|
Preface: I don't know how many people on these forums have played Magic: the Gathering competitively, but I'm willing to guess that most people here have at least heard of it. In short, M:tG is a trading card game that has a very strong competitive scene including a Pro Tour that travels around the world, hundreds of professional gamers, and millions of fans worldwide. Given that the game has been around for 15 years now, there has been a lot of words written about the game. I've achieved some moderate success competing in Magic and do continue to follow the game as a hobby, so I'd like to share my passion. Also, I'm a huge nerd, and I love games. So sue me.
My purpose for this article, which I hope to make into a series, is to apply the copious theory poured into analyzing M:tG and applying the same ideas to SC2. Here, I reference the article that is considered the most important piece of theory with regards to Magic: Who's the Beatdown? by Mike Flores. My goal will be to present the ideas in the article and apply them to SC2, without the reader needing any knowledge of Magic. However, a working knowledge of M:tG will be helpful to understanding the Magic references.
Who's the Beatdown?
Magic: the Gathering can be played with both players sitting down with decks of their custom design, whose contents are unknown to the opponent. Flores' thesis in this article, suffice it to say, is that every game has a player who is The Beatdown, and a player who is Not The Beatdown, aka The Control. The Beatdown is the player that is in the aggressive role, and has to finish the game early. The Control is the player who wants to survive, and if survives the early game without too many losses and doesn't get surprised, builds inevitability to a grinding and crushing win.
The crux here is that Misasignment of Role (as Beatdown or Control) always results in a game loss. Therefore, the most important thing to do in the first turn or two of Magic is for both players to decide how to play their cards based on their opponent's actions, in either an aggressive or a defensive role. Sometimes this is obvious: a deck may be constructed using very aggressive creature cards, which can come out on the first turn and immediately begin dealing damage.
![[image loading]](http://sales.starcitygames.com/cardscans/MAGTEM/jackal_pup.jpg)
This creature is very aggressive. It comes out on turn 1 and immediately begins dealing damage. However, it is hampered by a pretty severe handicap and is pure terribleness later in the game. If your opponent starts with this card on turn 1, the best SC2 parallel might be a 6-pool: you know what's coming next, and you should probably try and prepare the best you can. They are the beatdown. Your role is control. Defend without overwhelming losses, and you will build inevitability in the form of extra economy, and the game is yours. It doesn't actually matter what unit you end up using later in the game; you won when your workers surrounded the 6 lings and you completed the cannon/bunker/wall/crawler for the next set of lings. The game is over. You have inevitability. You can win by making units now, or you can expand and defend, and win later. It doesn't matter, you've won. You can even spend our APM insulting that cheezy noobie over chat and still win. I know I do.
Sometimes, however, it's unclear who's the beatdown. You both open with a couple of lands (economy) and no plays. There's a lot of mystery here, and until someone commits to the board, nobody's the beatdown yet. This is the equivalent of both players going 10supply, 12 Barracks. But if one player cuts workers and OC for 2 more quick Barracks, he's now assumed the role of beatdown. The burden is now on the other player to scout his role as the control, and to defend appropriately. If he stops the push without losing too many workers, he has inevitability in the form of economy (and probably tech). Again, the game's probably over, he can just win with anything.
But consider the same situation, but where the extra Barracks are not scouted. The player who is in the dark is unaware of his role as the control, and as we know, misasignment of role is a game loss.
One more final example: Zerg goes for 15 hatch, 14 pool against 10depot, 12 Rax Terran. Terran, (much like in SC1:BW) mostly defaults to the beatdown in this matchup with this build order. Zerg has made a statement that he wants to be the Control: defend whatever it is that the Terran can do off of 1 base, and come out with inevitability in the form of superior economy and production. Two things can happen here: Terran can steal the role of Control by responding with an expansion himself, and since Terran on 2 base is typically stronger in the midgame than Zerg on 2 base, that makes Zerg now the beatdown. Alternatively, Zerg can insist on being the Control by taking a quick third and massing drones in response to the Terran expo and lack of aggression.
So, what have we learned?
-In every matchup, there is a beatdown player, and a control player. Actions can be taken to change one's role in a situation.
-Misassignment of role = game loss. No exceptions.
-The control role is to defend, defend, defend. The control player should not commit to attacking until he is sure of victory. The control player should always scout so as to be sure of what the beatdown player is doing, so as to have the correct response when the beatdown player eventually moves out. Harassment is very synergistic with this role; delaying the push is always good when you have the better economy. The key word for the control player is inevitability.
