Jack's Philosophy of Magic

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

This isn't really long enough to be an article. More of a memo statement I wanted to be able to use as a reference point. It's just a streamlined look at some of the basic principles of the game, especially in reference to this format, that I've developed over the years.

Essentially, Magic is a game of resource management. There are elements that are offensive, and elements that defensive. The former help you win the game, and the latter help you not lose the game. Like heat and cold, at their extremes it can be argued that these two strategies converge; these both take you along the same path; adding another 1-0-0 to your record.

In addition, there are cards that manage resources. These are cards that are neither offensive nor defensive, but enable or amplify the effects of those that are. Many new players mistakenly think of life as being the most important resource. It’s not, and neither are cards in your library, which is why Lava Spike and Extirpate are such narrow cards. Although you lose when you run out of either of these two resources, you start out with a healthy buffer there. The most important resources are cards and mana. Together these provide you with the options and ability to act and react to changes in the state of the game.

There are two types of effects; the temporary and the permanent. A temporary effect will impact the game for the short term. A permanent effect will affect the rest of the game. These two often blur.

The most common type of threat in Legacy is a creature; a permanent threat. The most common type of answer in Legacy is an instant or sorcery; a temporary answer. “Most” means “most”.

All of these elements converge into four primary strategies;

The Philosophy of Fire is pure aggression. It makes time and life the opponent’s most important resource. The resource it cares least about is card advantage; it seeks to neutralize card advantage it gives the opponent by attacking their life total directly. The resource it cares most about is mana; each one mana it has to pay in addition for each card is time it’s sacrificing. It wins by killing the opponent before they can react. It loses by falling short and running out of gas.

The Philosophy of Stone is pure defense. It seeks to crush and break it’s opponent’s attacks. Each new charge shatters itself against an impenetrable wall. Life and card advantage are it’s most important resources. It cares least about turns (although time limits themselves are a problem). It seeks to neutralize the effect of each play by an opponent. Because most of it’s answers are temporary, it is always eager for a way to either gain cards, either directly through drawing them, or via mass card advantage. Sometimes it merely has to ensure the quality of the cards it does find via tutoring or scrying effects. It wins by surviving to the late game, and crushing the opponent with overwhelming card advantage and power. It loses by being overrun early, by having the wrong answers.

The Philosophy of Water is flexibility. It seeks to find the weak point in the opponent’s strategy, then rush in and wear it down. It most needs a way to manipulate itself, to adapt to the situation at hand without tripping up. Efficiency and utility are the most important aspects of each card it plays; cards that weigh it down when it needs to be fast, or that falter when it needs to be strong, are chaff. It wins by keeping the opponent guessing and meeting their weakness with strength. It loses by finding the wrong solution, by bringing weakness against strength- showing up with a knife to a gunfight.

The Philosophy of Air is ephemeral. It wins by attacking resources that the opponent can’t respond to. It uses temporary but fatal threats that rob the opponent of life or cards directly. It uses permanent and frustrating answers that steal phases, that lock out mana or certain casting costs. It wins by choking the opponent out while giving them no easy target to attack and no easy out to find. It loses because it’s tricks don’t work, because the opponent had the right response.

“Moderation is a fatale thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.”

- Oscar Wilde

The most successful decks in Legacy are those that play their role best. The quickest, the strongest, the most flexible, the hardest to respond to. The philosophies correspond roughly to aggro, control, aggro-control and combo, but I define them this way because the other titles are usually argued over the presence of certain cards. Any given card can work in one or another deck, but knowing how a deck wins and how it loses tells you more about the role it plays than what cards are in it. A good deck is greater than the sum of it’s parts.

[Pinder]

Good read.

Also, while reading the various Philosophies, was I the only one to draw the following comparisons based on the descriptions?

Fire - Aggro
Stone - Control
Water - Aggro Control
Air - Combo (Although the second half seems to apply to Prison/Stax decks as well)

That may be too much of a generalization, but it certainly seems to fit pretty well.

