Since may of last year I’ve had a draft post on the dashboard of my blog entitled “How to Win at Games” which had the lofty goal of explaining in abstract how you can win at any game. Stuart King who is a very good strategist of, not just Magic, but all games had a similar idea and we talked a little about the idea after playtest my new standard brew (which happened to suck).

Have you ever stopped and thought about how you win at Magic? That might seem like an odd question or one with an obvious answer. At the very basic level (ignoring decking, DQs, concessions, poison counters or alternative win conditions) it is reducing your opponent’s life to zero.

However killing your opponent explains only what the win condition is. It does not explain the process by which you get there. How you win a game of Magic is by a negotiation of resources with your opponent via the rules of the game.

When you tap out, play a bomb and I tap and counter it you are offering a trade: Your mana and that card for my mana and this card.

So what resources do we have in Magic? Well, there are many but I believe the main ones are:

Cards

Life

Turns (or time)

Mana

There are also less common or intertwined elements such as card state (tapped, untapped, flipped, in deck, in the graveyard, in hand, on the battlefield etc) and speed (instant or sorcery speed).

Could we, using some staple cards, work out what a good exchange rate is between each resource creating a solid, albeit abstract, theory on which to evaluate what plays are correct? Could we use this exchange rate to model the constant flow of resources in a game and what would that tell us?

For example, what is the value of single color of mana? Commonly it’s once per turn per card (a basic land). What’s the value of a turn? According to Time Walk it’s a card and two mana whilst according to Time Warp it’s a card and five mana. The former, as you know, is a better value.

How then does this help us win more games? In chess theory there is system called chess piece relative value that tells us, for example, that a knight is worth around three pawns, ergo if I lose two pawns to take a knight then I am up on resources and theoretically ahead in the game.

The dominant strategy theories in Magic, such as beatdown theory, tempo and card advantage, all explain in more practical terms what is happening in a game: The constant exchange of resources.

When building a deck and playing a game of Magic the player takes on a strategy of exchanging the resources in a way that he or she believes will ultimately win the game for them.

An aggro deck aims to exchange cards and turns for an opponent’s life total as quick as possible.

A control deck aims to exchange his or her cards for an opponent’s cards in the most efficient way possible whilst maintaining their own life total until such point that their opponent cannot win.

A mill player aims to diminish a player’s cards in their deck through their own efficient means whilst maintaining their own life total.

A combo player looks to assemble a certain interaction of cards that can create incredible value.

If a player doesn’t understand their own deck’s strategy (or worse, build without one) and the strategy of their opponent’s deck then they’re unlikely to see where the plays they make offer value. However, even for well seasoned player with a good grasp of these concepts, it can be hard to evaluate what play is good or bad value.

An abstracted theory which gives comparative values for each resource in Magic as a base could well help players new and old to make better decisions in a game and win more often.

However, is it possible?