- Part Zero: An Introduction
- Part One: A History
- Part Two: Card Advantage, Tempo, and the Philosophy of Fire – Section One
Section I – Foundation – Card Advantage and Tempo
For all intents and purposes, Magic Theory officially began in April of 1996 with the publishing of “Taking Card Advantage” by Brian Weissman in issue #14 of The Duelist magazine.1 In the article, Weissman asserts that it has become common knowledge amongst competitive Magic players that the player who draws the most cards during a game generally wins. Weissman is interested in why this is. While he does explore a number of allegories and now defunct classifications of cards, he never really comes to a concrete conclusion as to why drawing more cards than an opponent inherently wins a player a game, outside the ethereal assertion that by drawing more cards one can get “more options, better ratios” and more opportunities to get lucky. Despite the lack of depth in this introduction to a new field of study, Weissman was able to lay the groundwork for the foundational notion of Card Advantage, which would grow to be considered the fundamental force involved in Magic for many years.
As amateur Magic theorists began popping out of the woodwork, the notion of Card Advantage developed and was the sole focus of Magic Theory for a few years. Eventually, some people began to speculate that there were other forces at work within a game of Magic which were not accurately described by Card Advantage alone. “Sure,” they thought, drawing more cards than an opponent or spending one card to destroy more than one of an opponent’s cards was great and all, but there were a number of instances where the player who generated a positive card advantage didn’t win, often because his opponent snuck in a few early threats that were left unanswered. Eric Taylor, in “Tempo and Card Advantage,” published in January of 1999, referred to this concept, calling it “Time Advantage,” (betraying the tendency of early theorists to relate all elements of Magic Theory to Card Advantage) which later became known simply as “Tempo”.2 Taylor postulated that something more was going on under-the-hood of a game of Magic, and that it was related to how effectively a player was using their time, and that: “time is for the most part interchangeable with mana.” It is important to note that Taylor is referring to “time” not as the objective quantity with which we record events chronologically, but as a euphemism for describing how quickly one develops a board position.
Taylor’s article sparked a major discussion on how the game wasn’t just about drawing cards or destroying an opponents’ cards, but that it was also important to observe how efficiently one was using the cards drawn or the cards which were doing the destroying. A major point for Taylor in his article, though he didn’t follow it up as well as he perhaps should have, was the idea that Wrath of God is clearly positive card advantage while Strip Mine is neutral card advantage, but that if an aggressive player could put down a few strong creatures and Strip Mine his opponent to keep him off of the mana for a Wrath of God, the aggressive player could win without producing any positive card advantage at all, but instead, by using time against his opponent. Along with Card Advantage, the concept of Tempo became the foundation for all of Magic Theory up to the modern period.
Section II – Formation – The Philosophy of Fire and Advantage Theory
For a long time, other buzzwords in Magic Theory would appear and disappear – wax and wane. Inevitability, Velocity, Threats, and Answers are among a few that still exist as part of a theorist’s working vocabulary. But as time went by after the induction of Tempo, people came to realize that all of these new words either merely described elements of what was already known, (Tempo and Card Advantage) or were describing a single, as-of-yet undefined quality of the game. People realized that it wasn’t merely enough to have cards in one’s hand, or to develop one’s board position efficiently, but that it was also important how one was going about killing one’s opponent, and that this couldn’t be satisfactorily described by the current theories.
Adrian Sullivan was the first to discuss said quality as early as 1999, however, it wasn’t formally put into print until April 2004, by Mike Flores, in an article titled, “the Philosophy of Fire.”3 In it, Flores introduces Sullivan’s brainchild as a gauge for identifying how an individual card is leading one toward beating an opponent, and more specifically how said card interacts with a whole deck which is concerned with, indeed, winning a game of Magic. The concept was named as such because Sullivan initially believed it was relevant specifically to red aggro and burn decks, using the example: if one could play a deck composed entirely of the cards Shock and Mountain, how quickly and how many cards would he need to defeat his opponent?