[Soto]

...latter help you not lose the game

Sorry, I had to.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

@Pinder:

See last paragraph.

@Soto:

Huh?

[chokin]

Good read.

Also, while reading the various Philosophies, was I the only one to draw the following comparisons based on the descriptions?

Fire - Aggro
Stone - Control
Water - Aggro Control
Air - Combo (Although the second half seems to apply to Prison/Stax decks as well)

That may be too much of a generalization, but it certainly seems to fit pretty well.

I didn't feel that Air was combo. I felt that Air was Stax and the Dragon/Faerie/x Stompy decks. Combo is kinda like Water in a way, waiting for an opportune moment to combo out, whether it's before disruption can come in or around hate. Any tempo based deck feels like Fire to me however.

Fire: Aggro + Tempo
Stone: Control
Water: AggroControl + Combo
Air: Prison + Pox

This is what I got out of it, but it's a very flexible list.

[Pinder]

@Pinder:

See last paragraph.


Derf. Well, at least I drew the same (if obvious) conclusions.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The important things I wanted to break from with past categorizations;

1) The idea of defining a deck by a single element. Yeah, Team America has cards that are answers by themselves; it also has no function but to go for the throat. It may or may not be "Aggro-control" under, frankly, a less useful set of distinctions, but it's clearly Philosophy of Fire.

2) The idea of triangles and metagame definitions. There is no Rock-Paper-Scissors metagame. Answers beat threats that they're good against; threats win where answers insufficient. Any deck lives or dies depending on how well it can apply it's philosophy against the opponent.

[Isamaru]

Well said. I like the idea of elements for the various philosophies. Has it always been this way? It makes a lot of sense... and some decks can actually be a combination of two philosophies, no?

I was wondering if you happened to have taken Operating Systems before - I can't but help notice your wording describes things from a similar perspective.

One of the most improtant things in the study of Operating Systems is resource management. There's also the idea of LIFO with the stacks... which is the only place I've personally seen LIFO outside of MtG.

I see a lot of similarities whenever we're discussing something in class... (like I need more places for my mind to wander.)

[emidln]

Well said. I like the idea of elements for the various philosophies. Has it always been this way? It makes a lot of sense... and some decks can actually be a combination of two philosophies, no?

I was wondering if you happened to have taken Operating Systems before - I can't but help notice your wording describes things from a similar perspective.

One of the most improtant things in the study of Operating Systems is resource management. There's also the idea of LIFO with the stacks... which is the only place I've personally seen LIFO outside of MtG.

I see a lot of similarities whenever we're discussing something in class... (like I need more places for my mind to wander.)

Never thrown something into a box with one side opened or clothes into a hamper? The last clothes that go in are the first to come out barring some hole in the bottom.

[Shugyosha]

Philosophy of Fire sounds most like Combo to me. ANT for example. Although only one card attacks the life total directly all cards in the deck give a hell about card advantage and the rituals and LEDs etc. are extremely mana efficient in some sense.

Maybe its better to make another philosophy for combo because its very special. Pure Combo is more about the fundamental turn where the machine your deck is has to function perfectly or falls apart. There are very few aggresive/defensive elements like in other decks. It's all about resource management to find and fuel the single big kill. It looses when it doesn't find all necessary parts in time and/or the opponent's defense is too strong.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Just a few critical comments, none of which are intended to offend:

As a grad student in the field of philosophy, I object to the characterisations of the elements as "philosophies". The word gets bandied about a lot, but its proper scope is really very narrow: in much the same way, the US has a "creationist 'science'" movement that does real violence to the concept of "science". Really, it looks more like the categorizations in Chinese astrology.

Beyond that minor point, I'm not sure what you're looking for in terms of responses. Are you looking to refine your account? Are you looking to expand upon this somehow? Or is it meant as a general caricature?

