[mini Article] Diversify your hate

[Gui]

Something I wrote for a friend, and I decided to post here, even tho not amazingly well written, maybe someone may find it useful.



My recently created theorem, or "Diversify your hate" theorem:



If 2 or more cards share the same function and can be used against the same situation most of the time, but given specific situations their mechanics works better than the other, the correct is to use a split with the same proportion of the amounts of situations in which they are better than the other. If the proportion is too hard to be determined, the correct is a equal split of them.


What the hell am I talking about?

HATE, man, HATE!
No, you don't need to get out and hate everyone. I'm talking about Graveyard hate, Creature hate, Artifact hate, any kind of "hate card", these that, you know, don't like the others very much.


How it applies

Well, to explain better the scenario above, here's one of the many times in which I realized the strength of this theorem:

This is what I used to run as Creature Removal in my monoblack deck:

4 Vendetta
3 Diabolic Edict
4 Gatekeeper of Malakir
2 Go for the Throat

Sure, amazing, it's already diversifyed, but guess what? Whenever I drew Vendetta against a Dark Confidant, I hated myself. Whenever I drew it against a Noble Hierarch or a Goblin Lackey, I loved it.
Whenever I drew Diabolic against Progenitus or a Emrakul, the Aeons Torn, I shouted a HELL YEAH BABE!!! (and proceeded losing to counterspell...). When I drew it against Siege-Gang Commander, well, at least I shown the token who's the boss.

What so?

This is my new Removal pack:
2 Vendetta
2 Diabolic Edict
2 Go for the Throat
1 Doom Blade
1 Dismember
1 Smother
4 Gatekeeper of Malakir

WoW! Don't see the difference at all.


(Reasons for splitting your hate)

No really, most of the time, it works just the same. After all, all of them remove the opposing Tarmogoyfs.
But given certain situations, one hate is better than the other. The only hate I knew to be way better was Malakir, which I wanted as 4-of (the maximun split possible). All the rest, I just made several splits and now my chances on having the right removal for diverse situation are better. Strength came from diversifying my hate.

And there's also the "multiples" effect. When the first card is bad against a deck (i.e. GFTT vs artifact deck), ALL 4 COPIES are bad. When you don't have 4 copies, you may end up drawing 1, even 2 bad cards, but you have a chance of drawing the good card as well.

Also, this way, not only you'll have a chance of hitting a better hate against a deck, but you'll also be a lot less predictable! Believe me, this paranoia (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=3453) is good!

And last, there are "naming cards", like Meddling Mage and Pithing Needle or Cabal Therapy (which is a monster) that can ruin your day if you have 4 of a key card, that wouldn't if you had a lot of different cards that did the same thing.



Where else does it apply?

Graveyard hate:
If Tormods is better sometimes, and Surgical Extraction is better some other times, and Faerie Macabre is better against some decks too, and Bojuka bog has its advatages against a few decks, guess what you could play instead of 4 Tormod's Crypts:
1 Tormod's Crypt
1 Faerie Macabre
1 Bojuka Bog
1 Surgical Extraction

By doing so, you have a chance on getting the exact hate you wanted, but if not, you can still get a good enough hate. And some hates are good against some decks and can be complementary sideboard against them as well.

Artifact/Enchant hate:
Instead of 4 Krosan Grip, you could try using Seal of Primordium, since it costs one less, and Nature's Claim, since it costs 2 less, and even if they don't do the same against some decks, if they are there for fighting random artifact/enchantments, a Split could be the way to go.


There are other places that I don't remember at the moment, but whenever a card has similarities with another, and both fill the same role, this is possible.


Ok, I got it (even tho I still don't believe you), so what's next?

Here, notice how well crafted the aforementioned Theorem is: Say you added Krosan Grips to your sideboard in order to fight Counterbalance, and you are now hating me because, well, only K.Grip is uncounterable (by spells) against CB+Top decks.

Don't hate me (or diversify your hate, I dunno). In this case, the Theorem clearly says:

"If 2 or more cards share the same function and can be used against the same situation most of the time..."

This means K.grip is the only card that matches your situation, and therefore a 4 cards split of 1 card is 4-of that card.


Well, this is all I got. I hope whoever read this can understand, at least partially, why 1-of sideboards end up being strong choices, and why decks packing 1 and 2-ofs that do the same thing can end up being better than a straight forward 4-ofs deck, given the right situation.

[Zamussels]

I've been doing that for a while, so yes I agree 100%. I've even been running 2 Extirpate and 1 Surgical Extraction but that could be wrong ;)

[RainbowPenguin]

@ Zamussels: If getting black mana isn't a problem in your deck, then yeah, that is probably wrong. But of course it depends on what you want them for.

