advantage as they can over an overly abundant resource.

Another good example here would be Channel, which translates life directly into a tempo-resource, mana. The most important point is the extreme efficiency with which these cards trade in your life for another resource, imo.
Something not as broken, that imo would be another great example is Skeletal Scrying in 4CC. You trade in X GY-cards and X life for 2 mana. This is worse than what Necro does, but because life is so cheap and tempo so important in t1, those 2 mana are worth the cost.
As you stated, against most decks, 3-5 life simply won't matter at all, because they'll usually be able to overkill anyway, considering t1s power niveau.

/edit: this was written long before all the replies were posted :/

[DamnedMarine]

Everybody wants to know how Tempo is defined, i know the answer:

=)
Tempo is just an expression when your opponent cannot do more than before for one/a couple of turns.
A perfect example is Tangle Wire, often this is a 3 mana time walk when your opponent is forced to tap everything.
Its card disadvantage which leads to tempo.
sorry for my bad english

[Alfred]

Tempo doesn't always = card disadvantage, for example, abeyance. It cantrips. Time walk itself isn't card disadvantage either, it gives you an extra turn (thus an extra draw step).

[Purple Hat]

Steve,
Would I be correct in stating that you view tempo as very similar to the military term Initiative?
In that case could you say that card advantage is similar to logistics?

Thus decks designed for card advantage win wars of attrition while decks designed for tempo win games before attrition matters.  Is that about right?

as always, a great article.

Hale

[Ultima]

This article was exceptionally well-written and thought out.  

There should not be any question about what tempo is after reading this throughly.  

Not even in this thread.

[VGB]

Steve,
Would I be correct in stating that you view tempo as very similar to the military term Initiative?
In that case could you say that card advantage is similar to logistics?

That is a decent analogy - this is from the c.hess term dictionary:

Initiative: A term that describes an advantage held by player who has the ability to control the game. The player without the initiative is often left no choice but to play defensively.

[PucktheCat]

Jacob:  I think you are drawing some very clear and relevant logical distinctions, but I am not sure they correspond with the language you are using.

In fact, tempo can thus be seen as the opposite twin of card advantage--card advantage adds to your tactical and strategic options and tempo removes your opponent's tactical and strategic options. Card Advantage actually isn't quite the right word here, because the term should incorporate everything that increases your options: card effectiveness/impact, card quality, etc.

This is certainly a clear distinction and probably quite a relevant one, but it simply doesn't correspond with the terms card advantage and tempo as they are currently used.  Think about these cards:

Mind Twist
Black Lotus

Mind Twist, using your definitions, would be a tempo card because it limits your opponent's options while Black Lotus would be card advantage because it increases your options.  Clearly that doesn't fit with the plain meaning of the terms as they are used.

Going back to Steve's statement:

The effect of Tempo is to create a situation where the opponent's tactical options, and eventually strategic options, continually dwindle until the game ends.

You need to be careful with your logic here.  Think of this in terms of if statements:

If I have tempo, then I will reduce my opponent's options.

This is not the same as:

If I reduce my opponent's options, then I have tempo.

The plain meaning of card advantage has always included situations where your opponent's options are reduced.  Consider classic examples of card advantage like The Deck's Scepter-lock.

When a Dryad reduces your opponent's options due to life loss it is no more natural to think of that as a tempo advantage than it is to think of it as card advantage.  Card advantage and tempo make the most sense as descriptions of relative states of resource availiablity and Dryad respresents a use of resources to accomplish the game's ultimate goal - winning.  The Dryad may convert back into card advantage or tempo advantage if your opponent uses a spell that costs more than two mana or multiple cards to kill him, but while he is beating down, until he actually kills your opponent, he is a card and two mana you are making a decision to do without in the hopes that it will win the game for you.

Leo

[Jacob Orlove]

Mind Twist
Black Lotus

Mind Twist, using your definitions, would be a tempo card because it limits your opponent's options while Black Lotus would be card advantage because it increases your options.  Clearly that doesn't fit with the plain meaning of the terms as they are used.

Well, like I said, Card Advantage isn't really the term I'm looking for--let's call increasing your options plain old "Advantage". Black Lotus gives you Advantage, Mind Twist takes away Advantage from your opponent (Tempo). If you Twist cards away from your opponent, whole turns can be wasted while they just sit there, trying to draw into options. There's tempo gain there, and not just CA.