-The beatdown player has the burden of action. He needs to make something happen, or else he will eventually lose. He is the aggressive player. The paths to victory here include: a surprise timing attack that cannot be defended (think 4gate), a surprise tech choice that the opponent isn't prepared for (think 2port cloaked Banshee), or surprise reassignment of role (think LotzePrime's hidden expo vs Idra G3 in GSL 1). It's fine to be the beatdown,but just remember that the longer you are the beatdown, the worse your chances become. The key word for the beatdown player is quick action.
Please leave comments, especially if you want to see more of these. If this article is received well, I'm thinking the next article will be on threat theory.
|
Its a good theory, but what happens much later on in the game when the lines blur? When each player has 3-4 bases, macroing strongly, and trading armies regularly, who the is the control and who is the beatdown? Assuming that no player ever gets just stomped in a battle, I think it would be very hard to tell your own situation.
|
Great article! Loved the parallels you drew between Mtg and Sc2. I'd definitely love to see more 
|
As a past MTG fanatic, I love the analogies you made here in relation to SCII gameplay.
I'm looking forward to more of your articles.
|
On November 11 2010 07:36 PaleBlueDot wrote:
Its a good theory, but what happens much later on in the game when the lines blur? When each player has 3-4 bases, macroing strongly, and trading armies regularly, who the is the control and who is the beatdown? Assuming that no player ever gets just stomped in a battle, I think it would be very hard to tell your own situation.
The point is, in theory, that you are one of these roles. And if you decide wrong (attacking or trying to further your economy), you will lose.
|
Interesting. I agree for the most part, but I think the roles can change suddenly, and that situations arise where it is advantageous to force that switch.
|
Although magic is mainly a game of skill based on cards already in your hands, many game situations come down to luck - knowing what type of cards you might expect next. It's not always possible to determine who needs to attack fast and who needs to stall. This is especially the case in end game scenarios, ironically.
That's not to say that magic is won by luck, but rather that between skilled players short term situations arise where chance decides the outcome. Much like texas hold'em where it's almost all skill in the long run but all luck in the short run.
The analogy does hold well with SC2 because you can force your opponent to attack, or be forced to attack. However due to teching and the differences between the races, the roles can suddenly switch back and forth. For example dark templars, mutalisks, and cloaked banshees immediately switches the who is defending and who is attacking, and those units must deal damage asap to justify their cost before they're countered with every second counting. If they are properly countered, the roles immediately switch back. Buf if damage is done with a late counter, it's still possible for the ravaged opponent to tech up himself and switch the roles again - especially if he started this before the attack.
|
Interesting. Day9 actually described 2n2 a bit like this.. Not sure which daily, one of the later ones. Where one team is clearly the aggressor (beatdown), and one team clearly the one that techs up etc.(control).
|
I hate Mike Flores (most overrated Mtg player ever, never did anything well and 'his' deck that won worlds last year was a fluke), but this article was actually quite good of him.
As far as transporting this concept to sc2 i don't know..
There are lots of concepts like harassing which don't really fit with the whole mtg theme. For example you can be defending while harassing at the same time.
The basic concept though, knowing when to play aggresive and when to play passive is important though. Especially terran makes this mistake way too much in sc2. In sc1 terran was passive in more matchups, situations whereas now they simply can't be. A passive/turtling terran get's demolished in sc2 as terran actually has the weakest lategame.
|
On November 11 2010 09:38 Markwerf wrote:
I hate Mike Flores (most overrated Mtg player ever, never did anything well and 'his' deck that won worlds last year was a fluke), but this article was actually quite good of him.
As far as transporting this concept to sc2 i don't know..
There are lots of concepts like harassing which don't really fit with the whole mtg theme. For example you can be defending while harassing at the same time.
The basic concept though, knowing when to play aggresive and when to play passive is important though. Especially terran makes this mistake way too much in sc2. In sc1 terran was passive in more matchups, situations whereas now they simply can't be. A passive/turtling terran get's demolished in sc2 as terran actually has the weakest lategame.
He's not really respected as a player but he has written some great articles.
|
On November 11 2010 09:38 Markwerf wrote:
As far as transporting this concept to sc2 i don't know..
There are lots of concepts like harassing which don't really fit with the whole mtg theme. For example you can be defending while harassing at the same time.
Harassing while defending is usually meant to delay an attack, like mutas vs terran in BW. This lets you get better tech/economy by the time the attack comes. In MtG, The control can do all kinds of things to delay damage dealt by the beatdown: removal, permission, etc. If control can hold off the damage from beatdown until he has sufficient card advantage he can win. Seems pretty parallel to me
|
On November 11 2010 07:36 PaleBlueDot wrote:
Its a good theory, but what happens much later on in the game when the lines blur? When each player has 3-4 bases, macroing strongly, and trading armies regularly, who the is the control and who is the beatdown? Assuming that no player ever gets just stomped in a battle, I think it would be very hard to tell your own situation.