Flores recognized that this concept could be expanded beyond the realm of linear burn decks and onto the whole of Magic Theory and that it wasn’t restricted to merely describing how one was beating an opponent, but also to how one was utilizing one’s own life total as a resource. In his article, Flores discusses the defining case of Necropotence, where a player exchanges his life total for cards in his hand and how one must carefully observe the ratio of exchange between life and cards as not to simply kill oneself with a little help from an opponent. However, he identifies the most important part of the Philosophy of Fire as being the inverse: the ratio of cards-to-life. He entreats the reader to recognize how much of an opponent’s life total he is subtracting with each of his cards; the Philosophy of Fire in action.
Inspired by Flores’ work, and having already contributed a fair amount to Magic Theory himself, Zvi Mowshowitz began his epic on the subject shortly after reading “the Philosophy of Fire.” Officially published as a whole in November of 2004, Zvi’s “the Grand Unified Theory” is perhaps the most comprehensive piece written on Magic Theory in the history of the game.4 If the five articles which make up this profound essay were published in a physical book, it would be over sixty pages long!
Grandiosity aside, Zvi’s work masterfully ties together the basic tenets of Magic Theory as understood at the time: Card Advantage, Tempo, and the Philosophy of Fire. He follows this by adding his own contributions to the subject, Virtual Card Advantage and the Rule of Reflection, to create what he calls “Advantage Theory,” which he perceives to be the culmination of the entire field itself. He describes Virtual Card Advantage as how effects produce cards virtually by invalidating portions of an opponent’s board, hand, or deck without actually creating what’s traditionally described as Card Advantage. Zvi uses the example of token creatures, where if an effect of a card produces multiple token creatures which pose a considerable enough threat to an opponent that he must use one-for-one removal spells to deal with each one, the controller of the token effect has produced positive card advantage without actually producing cards. In addition, Zvi’s Rule of Reflection, though underdeveloped conceptually, states: everything in Magic has value equal to the chance it will win you the game. We will see this idea more appropriately developed by later authors.
In the end, Zvi’s Advantage Theory describes the game as a battle of resources, and states that the person who produces an advantage in resource development, by producing advantages in effective cards and time will have inevitability and will generally win a game. One technique that he uses to describe this process which was unique to his system up to this point, was the utilization of what he describes as “Lineup Theory,” which claims that if you line up all of the threats in one deck with the answers in another, the deck with more threats than an opposing deck has answers, or vice versa, has a definite resource advantage, and therefore inevitability. Zvi’s theory was the culmination of all Magic Theory up to that point.
Section III – Unification – Stock Mana and Option Theory
Magic Theory remained “solved” for almost five years before the first major objection to the comprehensiveness of Zvi’s masterpiece was brought forward. In April of 2009, AJ Sacher published an article titled “the Theory of Stock Mana,” which he believed would serve as a wholesale replacement for any supposedly unified theory which claimed to be grounded in Card Advantage, Tempo, and the Philosophy of Fire.5 In his article series on the subject, Sacher considers these types of theories to be needlessly complicated and convoluted, proposing instead that all of Magic can be explained through a standardized understanding of mana usage. Sacher claims that if one relates a spell cast with the baseline mana cost for its effect, then does a comparison of the amount of total mana used by two opposing players, that the player who used the most total mana will be the winner of a game. It’s important to note that total mana used is not the same as total mana produced.
Coincidentally, Mike Flores did a podcast recording in January of 2010 for Top 8 Magic, titled “Victory Bacon,” where he discusses a new Grand Unified Theory which he describes as being basically identical to Sacher’s theory of Stock Mana.6 While Flores claimed after the podcast that he came upon the theory entirely independently, the similarities are uncanny. That said, Flores does go more in depth regarding the definitions of baseline mana costs and how one adds up the total mana used for a player, using some very informative examples, such as with the special case of combo decks such as Dredge.