You need to be careful with your logic here.  Think of this in terms of if statements:

If I have tempo, then I will reduce my opponent's options.

This is not the same as:

If I reduce my opponent's options, then I have tempo.

Tempo is not the reduction of the opponent's options--Tempo is fractions of a Time Walk. The reduction in options is the effect of tempo, and the only clear sign that Tempo has been gained. Sometimes you have also gained card advantage, but whenever your opponent loses relevant options, you have gained tempo.

The plain meaning of card advantage has always included situations where your opponent's options are reduced.  Consider classic examples of card advantage like The Deck's Scepter-lock.

Actually, most of the cards discarded to scepter against the deck would be useless at the time (ground creatures with Moat out, red spells with CoP Red out, colored spells with Blood Moon out, creature removal without Serra Angel out, Countermagic without opposing spells on the stack). Scepter merely turned the "virtual card advantage" generated by the other powerful spells in The Deck into numerical card advantage--it didn't usually generate Tempo, because it didn't take away real options. A Blood Moon or Moat that makes all the opponent's lands or creatures useless generates plenty of Tempo, though.  

When a Dryad reduces your opponent's options due to life loss it is no more natural to think of that as a tempo advantage than it is to think of it as card advantage.  Card advantage and tempo make the most sense as descriptions of relative states of resource availiablity and Dryad respresents a use of resources to accomplish the game's ultimate goal - winning.  

If the Dryad is reducing the opponent's life total by an amount large enough to be relevant, you are gaining both card and tempo advantage, as they lose future untaps, future draws, and various tactical and strategic options.

[Ric_Flair]

Steve, excellent shot at tempo.  Really, probably the best, most lucid discussion of the topic since EDT's comments with Repulse and Grizzly Bear.  There are a few things I want to pick at though.

First, what is the big deal with the distinction between "what tempo is" and "what tempo's effects are"?  In Magic, the idea of tempo is entirely defined by what its effects are.  What is the point in separating the two?  Furthermore, can you demonstrate tempo without its reference entirely to its effects?  Tempo is precisely its effect.  You "have" tempo because you are reaping the benefits of its effect.  It is silly to say that you have tempo but none of its effects.  What does that look like?

Second, one of the stumbling blocks that everyone has with this idea is that they compare it to card advantage.  They say: "This is card advantage" and "this, this different thing over here, this is tempo."  I think that is largely the source of the Magic community's confusion on the issue.  Tempo incorporates card advantage, not directly, that is, tempo is not equal to or the reverse of card advantage, but card advantage is one aspect of tempo.  

Really instead of speaking of a dimunition of tactical and then strategic options (which is, itself a tenuous distinction--when does something switch from being tactical to strategic?), tempo really should be concerned with aggregate efficiency.  Tempo then is utilizing one's resources more efficiently, in the aggregate, than one's opponent.  The problem with the dimunition theory, aside from the tactical v. strategic concern, deals with capturing the essence of what happens in a game versus combo.  I think that you put it in your first example that the threat of Necromancy gains the Dragon player tempo v. Tog.  Something to that effect.  But I really think that the tempo generated in your example comes from two major sources: the brutal efficiency of Bazaar in combination with "multi-zone" use cards like Squee, Dragon, and so on.  In essence the Dragon deck gained a tempo advantage because its draw was cheaper (comparing Bazaar to the Intuition/Accumulated Knowledge engine) and its cards were more broadly useful.  Thus it was squeezing more out of what it had than the Tog deck was.  Necromancy was just the final piece of the puzzle.  In actuality the other cards put the Dragon deck into a position where Necromancy delivered the win, and the deck had tempo because its cards did so faster than the Tog deck's cards.  