@ Gui: Sorry, but I think this is pretty obvious stuff. You forgot a couple of other reasons to diversify: a) cards that name cards: The most important are Cabal Therapy and Meddling Mage, but there are others. Pretty fringe, but sometimes it comes up. b) I-know-but-you-don't: You know what you have in your deck, and in your hand. Generally, your opponent doesn't. So by running diverse counters/removalspells/whatever, you sort of skew the information war in your favour, since there will be more cards that your opponent has to play around, or alternatively, can be blown out by.
As you noted yourself, the tricky thing is that often, there is actually one or a few cards that are just better than the rest, even though it can be very difficult to identify them.

[stealth]

Pithing Needle is another naming card... mainly to fight the hate :P

[.nemesis]

Even though I was already diversifying my hate packages (mostly in sideboards) for obvious reasons, I found this article to be informative and well-written. Was a nice read. Keep up the good work!

[Zamussels]

@ Zamussels: If getting black mana isn't a problem in your deck, then yeah, that is probably wrong. But of course it depends on what you want them for.


Well, sometimes it's nice to extract after discard when I'm tapped out, and if they Intuition while playing around extirpate you can still get them. Still probably wrong, but those Extirpates sure are expensive...

[Rizso]

Dunno if I would call extirpate expensive really :P I prefair the surgical to extirpate. Able to cast for 0 mana I find more useful compared to the split second.

While I like splitting the hate, but really how often is it even needed?

I see only a couple of reason avoid get 4x of a card extracted from surgical / extirpate.
Avoid geting locked out from a Iona. Avoid meddling mage, i havent seen it being played for months. Avoiding pithing needle / Revoker.

In the end I dont think everything should be splited. Like I wouldnt split the 4x of swords to plowshares with any other removal.

Good read anyway :D

[from Cairo]

In the end I dont think everything should be splited. Like I wouldnt split the 4x of swords to plowshares with any other removal.


The OP addresses this exact point...



Don't see the difference at all.

No really, most of the time, it works just the same. After all, all of them remove the opposing Goyfs.
But given certain situations, one hate is better than the other. The only hate I knew to be way better was Malakir, which I wanted as 4-of (the maximun split possible). All the rest, I just made several splits and now my chances on having the right removal for diverse situation are better. Strength came from diversifying my hate.

[Gui]

@ Gui: Sorry, but I think this is pretty obvious stuff.
Good! I don't intend to teach good players things they already know, and if you knew what I was talking about to be true, I know I'm teaching something worthy to those who don't know it. ^^



You forgot a couple of other reasons to diversify:
a) cards that name cards: The most important are Cabal Therapy and Meddling Mage, but there are others. Pretty fringe, but sometimes it comes up.
b) I-know-but-you-don't: You know what you have in your deck, and in your hand. Generally, your opponent doesn't.

Sure thing on (a), gonna edit it into the article;
(b) was addressed @ Gravehate part, gonna edit it into a better part instead;



So by running diverse counters/removalspells/whatever, you sort of skew the information war in your favour, since there will be more cards that your opponent has to play around, or alternatively, can be blown out by.
As you noted yourself, the tricky thing is that often, there is actually one or a few cards that are just better than the rest, even though it can be very difficult to identify them.
Yup =)

[eq.firemind]

Wow. The opening post deserves a beer. Maybe even couple. I probably never meet topicstarter in real life to actually buy some, but that's the best expression to explain how much I agree.

I'd like to add a point about "random x-ofs".

For example, I wanted 5 1-mana discard spells in my deck. So the decklist starts with
20 Swamp

4 Inquisition of Kozilek
1 Thoughtseize

Even though I explained that there are 5 cards for specific purpose and why I'd want 5, there will be at least one person to comment like "that 1-of ('Seize) looks random".
Sometimes we're lazy, sometimes we overlook things after hard day of work/party/whatever, but this one is abundant enough to be taken into consideration when you comment a decklist.

[La_Hire]

I'm sorry but I thought the opening post didnt truly bring forward the reason why diversified hate/removal suites/sideboards are effective. The opening post suggests that diversifying your cards sort of spreads your chances, because the cards in the situations he sketches are actually NOT the same.


Sure, amazing, it's already diversifyed, but guess what? Whenever I drew Vendetta against a bob, I hated myself. Whenever I drew it against a manadork or a lackey, I loved it.
Whenever I drew Diabolic against Progenitus, I shouted a HELL YEAH BABE!!! (and proceeded losing to counterspell...). When I drew it against Siege Gang Commander, well, at least I shown the token who's the boss.


But given certain situations, one hate is better than the other

These quotes assume the cards are functionally different, and diversifying your removal avoids putting all your eggs in one basket.

The reason why sideboards like the below are effective:

1x Surgical Extraction
1x Tormod's Crypt
2x Leyline of the Void


is that the opponent (for example a dredge player) will need a different answer to every card. He or she will need to Nature's claim the Leyline or use Cabal Therapy the Extraction. The dredge player needs to have the correct answer or he or she will lose. Not the subtle differences in effect are important, but the different cards required to answer it.

