Tempo and magic theory

[Seraphim3577]

I agree with Roberts to a degree.  The meddling mage instance is the perfect example of virtual card advantage.  I disagree with most people in the thread on the idea concerning tempo and card advantage based on an important note.  Tempo can and often does create virtual card advantage by making cards in your hand null.  Trinishpere is a perfect example.  It stops tempo.  

Now, Trinishpere is also a threat to some decks.  Long cannot win most games in which there is a trinishpere sitting on the board.  Trinisphere doesn't actually do the killing, but it would be a potent defensive measure to such decks (storm types).  Trinishpere actively stops the long player from using his ritual effects to full effect and thus creates tempo (stopping the player from playing cheap spells) and virtual card advantage (nullifying cards in hand).  

Something that I am glad Roberts pointed out is that virtual card advantage can be undone.  Simply shocking the meddling mage naming your game winning spell is a perfect example.  You trade 1 real card for their 1 real card.  If the meddling mage happened to be naming a card that you had 3 copies of in hand, you undo the 3 for 1 VCA that the meddling mage had created by trading one real card for the 1 meddling mage.  Now, clarifying the loss / gain in tempo can be difficult.  If the player was forced to do nothing for 2 turns because the only cards in hand were the nullified ones, then meddling mage gained tempo for its caster.  If not, say the player who shocked the meddling mage did it the turn it came into play, it gained no tempo...in fact, it can be argued that tempo was lost by spending 2 mana to get a 1 mana instant used on it.  

Now here is where it gets tricky.  If say, the meddling mage stopped the opponent from doing something at that time and delayed it from happening by forcing them to play the shock instead of something else, it creates IMHO virtual tempo.  This virtual tempo is lost if the delay in doing casting that critical spell is not taken advantage of.  For example...
Player A has vial set to 2 counters and meddling mage in hand, Player B has 5 cards in hand, 3 cards of a combo, shock, and seething song.  Seething song would enable them to play some combo out of their hand (for this example something like sneak attack and a fatty).  If Player A vials the mage into play in response to the seething song naming sneak attack and forces Player B to cast shock and then sneak attack, then Player A has created Virtual Tempo.  If Player B still has enough mana to put the fatty into play and thats all he would have been normally able to do that turn, then the Virtual Tempo is lost.  But say instead of sneak attack and a fatty that turn, Player B only had enough mana to cast the seething song, then shock, then sneak attack with no mana left over to put the fatty into play, then Player A has genereated lasting tempo (at least a turns worth of 1 mana).

Now, coincidentally, he has also created virtual card advantage for a turn.  The fatty sitting in Player B's hand unable to come into play for that turn is now a null card until Player B's next turn.  However, Player A has generated no REAL card advantage by vialing the mage into play, he has only created a 1 for 1 card trade.

I hope this helps to shed some more light on the issue considering i put considerable time into while at work.  And to Roberts, good ideas...but be more patient / less rude to other people in this thread please.

[roberts91rom]

Ah finally some support.

That Meddling Mage example is still part of my tempo group. It is still virtual card advantage, though I can see how adding the third dimension of an immediate response can make it seem like something else. Shocking the Meddling Mage, whether it slowed the player down or not, was still an answer to the virtual card advantage that Mage created. If they take an extra turn to drop their fat with Sneak Attack then you have created a very real tempo boost. However, should they destroy your Mage then the tempo boost was negated, along with the virtual card advantage. I do not believe the tempo itself can be virtual, merely the way in which tempo is gained. I also believe that virtual card advantage creates tempo, not the other way around. There are 2 other categories of tempo that I have listed earlier that clearly show how tempo itself is created. Of course the negative of all those categories also result in a loss of tempo, the same in which the positive creates tempo.

As to my rudeness, I feel I was more academic than rude. This is except when I was responding to Machinus. I feel that his intrusion in this thread was unnecesary, unprovoked, rude and was lacking any form of proof or reason. I will not appolagize for my response to him because I am sure he was aware of the response his posts would result in.

On the other hand I can see how some of my earlier posts may have seemed mocking in context, but I was merely trying to provide simple examples to illustrate my point. This includes things such as the 40 savannah lion.dec. Sorry about that Rich.

[Godder]

In Vintage, all card advantage is virtual, because there is no way to permanently deal with anything. Whether it's Yawgmoth's Will, Recoup, Wishes, Holistic Wisdom, Regrowth or random stuff like Sins of the Past or Living Death, nothing is ever permanently gone unless the deck has no way to bring it back. Meddling Mage naming <card> is often just as good as discarding or countering <card> in Vintage, because creature removal is often less prevalent than recursion options.

[Methuselahn]

A real example is perfect in the errata of Time Vault. They changed the official text of Time Vault into something more contradictory to the rules than before, but this time the combo didn't work. I think that is a clear indication that they didn't want the combo to be a part of the metagame.