So tempo comes down to cheating inherent or relational costs.  That is, we all know that 3-4 mana draws a card which costs about 1.5 life, or at least, these relations hold up with non-broken cards.  The specifics are not important, just the idea that resources in the game trade with each other at a roughly constant exchange rate.  Using cards in a way that cheats the exchange rate, or more efficiently uses resources, creates, if an opponent is not doing the same, a resource surplus.  This surplus and the ability to exchange resources readily is tempo.  The person that does it better is the one with the tempo.  The result might be a dimunition in options, but is that really an accurate description of what happens when a combo deck goes of on turn one?  The combo deck does not take away tactical options because short of Force/Misdirection the other player has no options.  Really the better lense is to see tempo as using resources more efficiently than an opponent.  Sometimes that is card advantage, virtual card advantage, "buying" time or whatever, but the most descriptive analysis, in my mind, revolves around the comparison of efficient use of resources with an eye to the relational cost of said resources.  

Multizone cards are an excellent example of my conception of tempo.  Deep Analysis, in so far as it is useful in hand AND in graveyard, is not a card that reduces an opponent's options.  Deep Analysis is useful because it a resource in more zones than a normal card.  Compare Deep Analysis and Opportunity.  They draw the same number of cards and Deep Analysis costs more.  But it is doubly more flexible.  First the cost can be paid at different times, making it two abilities, really, instead of one.  Second, it is useful in multiple zones.  It is a resource to be drawn upon in the yard or in the hand.  Thus it is flexible and useful more often.  It is an incredibly efficient card.  Looking at it in U/G it is even better, as a Madness card as well as its other capacities.  

Third, I have a hard time seeing why Vintage is a better place to see tempo.  In my mind tempo is best seen in Limited because the aggregation is more powerful, that is the whole is significantly greater than sum of the parts.  In Vintage, all too often there are cards that so radically cheat the relation resource exchange matrix that tempo is difficult to measure.  Was it the Yawgmoth's Bargain that won it or the 8 Draw7s I cast?  In the end, both are likely sufficient causes of victory on their own.  Vintage is based on tempo as you said, but the tempo swings are so explosive and great that the nuances of the relation exchange constants are easily missed.  

On the other hand, if you compare the aggregate effects of tiny, small combat exchanges and mana costs in a good Limited battle, you can quickly see that efficient use of resources is what turns the tide of a game, as opposed to one of a dozen splashy broken cards.  Here the true nature, the aggregate quality of tempo, is seen.  This creature gets first strike, that card is recurred from the graveyard, mutlizone cards are exploited, and suddenly your winning.  Limited is tempo and that is about it.  With so few bombs, tempo is usually the only thing that breaks the game open.  

So in sum, your view of tempo as a fencing fight is accurate only by coincidence.  Really, I think, tempo is like a wave of water.  It gathers more mass, getting more force, gaining more speed...and then it crests...then you win the game.  That, I think, is a more accurate analogy for tempo, based on a more accurate definition of the concept.

I applaud your effort though.  Tempo is really the Mt. Everest of Magic theory.  I am just not sure that anyone is Sir Edmund Hilary quite yet.  Though if you don't do it, Steve, I am sure you will be the Tenzeng Norge (sp).  The article was really well done.

To Ultima:

This article was exceptionally well-written and thought out.

There should not be any question about what tempo is after reading this throughly.

Not even in this thread.

This comment is dangerously close to sucking up.  I would always be suspicious of people who think that there is nothing left to question, especially about complex ideas.

[Dr. Sylvan]

when does something switch from being tactical to strategic?

I'll submit the definition of tactical as "immediate options" such as "before I pass priority back to the opponent" and strategic as "long-term" options which are predicated on one or more intermittent tactical decisions.

Tactical example: The opponent has played a spell. Do I use my Mana Drain or do I cast Accumulated Knowledge in response digging for a different answer?

Strategic example: If I activate Bazaar now, I could go for the Animate now. If I wait till my endstep, he won't know whether I have a WGD in hand or not, and thus might have The Ph34r of my Necromancy kill and skip casting Intuition.

Notice how strategic options involve thinking about strings of actions in future phases and/or intervening actions by the opponent.

[Jacob Orlove]

I would define tactical and strategic options a little differently. Tactical options are direct game actions, like casting a spell, whereas strategic options are executing a game plan.

The key difference is that strategic options do not depend on an exact set of cards; for example, a tog deck doesn't really care how the tog gets to 20 power: you can use berserk or you can just pump it with whatever cards you've draw. And you don't really care what specific cards you use to draw all those cards--ancestral+gush is just as "good" as intuition for AKs+AK in hand, since both "draw" 7 cards. Your strategic options with tog would be decisions like whether to go for a quick kill or exert more control over the game.