Also in January of 2010, Patrick Chapin, after having thoroughly proven his intellectual credentials regarding Magic Theory over the years, published a monumental article on his vision of the Grand Unified Theory of Magic, titled “the Theory of Everything.”7 In Chapin’s article, he reiterates the definitions for the big three building blocks of Magic Theory, throwing in his own fresh spin. He defines the Philosophy Fire as that part of the game which you begin a game with, but do not gain naturally over time, (life total, cards in library, etc.) Tempo as that part of the game which you do not begin a game with, but which you do gain naturally over time, (land drops, untap steps, etc.) and Card Economy as that part of the game which you both begin a game with and also gain naturally over time. (cards in hand, draw steps, etc.) It is worth noting here that Chapin advocates replacing “Card Advantage” as the general term for what it is attempting to describe with the more aptly named “Card Economy,” citing that Card Advantage is only one part of a greater idea, which is the management of how many cards a player has available compared to an opponent.
Chapin uses these more generalized definitions with the explicit goal of being able to link them all together into a single, overarching theory. He does this by presenting his theory of Options. He argues that while resource management is an integral part of Magic, it isn’t the defining force for what causes a player to win a game. He claims that all of the resource management a player engages in boils down to trying to provide oneself with more and better options within a game, with the ultimate goal of restricting an opponent’s options until he no longer has any. Specifically, Chapin says that the goal of a game of Magic is trying to take away the most crucial option an opponent has, which is the option to continue playing the game. Chapin’s theory signified a serious deviation from all of Magic Theory previous to it, in that he rejects the notion that Magic is primarily about resource management at its core.
It is interesting to note that Sacher’s theory of Stock Mana agrees with Zvi’s Grand Unified Theory in that Magic is a game primarily of resource utilization, but rejects the formal principles of Card Advantage, Tempo, and the Philosophy of Fire, while Chapin’s Option Theory attempts to preserve said principles, but rejects the supremacy of resources in favor of the less concrete notion of options.
Section IV – Reformation – Marginal Mana and Progress Theory
Since Sacher and Chapin’s articles released, there has been very little progress made on Magic Theory. The seeming sole exception to this is a relatively under-appreciated article written in December of 2010, by Chingsung Chang titled: “Exploring the Grand Unified Theory of Magic.”8 In later articles, Chang discusses the disparate theories presented by Chapin and Sacher and expresses his belief that each is correct and incorrect in its own ways. Chang rejects Chapin’s holistic approach, stating that it does very little to actually explain anything which isn’t already apparent, and therefore merely convolutes the discussion. Likewise, Chang criticizes Sacher’s attempt to abstract the game from its individual components by focusing merely on baseline mana usage, devoid of context. Chang promotes a compromise between the two theories; one which acknowledges the importance of Card Advantage, Tempo, and the Philosophy of Fire, but which also returns to a resource-centric point of view – one which can attach palpable, objective statistics to what the theory is attempting to describe and which also takes into account the individual cards, decks, and games involved, in context. He calls this the theory of Marginal Mana.
Marginal Mana differs from Stock Mana in that it formally recognizes that there are three primary resources involved in a game of Magic: mana, life total, and cards in hand and library. Incidentally, Chang gives a compelling argument for how cards in hand are merely an extension of one’s library and should not be thought of as being separate. Regardless, Chang’s theory insists that we assign basic values to each of these components of the game, rather than merely comparing a card to a baseline value as in Sacher’s theory. By performing a running calculus within a game, one can track how much value has been gained through the marginal mana analysis of their own spells and board position and compare it to an opponent’s value, in order to produce a precise number stating who currently holds an advantage within a specific game. Chang’s theory is especially significant in that it is the first time that a precise metric was suggested which actively attempts to produce a mathematically objective quantification of advantage in a game of Magic.