This assumption seems wrong.  Time Vault was not changed to kill the combo.  I agree that the result ended up being a much less valuable and nerfed card, but I don't think it was a conspiracy.  I'd love to point fingers and cry conspiracy if I could seeing as how I own 4 Time Vaults.  Rather, I'd bet that the WotC braintrust was partially motivated to overhaul errata because they needed to use time counters for the suspend mechanic.

On a semi related note, the nerfing of Time Vault killed any hope of gaining a tempo advantage out of it.  Basically, if you can't untap it at the end of your opponents turn with counters still online, you are wasting your time.  Even in non-insta-win combos.

[Jacob Orlove]

As an aside, you can still "trick" a control opponent with Vault; you just have to prepare for it beforehand, and signal it on your untap, rather than their EOT; they still have the same "do I tap out?" problem, since you can tap Vault to grab your turn back if they do, or use it later if they do not.

Now, to reply to Machinus:

Cards have meaning only within the context of the rules. This is easy to forget, because we take so many rules of the game for granted, but if you look at some of the early non-Magic CCGs (there were a ton in 94/95), you can see how important the rules are to understanding a game. It's tougher to see now, because a lot of the basic mechanics that I'm talking about, like drawing and playing cards, are relatively standard across the genre.

If we look at the fundamental rules of the game, by which I mean the amounts of starting and turn-limited resources plus the resource conversion mechanics (eg casting spells, attacking), any changes there alter the game far more than any reasonable shift in card pool. Sure, if you took away creatures, the game would actually be different, but that's an unreasonable and irrelevant change.

I would account for the rules by saying that over time, development has incorporated their characteristics into cards themselves.

...

The complete rules of the game have served as guidelines and precedents for development, and in the modern era of card design, it is cards that define the game, not rules. They are designed to be as self-contained as possible, with reminder text and obvious patterns. They are created to be intuitive, cooperative, and require as little as possible knowledge of the rules. Even a huge part of the rulebook is just a list of developed mechanics, which are clearly derived from development.

You have it backwards. The cards have, over time, been priced more and more accurately to give formats the speed and options Wizards feels are best for the game. They can do this because the overarching rules are constant. The rules define the basics of resources and resource conversion. From there, basic card archetypes are not only obvious, but inescapable. Once we have Gray Ogre and Grizzly Bears, the rest is just fine-tuning to maximize cards on the particular Tempo curve Wizards likes--and you can get to that curve from virtually any starting cardpool. Anything too far over or under the curve gets changed or dropped.

But when you get to actual competitive decks, the rules have been rewritten or ignored in order to support powerful strategies.

Not at all true. Those strategies are powerful because of the rules that underly the game, not in spite of said rules.

Consider that the rules of the game provide no information about what strategies or ideas would create successful decks. There is no way to determine solely from those constraints what magic would be like, much less what ideas to follow when creating or playing decks whose components do not exist.

Oh, there's no question that the cardpool determines which decks will be successful, or, indeed, which are even possible. But no matter what the format, the dominant decks win for the same reasons, and that's where theory comes in.

Theoretically, magic could exist in an infinite number of different ways, and it's only development that breaks that symmetry. It's development that provides abilities and standards to cards, and its the cards that have led to ideas about which ones are superior and why. Magic theory is completely relative to the card pool; development has chosen to preserve the identity and flavor of magic throughout many card pools and therefore we have the illusion of fundamental magic theory.

When the same theories can be applied to Vintage and to Sealed, I just don't see how you can argue that the cardpool defines the underlying principles. Theory arises from the rules of the game, not from the cards.

[Anusien]

Robert's post above this one is a very clear picture of the differences between card advantage and tempo, specifically this quote:

Tempo is resolving something that causes your opponent's game plan to slow down more than it affects you. Card advantage is when a resolved spell creates more cards than it cost, whether through destroying/discarding multiple cards, or drawing multiple cards.

This quote only addresses "real" card advantage, rather than "virtual" card advantage, but the theory is sound.  Rich's example of the Hill Giant and Edict/Black Knight is again, not an example of tempo or card advantage.

Actually, this is very much tempo.  You've spent an entire turn both negating your opponent's turn and doing something else relevant.

You are at 3 life, your opponent is at 4.  On your turn, you cast Durkwood Boars, tapping out for the turn.  On your opponent's turn, your opponent plays Hill Giant, tapping out for the turn.  You respond by removing a blue card from the game, paying 1 life, and casting Force of Will (-1 card advantage).  This is a tempo boost (your opponent invested all his resources for the turn, while you invested yours as well, and still were able to counter his play), but not card advantage, either real or virtual.

Actually that's card disdavantage, but it is positive tempo.


Okay, </nitpick>.  Personally, I can understand why one would equate VCA and CA.  After all, they have the same sort of effects in game.  My only problem with the equation is that CA is obvious.  I cast Hymn and take two cards, or I cast Ancestral and draw 3 cards.  VCA is not always so obviuos.  I can cast Wasteland and cut you off blue.  If you have/draw blue cards, it's VCA, but if you don't, it's a 1 for 1 trade.  That's why I distinguish CA and VCA, because VCA it's possible to get and not know it.