Tactical options, by contrast, are grounded in the resources you have here and now, like choosing which land to play turn 1, or when to activate bazaar, or the like.

edit: the simple explanation: strategy is what you are doing, tactics is how you are doing it.

[Ric_Flair]

Phil I am nto sure if I see the difference between the two.  If a "before the damage goes on the stack" ability is tactical I can buy that, but anything bigger I am not sure.

I think Steve probably needs to clear up what these things mean.  The problem is that tactical decisions can be easily defined (as I did above), but making everything else a strategic decision is really problematic, because it is pretty obvious that some moves are much more important than others, more involved with a deck "doing its thing."

[Ultima]

@ Ric Flair

Interesting.  I wonder exactly what one should be suspicious about in this case.  You act as though there's a "scandel" going on or something.

Is there really something that lurks in the shadows about what I said? Or perhaps I was simply expressing my thoughts to an article that did well to articulate a concept using examples most competitive type 1 players actually saw in tournaments.  

As I'm sure anyone else who has played for a while, including you Ric, when reading things with examples that you can relate to so easily and know from your own experience, often brings a faster, clearer and more through understanding of what your reading is trying to say.

Thus making this article exactly what I said and leaving no questions.

Okay, this is enough; if you guys want to continue this discussion, take it to PMs.
-Jacob

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

I think that one of the problems encountered in this discussion is the definition of specific terms.  

I think that most players can aggree on what "card advantage" is (it is easy to notice the swings in the game when one player resolves anscestral or another player get's mindtwisted), but "virtual card advantage" is different.   I think that a back to basics, although an easily comprehensible example, is probably too narrow.  I think that "virtual card advantage" should be defined as anything that gains you card resources/denys opponent card resources not directly related to number of cards in hand/play.  Earlier examples include a chalice of the void that nullifies cards in an opponent's hand/deck.  Even fetchlands can be said to gain virtual card advantage as they thin one's deck to slightly imrpove draws, or feed a 'tog/lavamancer.  Brainstorm falls into the same catagory.

I think that defining the effect of tempo as reducing one's opponent's options is a good start.  However, this can often overlap with virtual card advantage, such as a null rod, chalice, or back to basics.  There have also been many examples about how tempo and card advantage trade back and forth.  This ties into my next point: that keeping terms seperate in a discussion like this is impossible.  Because of how all effects come together within a game of magic, it is unavaidable that no matter how clear-cut definitions become, terms WILL overlap.  In fact, the interellation of all of the individual elements is what makes things so interesting.

Another way to define, or represent tempo, is not as using YOUR resources more effectivly than your opponent(or even decreasing their options), but as "countering" your opponent's actions with the investment of a lesser quantitiy of resources.  Ex: player A taps out 11 mana to hardcast a darksteel colossus.  Player B counterspells it.  Although player B did not decrease player A's options significantly, he invested only 2 mana to counter his opponent's investment of 11 mana.  This allows him to invest his other resources into more things (casting a Fact or fiction at end of turn, for example).  Many of the format's best cards are powerful because of the tempo they create.  Not only force of will, but things like swords to plowshares, mana drain, and rack and ruin (which also net's card advantage)

Tempo should also be defined using board position.  example: player A plays tunra, go, player B, wasteland tundra, go.  Was any tempo really gained by player B?  He may have decreased players A's options by denying him white mana (player A's hand is unknown to him), but he didn't really gain any tempo unless player A is mana screwed, which he cannot tell yet.  The board position at the beginning of player A's second turn mainpahse is exacly the same as in the fist turn.  I would say that no tempo has been gained by either player.  

Take this other example, though.  Player A plays island, go, player B plays volcanic island, go.  Player A plays wasteland, cloud of faeries, wasteland volcaninc island, cast curiosity on faeries, go.  Clearly player A has gained tempo.  At the beginning of player B second mainphase he is facing down an opponent with not just an island but a curious faeries in play also.  This goes back to ric flair's point.  What gained player A the tempo?  The wasteland?  Faeries? Curiosity?  A combination of all 3 came together.  But, player A's tempo could just as easily be negated by tundra+swords to plowshares.  Thus, I don't think tempo should be necessarilry associated with a gradual shift that win's the game.  Card advanatage and board position swing back and forth rather quickly in type 1, and tempo is no different.