Along flavour lines, this is an interesting re-characterisation of the old model. In more practical terms, however, I don't see where you want to go with it. I also don't see these characterisations as much more useful than the typical aggro/control/aggro-control/combo: if these categories are defined in terms of the cards within them rather than the deck's overall strategy, then that is a category-mistake on the reader's part, and not in our classification strata. I don't really see how this attempt prevents that mistake, unless used as pure reiteration.

[Isamaru]

Never thrown something into a box with one side opened or clothes into a hamper? The last clothes that go in are the first to come out barring some hole in the bottom.

haha yes... but I meant in a study / in class. I'm sure there's a ton of LIFO in the world.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Just a few critical comments, none of which are intended to offend:

As a grad student in the field of philosophy, I object to the characterisations of the elements as "philosophies". The word gets bandied about a lot, but its proper scope is really very narrow: in much the same way, the US has a "creationist 'science'" movement that does real violence to the concept of "science". Really, it looks more like the categorizations in Chinese astrology.

Beyond that minor point, I'm not sure what you're looking for in terms of responses. Are you looking to refine your account? Are you looking to expand upon this somehow? Or is it meant as a general caricature?

Along flavour lines, this is an interesting re-characterisation of the old model. In more practical terms, however, I don't see where you want to go with it. I also don't see these characterisations as much more useful than the typical aggro/control/aggro-control/combo: if these categories are defined in terms of the cards within them rather than the deck's overall strategy, then that is a category-mistake on the reader's part, and not in our classification strata. I don't really see how this attempt prevents that mistake, unless used as pure reiteration.

The attempt is to define the decks by strategy, rather than by elements within the deck. I appreciate feedback, but really this is just a reference point for me.

Also, the use of 'philosophy' is a reference to Mike Flores' original 'Philosophy of Fire' article.

@Shugyosha:

That's a fair point. Come to that, TES is very much Philosophy of Fire.

[Obfuscate Freely]

Also, the use of 'philosophy' is a reference to Mike Flores' original 'Philosophy of Fire' article.

Of course, your definition of the "Philosophy of Fire" is completely different from his. What's up with that?

[Anusien]

The thing that made Philosophy of Fire interesting wasn't that it had a cool name but that it actually laid out the principles.

In other words, what are the takeaways here?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Of course, your definition of the "Philosophy of Fire" is completely different from his. What's up with that?

It's not. Trade cards for tempo, kill quickly. Kindly point out the "completely different" part.


The thing that made Philosophy of Fire interesting wasn't that it had a cool name but that it actually laid out the principles.

In other words, what are the takeaways here?

A given deck has one of a few strategies. You take that strategy and maximize your ability to apply it. This is best done by understanding what the strategy is and what elements work for or against it, or why it would fail to work.

and snip---frogboy

[Mijorre]

Also, the use of 'philosophy' is a reference to Mike Flores' original 'Philosophy of Fire' article.


Go Rin no Sho.
Seriously.
Do not give credit where it is not due.

Also, you are missing your fifth philosophy.
That is all.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The metaphor is meant to explain the idea, not twist it.

[Anusien]

Re:
Of course, your definition of the "Philosophy of Fire" is completely different from his. What's up with that?


1) The idea of defining a deck by a single element. Yeah, Team America has cards that are answers by themselves; it also has no function but to go for the throat. It may or may not be "Aggro-control" under, frankly, a less useful set of distinctions, but it's clearly Philosophy of Fire.
While Team America may fit your definition of Philosophy of Fire, it doesn't seem to fit Flores's.


The Philosophy of Fire will do the exact same thing, but instead of trading life for cards from your own deck, it speaks about the relationship of trading cards for your opponent's life. Specifically, the goal will be to translate a hand into a dead man.

What the Philosophy of Fire does is focus on the first part of that exchange. Rather than looking at a cards-for-cards or life-for-cards relationship, it focuses on cards for life and associates a value based on the default damage spell being Shock. Simple and obvious, right?

