[Article] Type One Skills

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=8493

Mike Flores wrote an interesting article on degree of difficulty. I found the Flores' article interesting not because I strongly disagree with him - but because I think the real issue is worth exploring: what skills does Type One test? Vintage is clearly unlike any other format. Nick Eisel once described some in-game analysis contained in one of my articles as "bizarro world." Rather than compare Type One on a better or worse scale, this article will explore and explain what I think are the critical skills Vintage players must have to be successful.

[Komatteru]

Your best article to date? It very well could be.

Anyway, superb.  There is nothing I can find to disagree with in this article.  As a combo player myself, I don't think people who don't play combo appreciate all the stuff that goes into it.  Sure, most players will agree that it is the most difficult type of deck to play, but they don't truly understand what goes into every decision.  I was playing on Saturday with a bunch of unpowered players at a tourney, and someone made the comment "Well, I could win on the 2nd turn if I had those cards."  Everyone would agree that this guy is a moron, but it's fairly difficult to comprehend just how much thought it takes to win on the 2nd turn.  I've played hundreds and hundreds of games with the deck, both goldfishing and against opponents, and every time I play it, I discover something new.  I've never won a game the same way twice.  Now that's complicated.

On of the biggest things with playing combo is you need to be "one with your deck."  I liken it to riding a horse.  A skilled rider knows his horse and they act together.  When you play combo, you know your deck can be inconsistent, but you can't doubt it.  If you cast Wheel of Fortune, and think you're going to draw crap, you're going to draw crap.  If you Wheel and think you will draw what you need, you will draw what you need, no matter what those 7 cards actually are.  Type One combo requires you to have more faith in your deck than any other deck in any other format.  It's like a small child.  It misbehaves, acts up, does rotten things to you, but you still love it and manage to make the moment where it does something great even more amazing.

On a related note, I was playing some Extended, where I was playing, of course, Desire (the one from PT Columbus).  I commented that the deck was not hard to play and someone was like "yeah, whatever," understanding that I knew what I was doing but disagreeing because he knew he wouldn't have as easy a time as I was having.  It was easy for me because I've been playing playing Death Long for a few months, and playing Extended Desire is a welcome break and no where near the challenge of playing Type 1 Combo.

[Xman]

Another good article man.  I love how in your articles you speak to the minority (I think) of Type 1 players, the hardened combo player.

The problem with Type 1 combo is, as you pointed out, people assume it is easy to play with a clear path to the win.  But in reality, how many different roads are there for a deck like longdeath or TPS to go through and win?  Yea, they look similar, but they just are not the same as each other and are more difficult, where you have to make decisions long before you combo out as to which road youw ill try to take.

[Necrologia]

Unfortunately I think there's a problem with your fish analogy, it seems you missed a land. Even in the first example, what you're presenting as the wrong way, can still waste and drop a Spiketail turn 3.

It goes like this:

Turn 1: Land
Opponent: Land, Mox
Turn 2: Land, faries, null rod
Opponent: Land
Turn 3: Waste, Attack, Spiketail.

In your article it seems you left out the 2nd land used to play the faries. I hope that doesn't undermine the point you were trying to make though, as it's still one of the best articles I've read in a very long time.

[Anusien]

Excellent article.  I never realized flying 2 drops were so significant
Actually, aside from playing combo, which I'm learning to do, what sort of other decks would it be good to learn to play to pick up technical skill?  I'm beginning to regret I never built and played Fish like I said I would.

[rvs]

I have to say Steve, that this is an absolute masterpiece, and something to be proud of.

The only thing I think you forgot to mention (or I missed it?) is that even no matter how much you fuck up in a game, you can still win because your deck is totally busted.

[The Atog Lord]

Nice work Steve. I liked the part you wrote about modality -- about a deck being able to (or being forced to) assume different roles in a matchup. Too often, if you only see one certain path for a deck to follow, you'll be blind to other, perhaps more powerful options. Learning how and when to shift gears -- and even learning which gears a certain deck gives you -- can let you see more possibilities.