Going back to relating tempo to initiative: Obviously except in the most extreame circumstances, the player going first in a magic game has the advantage despite the card advantage netted by the player going second.  Playing first is a huge tempo boost, and a 1 card difference certainly does not offset that.  This obviously contributed to the tempo gained by player A in the cloud/waste/curiosity example.

Tempo and land.  Land is obviously important in magic.  One of the significant effects gained by the card timewalk(the epitome of tempo) is an additonal land drop.  I have done 2 examples involving wasteland already, so I will shift focus: stone rain.  As was mentioned earlier, land destruction is based around tempo.  Destroying your opponent's land denys them the resources to cast spells and thus limit's their options.  Player A plains, go, player B, mountain, black lotus, stone rain plains, go.  Now, obviously the black lotus giving player B mana was a gigantic boost in temo, but let's look at the effect of the stone rain: player A now has less mana resources on his second turn:1 unit, assuming he has a land and doesn't topdeck a mox, lotus, etc, while player B we can asume will have more 2, playing another land.  Player B has effectivly stolen the tempo player A got from going first; the addional landdrop, due to lotus+stone rain.  Note that it did cost him card advantage, though, but we have already seen that generally the initiative/extra landdrop > 1 extra card.

The key to gaining tempo in the last 2 examples goes back to board position: expanding your own board position while reducing that of your opponent; quasi-timewalking.  This is, of course, the entire concept that aggro/control decks are based around.  Because of the power of tempo, decks like Gay/r can run horrible cards and still win, playing 1st is better than playing 2nd, etc.  I think steve's point about tempo being more focused on in current type 1 is a good one; otherwise decks like Gay/r would not exist.

on strategy vs tactics:  I think I read this in book, but the gist of it was that stratgy can be learned/taught, but that tactics could not.  That basically identifies strategy as the theorectical ascpects of a magic game, and seperates tatics as how the strategy is carried out.  It is easily possible for any random player to learn the strategy behind playing hulk.  But perhaps the deck just isn't right for the individual's personal playstyle.  He lacked the "tactics," or method or application of the strategy in the circumstances of the game.  As most will agree that playstyle cannot be learned/taught, this seems a correct fit.

[Alfred]

I have an interesting solution to the tempo problem. I have found by reading Steve's article, and some of the posts here that there are some common misconceptions about tempo. Most involve the interaction between Tempo and Card Advantage. Let us presume for a second that Tempo is in fact, a state. Each player starts off with a qualitative amount of tempo at the beginning of each match: 0, where each "virtual timewalk" adds to your "tempo score". There are two things that you can do during the course of a game that can improve your tempo, positively effecting your own tempo, or negatively affecting your opponent's. A good example of positively effecting your own tempo would be committing a permanent to the board. A good example of negatively affecting your opponent's tempo would be stone raining his/her land, or killing a creature.

Timewalk is a good way of looking at how tempo works, because that is what Tempo is: how far ahead of your opponent are you in the game. Sometimes when you get ahead of your opponent it isn’t by a whole turn, or a full “timewalk�, sometimes it is just by a fraction, but these fractions add up. When you are a turn, or turns ahead of your opponent, you have the lead in your tempo score.

This is a good example of why, from a tempo point of view, it is better to go first in a game of magic: you have just positively affected your own "tempo score", by being able to play your lands/spells first. If we take two identical decks that draw the same spells and are able to drop a land per turn, the first deck will always have a greater or equal “tempo score� than the second. In type one however, with moxen you are able to break the fundamental 1 land a turn rule of magic, and you positively affect your score as a result.

The reason that it sometimes gets more complicated is that many spells can both affect your "tempo score" and your opponent's. A good example of this is one of Steve’s: Spiketail Hatchling. Not only have you committed a permanent to the board, you have also prevented your opponent from tapping out to cast a spell (when this stops him from playing a spell it negatively effects your opponent's "tempo score"). Cards like these are very good at getting you tempo, say for example it gave you a plus +1 to your score and gave a -1 to your opponent’s; you are ahead 2 full tempo points. The problem with assigning points for tempo is that unlike card advantage, it is not always as easy to see. You cannot as easily look at how many turns you gained for yourself and how many you subtracted from your opponent.