Because you don't care about board development (at least as long as you still have life points), because you are playing with essentially a different paradigm, the way you value cards may not be obvious to the opponent, which will force him to make passive errors that do not correctly address your proactive strategy. Your un-kicked Skizzik is not a loss of a card, it's a quarter of his life total. It's two and a half units of burn, or one and two-thirds, depending on how you are evaluating your hand. Though it looks like you are falling behind when the Skizzik hits the bin, in fact that one card over-performed according to your units of measurement.
I'm not convinced a Flores-style deck built around The Philosophy of Fire would run cards like Sinkhole or Force of Will.

So I'm left wondering why you chose those names, since it seems to confuse the issue.


A given deck has one of a few strategies. You take that strategy and maximize your ability to apply it. This is best done by understanding what the strategy is and what elements work for or against it, or why it would fail to work.
Oh, all you're saying here is "Have a strategy and stick to it?" Well yeah, I figured you were trying for something a little less obvious.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Much confusion and chaos can stem from a fairly minor misunderstanding of a basic principle. Try going to the Moon with Newtonian physics.

In your examination of Team America, for instance, you reveal exactly the kind of misunderstanding I was talking about; you don't think Team America is Phil. of Fire, because you're focusing on the cards in the deck as seperate elements rather than the deck does. Team America has no late game. It trades it's cards specifically to gain tempo and kill the opponent before their gameplan can come on line. And that's it. Every card in the deck is devoted to winning fast; it doesn't half-ass it by playing Top/CB, or Dark Confidant, or Jitte or other such cards in a pure aggro deck. It knows it's role and devotes itself overwhelmingly to it, thus gaining power.

From a function perspective, the sum of it's parts, it is pure Philosophy of Fire, applied mercilessly. This definition is far more useful than a very literal, heavy-handed, and roundabout way of saying "Sligh".

[T is for TOOL]

It's not. Trade cards for tempo, kill quickly. Kindly point out the "completely different" part.
According to the original Philosophy of Fire defined by Mike Flores, cards are traded directly for lifepoints, not tempo.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

According to the original Philosophy of Fire defined by Mike Flores, cards are traded directly for lifepoints, not tempo.

What the cards do is ultimately irrelevant, except insofar as they contribute to what the deck does.

What Team America does, like Sligh, is spend cards to win before more powerful, card-advantage oriented strategies can come online.

[etrigan]

What the cards do is ultimately irrelevant, except insofar as they contribute to what the deck does.

What Team America does, like Sligh, is spend cards to win before more powerful, card-advantage oriented strategies can come online.

While Team America and Sligh are both tempo-oriented aggro decks, and Sligh follows the Philosophy of Fire, that's not enough to assume Team America follows it too.

Philosophy of Fire values cards on how much damage they can deal to the opponent. Philosophy of Fire decks are generally filled with these kinds of cards. Getting 5 damage out of your Skizzik is a good value. How much value can you get out of Sinkhole? There's no way to value that in the Philosophy of Fire.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

While I suppose you could use the term "Philosophy of Fire" as a roundabout way of saying, "Burn/Sligh", I repeat, I find it simply more useful, not to say less precise, to use it to describe a principle of deck strategy and a fundamental aspect of the game that extends further than burn spells.

In Team America, Stifle, Sinkhole, and Wasteland absolutely serve first and foremost to deal damage to the opponent. In other decks they may serve other roles, but in Team America this is their function. They are part of a strategy that is only devoted to one thing; killing the opponent before they can do anything.

[Obfuscate Freely]

The Philosophy of Fire, as defined by Flores, is actually just a card-counting system. It lays out a way of valuing cards based on how many of your opponent's life points they remove, and was developed specifically to explain the functioning of decks with lots of direct damage. This was helpful because burn spells interact only with your opponent's life total, and thus do not make sense under more traditional card evaluation systems.

Trying to alter the Philosophy of Fire to include the nebulous concept of "tempo" takes it well outside the scope of Flores' idea (try to describe the tempo gained from a burn spell!). In the original article (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/7157.html), he drew a clear distinction between the Philosophy of Fire and more traditional beatdown strategies, the latter of which he described as attempting to "deploy, burn a path, and hit." It is obvious that Flores would label Team America as a beatdown deck, and not a Philosophy of Fire deck.

