Shorthands
In math, we often solve problems by using theorems that have already been proven. Similarly, a lot match-ups in this tournament will fall into some common categories in terms of the relative stats of the creatures involved.
This page will describe some of the short-hands we frequently use to help determine a game’s outcome, without running the whole thing manually from the start.
The items here will be updated continuously as we go through more and more types of creature interactions in this tournament.
Lands vs. Creatures Ratio
In general, decks will want to keep playing lands until they have enough mana to cast two of their creatures a turn. This is because without casting two creatures a turn, they’ll never be able to make full use of its hand. Exceptions:
- 1-mana creatures: More often than not, they want to play their third land because it allows them to rush in three creatures on Turn 3 (at the cost of playing fewer in later turns); because their goal is typically to rush damage the (often larger) opponent to death before they get a chance to stabilize.
- 6-mana and above creatures (on the draw), 5-mana and above creatures (on the play): There’s usually no point in playing past the lands needed for the first creature. Because by the time they’ve reached enough mana to play two a turn, they only have one card in their hand (after drawing) – meaning they’ll never have two creatures in hand to cast anyways.
Stalemates (when Creature A is on the play, and Creature B is on the draw)
Case 1: Creature A and Creature B have the same cost and trade or stalemate in combat. (Assuming of course, neither have abilities that move the needle.)
Although Deck B is on the draw, the extra card (i.e. creature) they’ve drawn doesn’t get to attack the turn it is drawn and cast. Hence, Deck B will never have more attackers than Deck A has blockers. And so, it’ll never be able to get any damage through.
Which means Creature A wins by default.
Case 2: Creature A and Creature B trade/stalemate in combat but Creature B costs less.
From above, we know the lower cost of Creature B means that it has less lands in play. Meaning that it has more creatures in play – enough for it to have the numbers advantage over Creature A and thus persistently damage them to victory. Creature B wins.
Damage Charts
Here’s the number of attacks a deck should expect to get on each turn, assuming no blockers (if they are on the draw and the number is different, it is shown in brackets):
| Turn | CMC 1 | CMC 2 | CMC 3 | CMC 4 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| 5 | 7 (8) | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| 6 | 8 (9) | 6 | 3 | 2 |
| 7 | 9 (10) | 8 | 5 | 3 |
| 8 | 10 (11) | 9 (10) | 7 | 4 |
| 9 | 11 (12) | 10 (11) | 8 (9) | 6 |
| 10 | 12 (13) | 11 (12) | 9 (10) | 7 (8) |
Subtract accordingly for blockers, noting that the number of attackers will be reduced in later turns if the blocker is bigger (and thus kills them).
If the attacker is on the draw, the blockers start coming in on the Turn corresponding to the CMC of the opponent. If the attacker is on the play, the blockers start coming in the turn after.
Chump Blocking is for Chumps
Chump blocking – blocking an opponent’s bigger creature with your smaller creature – is overall a disadvantageous action, since it involves you losing a creature while the opponent keeps theirs. In general, a deck wants to avoid chump blocking; unless they’re getting ready to win the game in the coming turns and just need to stay alive until then.
A lot of times, a deck will be “forced to chump” in order to survive an opponent’s attack. Unless that deck has some sort of evasive army and plan to end it in the coming turn(s), being forced to chump almost always leads to a loss shortly thereafter.