Now we move on to another aspect of tempo: creatures. Creatures with a large power affects the tempo of the game more than a creature with a lower one, because with the larger creature you are effectively shortening the expected game for your opponent, thus increasing your tempo score. High toughness creatures (such as walls), negatively impact your opponent’s tempo score because if he cannot attack through it, it nullifies one of his creatures. High power creatures are better than high toughness ones for a number of reasons. If the opponent controls no creatures, high toughness creatures do not negatively affect his tempo at all, and also, high power creatures can keep you opponent's creatures at bay as well, if he doesn't want to lose them, or wants to save them for blocking.

There is also a game behind a game involved in magic, which includes bluffing or assuming. Players can affect each other’s tempo by assuming or pretending that they have a certain card in their hand/deck when in fact they do not. Let us take for example Samite Healer's highlander keeper deck. People fearing that he had 4x force of wills or 4x Mana Drain, negatively affected their own tempo by playing around cards that were not there. This is an example of how play style, or opponent's misconceptions can negatively impact tempo. Though this can negatively impact your opponent’s tempo, it does nothing to your own.

Balance is often referred to as a card that reaps large quantities of card advantage. While this may be true, you can also look at it as a very effective tempo card. This card basically evens the tempo score. If Player 1 was at 21 tempo and Player 2 was at 6 (barring artifacts and enchantments) after a balance, both players would effectively be at 6 tempo. Balance is also a good example of negatively effecting your opponent's "tempo score", because it ONLY negatively effects players, there is no instance where it can positively effect someone’s tempo. This is easy to see, because it is essentially moving the game backwards to a point where there was less land and creatures on the board.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Tempo and Card Advantage are two ways of looking at the same problem. The one place where these two methods of examining magic stray, is the fact that tempo usually looks at cards and the effect that they have on the game and card advantage only looks at the numbers these cards generate. Tempo I believe should not focus on the quantity of cards in a player’s hand, rather, it should only concentrate on what effect those cards are having on the game. If you think about it, Tempo shows how far the game has progressed, at any point in the game you can have any card from your deck in your hand, so whether it is there or not should not effect tempo. The only time I can see where cards in hand would matter to tempo would be your ability to cast them. If casting these spells is important to your game plan, as they move you along your route toward victory, not being able to cast said spells would negatively effect your tempo, whereas being able to cast more of these spells in turn would increase your tempo. This would mean that how much each spell effects your tempo would range between each deck. For example, Dragon only has to cast two spells to bring the game to an end (discard outlet and animate spell), making each card worth a LOT of tempo.

This is why Psychatog is one of the greatest tempo spells ever printed; it turns all of the card drawing in Hulk into a creature that ends the game in one turn. It is Hulk’s game plan to cast spells that draw cards, it will do this throughout the game, until it has won or lost. You can see why it would be advantageous Tempo-wise to slow down or stop this process, because you are taking what they would normally be doing and making them take more turns to do it in. That is the point of not counting cards in hand (or the graveyard for that matter) as effecting tempo. If a Hulk deck had no Psychatogs in it, would it still gain Tempo from casting draw spells? As tempo looks at the effect on the state of the game, the card drawing would essentially be masturbation; a means to no end, as it would not be quickening the game towards any sort of resolution.

Card advantage is simpler than Tempo, because it only counts cards. Tempo on the other hand looks at the game state, and how it is progressing. If we keep these two ideas separate, it would probably make thing much easier to understand.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

One of my points, however, was that it is not possble to seperate tempo and card advantage.  Using your own example of tempo being game state, how can card advantage not effect game state?  Tempo and card advantage are certainly different, but are also inevitably inter-related.  

If tempo is how far ahead in the game you are on your opponent, wouldn't card advantage have an effect on that?  If your opponent resolves ancestral and then mindtwists your hand, it is impossible to keep seperate card advantage and tempo; your opponent gaining cards has increased their tempo (EVERY deck benifits from drawing more cards), and you losing your entire hand has decreased your tempo.