Jack, you are using the term to mean something entirely different from its accepted use. In this case, if you can't see that, you probably don't need to be writing about Magic theory.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The Philosophy of Fire, as defined by Flores, is actually just a card-counting system. It lays out a way of valuing cards based on how many of your opponent's life points they remove, and was developed specifically to explain the functioning of decks with lots of direct damage. This was helpful because burn spells interact only with your opponent's life total, and thus do not make sense under more traditional card evaluation systems.

We agree in so far as the concept most accurately defines the trading of cards for chunks of the opponent's life. We differ in so far as you're unwilling to view it as a concept rather than a literal reference to burn spells. Whether or not Mike Flowz agrees with this distinction.

Mike Flores was attempting to define something that existed. That doesn't mean he has to be taken as word of God on the subject. Richard Garfield invented the entire game, I doubt you'd cede that his saying something about Magic theory debunked all counterarguments, regardless of the evidence and logic to the contrary.


Jack, you are using the term to mean something entirely different from its accepted use. In this case, if you can't see that, you probably don't need to be writing about Magic theory.

If being wrong makes you angry, Alix, I suggest you stop being wrong.

I still <3 u, tho.

[Anusien]

You keep saying to ignore the individual cards and focus on the strategy. The problem is that Philosophy of Fire fundamentally is about each individual card and maximizing the amount of damage it deals. If you change the name but keep the concepts, you will encounter far less resistance.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

No compromise. Not even in the face of armageddon.

[Obfuscate Freely]

We agree in so far as the concept most accurately defines the trading of cards for chunks of the opponent's life. We differ in so far as you're unwilling to view it as a concept rather than a literal reference to burn spells. Whether or not Mike Flowz agrees with this distinction.

Mike Flores was attempting to define something that existed. That doesn't mean he has to be taken as word of God on the subject. Richard Garfield invented the entire game, I doubt you'd cede that his saying something about Magic theory debunked all counterarguments, regardless of the evidence and logic to the contrary.
Whether you respect him or not, Mike Flores used the term first, and he used it to refer to a rather specific idea. You are using the term to refer to something else.

Mispelling the man's name, or trying to paint me as some kind dogmatic Flores fanboy, does nothing to change these facts.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Whether you respect him or not, Mike Flores used the term first, and he used it to refer to a rather specific idea. You are using the term to refer to something else.

Mispelling the man's name, or trying to paint me as some kind dogmatic Flores fanboy, does nothing to change these facts.

There's a limitation on these things, man. Fuck, what do modern Rock decks have in common with the deck actually called The Rock? They don't even run Duress anymore.

If anyone used Philosophy of Fire to specifically describe burn spells, sure, maybe you'd be right. But they fucking don't. Philosophy of Fire is used to talk about Ichorid, Zoo, Sui; any deck utilizing a straight-for-the-throat strategy.

I'm as pedantic as the next man, but you're clutching at straws here. 'Girl' is a middle English word for a child. 'Man' is gender neutral in the middle English. And 'guy' is a fucking nickname for people named Guido, for God's sake. But at some point words change meaning. You have to fucking let it go. When someone says they're going to shank you, they're not talking about making you have a bad round of golf. A *** is not a bundle of sticks no more, Alix.

Stop being a bundle of sticks. The actual useful part of Flores article, that people take away from it, is the concept of forcing a game centered around tempo and life, rather than card advantage. This applies perfectly well to many deck strategies outside of Sligh. Trying to limit it to burn spells explicitly out of some misplaced sense of academic altruism is idiotic.

[Bardo]

Moved to Community. Topic doesn't clearly relate to Format discussion -- at least not in its current form.

Also, this thread is stupid.

[HdH_Cthulhu]

Yeah and who the fuck cares about Mike Flores!

[Sek'Kuar]

I found this to be interesting and informative. Props.