[nineisnoone]

(relative newb here just as a disclaimer)

Card advantage (virtual or otherwise) is always a literal translation. Sometimes it can be indirect (like cutting off a color), but it always translate in I played X card to negate or require Y cards from the opponent.

Tempo on the other hand is always in relation to the deck and the game state. Think of each deck as being a song (I make this relation since tempo has an easy intuitive relation to music). Each deck then needs to hit a certain number of beats before the song is over (and subsequently wins). Assessing Tempo is therefore a question of whether or not this card/play moves you forward in the song or not.

In the initial discussion (in one of the links) Serum Vision comes up. Generically, I would say that no, this is not a tempo card. Why? Well, every deck "draws" cards. Are you drawing faster? Sure. But playing Serum Visions typically doesn't fulfill that "beat" to the song/deck. It is just passing space waiting for the next beat.

But then what about Threshold? First, since we relate tempo in terms of the deck and the game state. We say that Threshold is a tempo deck, therefore it follows the cards in Threshold are likely Tempo cards. So why is Serum Visions  functioning as a tempo card in Threshold, but not in other decks? Well, because it fulfills it hits Thresholds "beats." A search land typically does not function as a Tempo card either, but in this deck it does, helping fill the graveyard to reach threshold. This is why Serum Visions functions as a tempo card, because the only way (generically speaking) to meet threshold is to play spells, Threshold wants to do this fast and efficiently. Serum Visions does this. It's not that it "accelerates it a turn."  It's that it accelerates it's strategy. There's a big difference in saying that I'm one turn deeper into my deck and that I'm one turn deeper into my strategy.

The simplest example of the opposite of Tempo, or a Tempo hole, would be a generic Counterspell. First off, you don't even "play" a Counterspell in the same sense that you play a Serum Visions. When your play with the card is "don't play anything" the card essentially is a Tempo hole. Typically you're not going to have as part of your plan, "then you counter a spell." Sure if you draw it, that's likely the right play, but you wouldn't want to do it. If you don't have to do it. In this sense, it's not "part of your song/deck." 

Of course, you could even say that you don't have a song. Your deck is a "tempo hole."  That is to say that your deck is trying to crush the beats and drain the opposing decks tempo into your tempo hole. They try to hit their beat, and you make them miss. You disrupt their tempo and reassert in it's absence. This is where the concept of board control (or Control generically) comes into play. Is card draw then a "Tempo" card in a control deck? Well, no. Even though the play with the card is seems like "play this card." But it really isn't. You're ideal play is still "play nothing." But the reason for that is you need to keep yourself read to crush a beat that the opponent plays. If there is no need to play nothing (i.e. no beats to crush), then you draw cards as the secondary option.

What about a card like Sinkhole? It's, in one sense, something you do. Certainly, you're not going to hold off on it (mitigating factors can apply of course) 'til later. But in another sense its something that you don't want to do (i.e. you'd be just as happy if he just got mana screwed). What it really is is just a high-risk tempo card. Every tempo card runs a risk/reward. Typically, a tempo deck focuses on efficiency. Whereas, in this case we are going for more of a risk/reward. Cards like these are understood as being "Disruption." If we go back to the music analogy, whereas Control is more like a silencing device Disruption seeks to undercut the supporting/background music. If you've ever played music, if you're not discipline it can be very difficult to play if there are other stimuli present. Sometimes it even becomes impossible.... though it still in a sense is possible. This is always the game a disruption deck plays, technically it is not designed to literally deny a play like a Control deck would. It rather under cuts it. In that sense, it has more in common with a Tempo than Control. The way I see it Tempo = Efficient Tempo, whereas Disruption = High Risk/High Reward Tempo.

[EKM_Ichorid]

Tempo is a Mystic Snake. You are slowing them down and threatening them at once.

Card Advantage is Ancestral Recall. You pay 1 card for 3 cards with mana you don't need to cast a threat or remove a threat. You are not losing anything, but you are gaining three cards. As long as you are using unneeded mana and ending up with more than you started with (or you opponnet with less than they did), it's card advantage.

Virtual Card Advantage is Chalice of the Void. It is the same as Card Advantage, but in the way that it affects the ability to play cards, either positively for you or negatively for them.

[nataz]

Personally I like the definition of tempo from Chess.

Chess. the gaining or losing of time and effectiveness relative to one's continued mobility or developing position, esp. with respect to the number of moves required to gain an objective: Black gained a tempo.

I think this translates fairly well into magic theory.

[defector]

Another thing to keep in mind is that certain cards in certain game states can generate tempo, card advantage, and virtual card advantage all at the same time. Yawgmoth's Will can easily "draw" you ten cards, set your opponent back, and create a positive change in the board position. I've seen a few elements in this thread where two guys are arguing about tempo vs card advantage vs virtual card advantage when in fact all three things are occurring at the same time. Great thread, very interesting stuff here!
thanx
defector

[Akuma]

BAM !