[MuzzonoAmi]

I agree with everything that's been said here. Your best work without a doubt.

[Bram]

Yes. And it doesn't even have 'this will incite flame wars' written between the lines. Superb.

[dicemanx]

This is an important article, as it helps to dispel many myths about T1 being a luck intensive, "foW or no" format. What many players might not appreciate is that even if a good player loses a game, he very likely afforded himself every opportunity to win by either making certain assumptions or playing the odds (over even in his card decisions when constructing the deck!). This scenario comes up very frequently in bridge - when a pair fail to make their contract or fail to defeat an opposing contract, there might not have been anything of note to the casual observer. The seasoned bridge player, however, might witness the pair making certain assumptions about the placement of cards and play accordingly. Win or lose that pair is already operating at a much higher skill level, compared to the clueless amateur who will lose more prosaically.

My only beef with T1 Magic as a game of skill is that top tiered decks are extremely forgiving. A person who is not well versed with all of the subtleties of a deck might not end up doing so well on average (compare the average Belcher player to Simiester, for example), but in any given game they could possibly clean your clock and make 10 mistakes in the process. Such "forgiveness" is not so apparent in other games of skill like Chess or Bridge, but is inherent in the game of Magic and cannot be changed. Perhaps the major issue is that there isn't enough of a gulf between players that have reached "competency" versus players that have reached "mastery" of T1 - the learning curve to reaching competency status is just not very steep. For all the testing that one does, all the hours that one puts into analyzing match-ups, it is very difficult to develop a significant enough of an edge over the field and be a consistent performer. There are a select few people in T1 that manage to do this (Steve Menendian, Rich Shay, Rich Mattiuzzo), but for the rest of the T1 "elite", making top 8 seems to be more of a "hit or miss" thing, especially now with the proliferation of proxy events and the community having a better appreciation and understanding of what it takes to succeed in T1.

Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but coming from a chess and bridge background, sometimes it's hard to appreciate the skill involved in T1 magic, and being a "consistent" performer doesn't automatically mean making top-8 in nearly every tournament. Being a skillful player and consistent performer means making the right deck/card choices, and affording yourself every opportunity to win games based on your knowledge of match-ups, your calculation of probabilities, and your ability to make plays that maximize your chances of winning or extricating yourself out of sticky situations, even if its all for naught in the end. Conversely, just because a player wins a tournament doesn't mean that he was the most skillful player at the event, again because of the high "forgiveness" factor.

EDIT:

I mentioned to Steve that it would be interesting to write another article on psychological warfare and intimidation as a weapon in Magic, and just how successful such a tactic would be. I'm not talking about being an obnoxious idiot that acts as clown and trashtalks the opponent into mistakes.

Just to give an example from the chess world: One of the most fearsome opponents back in the 50's and 60's was a player (and subsequent world champion) by the name of Mikhail Tal. When Tal was bidding for the chess crown, he was a young, dynamic player with a crazed, hypnotic look in his eye, who was absolutely fearless. He always sought complications, sacrificed pieces with impunity, even if he knew that his line of play wasn't objectively best. He created an environment on the chessboard filled with tension and beset his opponents with numerous problems - he could readily navigate such positions, while his opponents were often noticeably uncomfortable and quite frequently lost their way.  What was incredible was the fact that Tal frequently *purposefully* played 2nd best moves or sacrificed material which *should* have objectively lead to his defeat, just to achieve that chaos and crush his opponents mentally. What really added to the intimidation was the fact that he played his games at a *very rapid pace*, which gave the impression that he was in full command and knew exactly what he was doing. As evidenced by his achievement of the title of world champion, this was all a very successful strategy.

Now Tal was a brilliant player and an imposing figure physically at the chessboard, but his key to success was making the player play on his terms, in his world of chaos and uncertainty. Even if the masters looked back on Tal's games and pinpointed where his opponents could have improved their play or how Tal could be defeated, the point was that the majority of the times the task was almost insurmountable for the opponent at the board during the game itself. Tal's games actually have little technical instructional value although they are considered masterpieces, and even if flawed, they are to be admired for their daring ingenuity and beauty.