This is the reason why Goblins had an edge against (aggro-)control in the pre Mental Misstep -era. Apart from casting Force and going down one card (which matters tremendously in the attrition war), the control player didnt have a card which effectively answered both a T1 Goblin Lackey or Aether Vial. Since control decks now have acces to an universal answer without carddisadvantage in Mental Misstep , goblins has lost this edge.

I also believe this is the reason why control decks like Hive Mind and especially Stoneblade are doing great; Jace, The Mind Sculptor requires a completely different answer than Stoneforge Mystic . Same for Emrakul, the Aeons Thorn and Hive Mind . They are imo succesfull because they have answers to a wide range of strategies (mostly due to the classical blue shell) and managed to diversify their threats without losing power by using sub-optimal cards.

[Gui]

Wow. The opening post deserves a beer. Maybe even couple. I probably never meet topicstarter in real life to actually buy some, but that's the best expression to explain how much I agree.


Thanks man! If we ever meet, I'll remember this xD



I'd like to add a point about "random x-ofs".

For example, I wanted 5 1-mana discard spells in my deck. So the decklist starts with
20 Swamp

4 Inquisition of Kozilek
1 Thoughtseize

Even though I explained that there are 5 cards for specific purpose and why I'd want 5, there will be at least one person to comment like "that 1-of ('Seize) looks random".
Sometimes we're lazy, sometimes we overlook things after hard day of work/party/whatever, but this one is abundant enough to be taken into consideration when you comment a decklist.

That's how I think too. Role-player cards are usually miss interpreted when you add as 1-of. Even tho the better card, in this case, is IoK, Thoughtseize helps increasing the chance of hitting a IoK-like card.

But I reckon this is not related to diversifying, but instead, to deckbuilding in general.


... (some good and constructive thoughts) ...

I believe I addressed this, not with as much details as you did, in this:


Also, this way, not only you'll have a chance of hitting a better hate against a deck, but you'll also be a lot less predictable! Believe me, this paranoia (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=3453) is good!

Also, I edited to make the "reasons" more explicit, since I reckon I should have worked more on them. I intend to re-write it with better explanations some day, but for now, it's just a "mini" article ;D

And I was able to link a way better written article on the matter :D

[Atwa]

I agree totally with the article, I just have 1 (off-topic) question. Why do you play Edict over Geth's Verdict while playing Mono black?

[Gui]

I agree totally with the article, I just have 1 (off-topic) question. Why do you play Edict over Geth's Verdict while playing Mono black?

Wastelands =D

[La_Hire]

I believe I addressed this, not with as much details as you did, in this:

Quote Originally Posted by Gui View Post
Also, this way, not only you'll have a chance of hitting a better hate against a deck, but you'll also be a lot less predictable! Believe me, this paranoia is good!

I did not refer to this suprise factor which is involved by using different hate cards, but the inability of the opponent to deal with them even with perfect information since his answers simply do not answer your hate.

Example: even if your opponent playing dredge knows all your cards in hand at a certain stage of the game, he needs to have a Nature's claim in order to deal with a opposing Leyline of the Void . The same Nature's claim will not suffice when you are holding two Surgical Extraction . Cabal Therapy is required which would not work in the previous situation.

The dredge player's lack of options has nothing to do with imperfect information due to diversified hate. It has to do with the diversification of the hate causing his answers not to work properly.

BTW the diversification theorem only applies when there is no difference in power level (in general or with respect to your meta) between the cards you are dispersing.
If I knew that I would have to face a lot of Team America and no Zoo at my local shop, I would play 4x Dismember and zero Vendetta or Smother . Simply because the first cards is a lot stronger than the latter two.

[Gui]

I did not refer to this suprise factor which is involved by using different hate cards, but the inability of the opponent to deal with them even with perfect information since his answers simply do not answer your hate.

Example: even if your opponent playing dredge knows all your cards in hand at a certain stage of the game, he needs to have a Nature's claim in order to deal with a opposing Leyline of the Void . The same Nature's claim will not suffice when you are holding two Surgical Extraction . Cabal Therapy is required which would not work in the previous situation.

The dredge player's lack of options has nothing to do with imperfect information due to diversified hate. It has to do with the diversification of the hate causing his answers not to work properly.

Well, I thought this was better addressed than it looked like when I re-read the article =P

This is what I meant when I gave the examples on Vendetta and Diabolic, and I probably should explain a little better how the diversification gave me the chance on running into the right hate. Thanks for the input =)



BTW the diversification theorem only applies when there is no difference in power level (in general or with respect to your meta) between the cards you are dispersing.
If I knew that I would have to face a lot of Team America and no Zoo at my local shop, I would play 4x Dismember and zero Vendetta or Smother . Simply because the first cards is a lot stronger than the latter two.
This is what I meant when I said that the cards should deal the same way with the same situation. In this case, your situation is to fight these decks, so the other solutions don't apply. ^^