A little known article written by Michael Devine in April of 2004, titled “Progress Theory: A New Way of Looking at Magic,” predicted Chang’s methodology many years in advance.9 Though this theory was introduced even before Flores’ article on the Philosophy of Fire, it didn’t fit in with the development of Magic Theory at the time, and was largely ignored. However, if one were to view the theory of Marginal Mana as a chart depicting incremental advantage over the course of an analyzed game, it becomes clear that what Chang’s theory is attempting to objectively quantify is exactly what Devine describes as “Progress.” Devine doesn’t take the leap forward to assigning actual values to what creates Progress in a game of Magic, (probably because doing so will likely prove insanely complex; a task left open for the Magic theorists of today) but in his article’s overview of the subject, he astutely recognizes the connections between his theory and the theories of Card Advantage and Tempo, going so far as to redefine Tempo in the language of Progress. While this theory predates the modern era of Magic Theory, it is so akin to the theory of Marginal Mana and the ideas which set this period apart from the work of its time, that it almost certainly deserves to be classified as a modern theory.
Section V – Conclusion – The Future
It should be noted that I’ve skipped a number of articles which are considered to be central to modern discussions of Magic Theory, specifically Mike Flores’ articles “Who’s the Beatdown?”10 and “the Breakdown of Theory,”11 as well as Zvi’ Mowshowitz’s “Clear the Land and the Fundamental Turn”12 and “Systemic Thought,”13 among others; but, that these omissions are intentional. They are auxiliary to our core discussion of the subject, and though they should definitely be read as part of a greater understanding of Magic Theory in general, a full analysis of them would not be appropriate at this time.
So, where do we go from here? This is a question left open to the budding Magic theorists of today. Through rigid analysis and criticism of theories old and new, perhaps we can glean some insight into where Magic Theory ought be taken from this point and where it might end. It is my belief that our best hope of gleaning true knowledge from this search for truth is to follow the steps of those who advocate a systematic, mathematical approach to evaluating incremental advantages within a game of Magic, but the efficacy of such an approach has yet to be seen. I entreat you join me on this journey as we attempt to discover what it is that makes Magic, magic.
^1 Weissman, Brian (April 01, 1994). “Taking Card Advantage.” http://www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/60
^2 Taylor, Eric (January 01, 1999). “Tempo and Card Advantage.” http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/fundamentals/3690_Tempo_And_Card_Advantage.html
^3 Flores, Michael J (April 23, 2004). “The Philosophy of Fire.” http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/standard/7157_The_Philosophy_of_Fire.html
^4 Mowshowitz, Zvi (November 29, 2004). “The Grand Unified Theory.” http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=3992
^5 Sacher, AJ (April 15, 2009). “The Theory of Stock Mana.” http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=8394
^6 Flores, Michael J (January 15, 2010). “Podcast: Victory Bacon.” http://www.top8magic.com/2010/01/podcast-victory-bacon/
^7 Chapin, Patrick (January 12, 2010). “The Theory of Everything.” http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/fundamentals/18652_Innovations_The_Theory_of_Everything.html
^8 Chang, Chingsung (December 21, 2010). “Exploring the Grand Unified Theory of Magic.” http://www.gatheringmagic.com/exploring-grand-unified-theory-magic/
^9 Devine, Michael (April 9, 2004). “Progress Theory: A New Way of Looking at Magic.” http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~mdevine/mtg/progress/progress-theory.html
^10 Flores, Michael J (January 01, 1999). “Who’s the Beatdown?” http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/fundamentals/3692_Whos_The_Beatdown.html
^11 Flores, Michael J (December 17, 2007). “The Breakdown of Theory.” http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/15164_Michaelj_Monday_The_Breakdown_of_Theory.html
^12 Mowshowitz, Zvi (December 31, 2000). “Clear the Land and the Fundamental Turn.” http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/fundamentals/3688_Clear_The_Land_And_The_Fundamental_Turn.html
^13 Mowshowitz, Zvi (April 25, 2006). “Systemic Thought.” http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/zm42
I’m blown away. Absolutely fantastic.