Not to be forgotten when talking about psychological warfare is the man that unseeded Tal from the world championship - Mikhail Botvinnik. Botvinnik was in many ways Tal's opposite - a very patient, meticulous man who had the stamina to endure long play sessions, unmoving for 6 hour games and betraying no emotion, a calculating machine who's games of chess were founded on ironclad logic. He was immune to Tal's intimidation tactics and felt no discomfort navigating through the complications. Botvinnik was an intimidating figure in the chess world in his own right - because of his ability to calculate and find the "truth" of any position, along with his immense stamina and constant calm demeanor, he had psychologically defeated many opponents before the first move was even made over the board.

Just thought I'd share from the chess world, which has quite a few parallels to Magic. The psychological factors associated with chess, and magic, all come down to trying to control the environment and make it as uncomfortable for your opponent as possible while maximizing your comfort levels.

[Smmenen]

Psychology is the most under discussed element of magic. Someday, I may write an article about the Psychology of magic for MTG.com. but only for MTG.com becuase it would give away so many of my best secrets!

Thanks for the praise and for the people who PMed me.

I finallly feel like I'm at the point where I could write a solid article a week.  I have more article ideas than I can handle now - the only real constraint is the time element.

One thing I forgot to mention in the article is on timing: the fact that playing around mana drain requires you to play spells on first main phase in some cases and 2nd in other.  That just goes to show another important skill.  For those of you who are interested, read Kevin Cron's article on "Sharpening your Skills with Mana Drain" - its a key article that slipped through the cracks.

[Bram]

I'm not talking about being an obnoxious idiot that acts as clown and trashtalks the opponent into mistakes.

You mean your not just taking about being an obnoxious idiot that acts as clown and trashtalks the opponent into mistakes

[Jacob Orlove]

I'm not talking about being an obnoxious idiot that acts as clown and trashtalks the opponent into mistakes.

You mean your not just taking about being an obnoxious idiot that acts as clown and trashtalks the opponent into mistakes :-)

Speaking of obnoxious clowns and mistakes, it's "you're" (contraction of "you are"), and not "your" (possesive).

Great article, Steve.

[Bram]

and not "your" (possesive).

Thanks for pointing that out, Captain Obvious :-P

By the same token: the word is 'possessive' (double S twice over) rather than 'possesive'. That's the second time in a month or so you made a spelling error in a post pointing out someone else's spelling (or grammar) error. Splitting hairs, pot & kettle, me being Dutch vs. you being American...you know the drill by now so let's just drop it, OK? ;-)

Who did you think I meant when I said "obnoxious clown"? I guess the internet isn't the place for humor that's so subtle and ironic.
-Jacob

Back on topic (more or less):

I finallly feel like I'm at the point where I could write a solid article a week. I have more article ideas than I can handle now - the only real constraint is the time element.

Be sure to write each and every one down (hardcopy!) with a short synopsis. The mind is like a haunted mansion for ideas: if they stay in there too long, they might never come out and even if they do, they're unmistakenly changed. It has happened to me on ideas for non-magic columns numerous times...

Also: writing a solid, well-researched, well-recieved, interesting article a week for what is basically an online magazine that thousands upon thousands of people turn to for reference is a full job for some people (on any subject other than magic). I've always seen you as a great asset to Vintage, but you gotta make sure it doesn't interfere with your personal life and studies (unless you actively seek to pursue a career in R&D or as a Magic writer, which I feel would be a waste of potential. You could annoy far more people as a lawyer ;-)

[TheAlpha]

I think this is your best article so far... It's really really great.

Keep up the good work!

[Lucentspirit]

Great article Steve, and I'm not just saying that because you gave me such an awesome mention. You really do need to know a deck inside and out to play it well.  Even after 30+ hours of goldfish hands and deck design it still took me 3 or 4 tournaments before I really started to play belcher optimally. Even then, the exponential growth of options a combo deck can create from turn one makes it almost impossible to ever really master.