- Part Zero: An Introduction
- Part One: A History
- Part Two: Card Advantage, Tempo, and the Philosophy of Fire – Section One
How does one win a game of Magic: the Gathering? This is a surprisingly subtle question. It’s one of those rhetorical quandaries that everyone thinks they have a simple answer to, but can rarely put into words without dozens of caveats. “That’s easy: you play more creatures than your opponent.” “Elementary: simply sling bolts at my opponent’s face ’till he’s dead!” “That’s a dumb question: you counter all their threats and cast something they can’t answer, obviously.” “The only way I know how: Dread Return my Flamekin Zealot with two Bridge from Below in the ‘yard and attack for 21, hyuk hyuk hyuk.” But what if your opponent does X, Y, or Z? “Well, I guess I’ll just play more creatures than they have Doom Blades.” “Kor Firewalker? Bah! I run dismember in my sideboard just for that!” “I have Ghost Quarters for their silly Drownyards. Didn’t you know it’s tech now to run lands in your ‘board anyway?” “I have three words for you: Chain of Vapor.”
I’ve always found myself wanting to go deeper than these surface solutions and figure out what causes a person to win a game of Magic in any given match, completely abstracted from individual players, decks, and cards. For example, it seems like everyone knows that it’s a good play to Doom Blade a Baneslayer Angel, or to Remand a Wrath of God, or to Extirpate a Narcomoeba. But why are these matters of fact? Is there some set of core principles hiding behind the framework of the game that makes these explicitly good plays, or are they all merely accidental and context dependent?
The attempts to answer such questions are known collectively as Magic Theory. A fair amount of work has been done in the past to progress various perspectives on the subject, but it seems that interest in the topic has died down significantly in the last few years. This is an unfortunate trend, as understanding the foundational concepts of Magic is one of the primary ways one can truly master the game. Indeed, I would argue that a functional understanding of Magic Theory is the only way to truly grow as a competitive player; and that those who have not explicitly studied the subject but who still exhibit exemplary play skill have somehow stumbled upon the truths we seek through simple experience.
By now the parallels between Magic Theory and other fields of study, particularly the hard sciences and economics, have been well documented and should be plain, so I won’t spend an exhaustive amount of time enumerating the similarities. It will suffice to say that the same such trends are common in these fields. To point, people were obsessed with the notion of a Unified Field Theory during Physics’ hay day, but have largely lost interest due to a number of reasons, chief of which was the realization that more money could be made by focusing on those elements of Physics which had immediate practical applications for the average person, especially those elements which could be adapted to allow consumers to live their lives more (lazily) comfortably. We see a similar trend in Magic, where the average competitive player is less concerned about why Delver is the best deck in every format and more concerned about memorizing which plays more often lead to them carrying a match slip. However, I will contend that the question that begins with “why” is more important than the one which begins with “how.”
I believe this partially because there are many benefits to be gained from having a functional understanding of Magic Theory, perhaps the most important of which is the notion that from the true understanding of information comes knowledge, and from knowledge comes the ability to interpret new phenomena in an efficient manner. In other words, without knowledge of the workings of the game, one cannot hope to immediately interpret a new scenario which may arise in any given match, and is forced to resort to trial and error, which will inevitably lead to poor results until one stumbles upon the most efficient sequence of plays, likely by accident. But it would be dishonest of me to claim that my interest in the pursuit of a unified theory of Magic is purely pragmatic. I believe in every aspect of my life that knowledge is valuable in-and-of-itself because knowing is the most essential aspect of being, and that any kind of utility to be gained from a study is an inevitable consequence of, and not a primary function of the pursuit of knowledge. This piece will be driven by that perspective.
As such, over the course of the following article series, I will be exploring Magic Theory as it pertains to the advancement of our knowledge of the game. Magic theorists in the past decade have barely begun to scratch the surface of the true complexity of the game; but significant advancements have been made nonetheless. Our first goal is going to be understanding the current state of Magic Theory, and in order to do that we must be aware of the history and the people involved. Next we will take to an actual evaluation of those theories which have been presented and evaluate their respective merits and pitfalls. Finally we shall venture into the realm of progressive speculation in an attempt to tie together what has come before with what we know now, with the ultimate goal of discovering the beginnings of a truly unified theory.
Links will be updated as each subsequent article in the series is published:
Fundamental Magic Theory
Part One: A History
Part Two: Card Advantage, Tempo, and The Philosophy of Fire
Part Three: Advantage Theory and Option Theory
Part Four: Stock Mana, Progress Theory, and Marginal Mana
Part Five: The Utilitarian Planeswalker