The lines do not blur. Here's an example/riddle: you're both very good players with a TvP close positions on Metalopolis. Early game was generally even with armies trading evenly and you've both picked up your third, strong saturation at all bases, with your mains starting to mine out. You're the Terran, and for the most part you've been using 3 Tech Rax, 2 Reactor Rax, and a Reactor Port. Your opponent has teched to Colossus and has charge and +2/+1 upgrades while you're at +1/+1. Are you the beatdown or the control?
Answer: you are unequivocably the beatdown. Your opponent has likely started Templar tech and will soon have an absurdly powerful defense to your mm ball. He has inevitability. If he suddenly switches to Chargelot + Storm with +3/+1, you're almost certainly in huge trouble. So your goal will be either to reassign him as the beatdown by taking another base (preferably the gold or to the hidden main) or to win before he can get Storm + Amulet up. If it gets to 200/200 armies, the fight will be close, but if he has any kind of macro he will rebuild far faster than you and then you will die. So he has inevitability, and you are the beatdown.
|
On November 11 2010 10:39 MangoTango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 07:36 PaleBlueDot wrote:
Its a good theory, but what happens much later on in the game when the lines blur? When each player has 3-4 bases, macroing strongly, and trading armies regularly, who the is the control and who is the beatdown? Assuming that no player ever gets just stomped in a battle, I think it would be very hard to tell your own situation. The lines do not blur. Here's an example/riddle: you're both very good players with a TvP close positions on Metalopolis. Early game was generally even with armies trading evenly and you've both picked up your third, strong saturation at all bases, with your mains starting to mine out. You're the Terran, and for the most part you've been using 3 Tech Rax, 2 Reactor Rax, and a Reactor Port. Your opponent has teched to Colossus and has charge and +2/+1 upgrades while you're at +1/+1. Are you the beatdown or the control? Answer: you are unequivocably the beatdown. Your opponent has likely started Templar tech and will soon have an absurdly powerful defense to your mm ball. He has inevitability. If he suddenly switches to Chargelot + Storm with +3/+1, you're almost certainly in huge trouble. So your goal will be either to reassign him as the beatdown by taking another base (preferably the gold or to the hidden main) or to win before he can get Storm + Amulet up. If it gets to 200/200 armies, the fight will be close, but if he has any kind of macro he will rebuild far faster than you and then you will die. So he has inevitability, and you are the beatdown.
I know the answer to your riddle. And it is a trick question! If it is a TvP on Metalopolis, then I lost when the game made it past 7 minutes!
|
So a 4gate is fireblast lol?
Very interesting stuff, i play both games but never thought of making that link between the two.
Also interesting is the fact that I naturally tend to play control decks and idra-style defensive zerg, which you just made me realize are basically the same thing
|
I freaking loved this haha i play magic too and i just loved it
|
Nicely done. :D
Who's the Beatdown fundamental to at least ask no matter what game you're playing. Great critical thinking jumping off point.
Edit: I forgot to mention: yes please, do more! You mean threat theory as in having threats vs having answers? If you do another I will probably be inspired to try to do my own on "deck velocity". =P
|
Oh man do I love mtg. I had to click on this. I used to read Flores religiously, and I remember when that article came out and how it blew our minds. You're absolutely right about Magic, whether you are control, aggro, or midrange you have to know your role in relation to your opponent. A great recent example is Jund, which played hyper aggressive against blue white without running out of gas, but pulled back and won through card advantage against faster decks like Naya and RDW.
I'm not exactly sure that it applies directly to Starcraft, but I'm looking forward to more of these!
|
interesting article and the MtG references make my nerd heart shiver^^
i think the most important piece of information in your post is the following:
-Misassignment of role = game loss. No exceptions.
this in itself is very obvious to every1 when it comes down to not noticing that u are the control guy: if you dont scout aggression or cheese in time, u get buttf*cked. no exceptions.
what i personally and also many others struggle with is not noticing when we are the beatdown. basically the theory developped in MtG, when applied sc2, means that sitting on 2 base without any attacks in tvz against his 3 bases is misassessing your role. and it will mean loss.
basically the reference u give says that both direct and implicit aggression possess the same deadliness if your opponent doesnt react accordingly. often times, newbies struggling with decisionmaking when it comes to how to respond when the opponent goes for the implicit aggression/control role.
|
Everytime you say beatdown, I think of the inevitable rock paper scissors form in Magic:
Aggro > Control > Combo > Aggro
(I prefer the term aggro over beatdown; beatdown makes me think of Yu-Gi-Oh!)
You could argue that combos are build orders that supersede you, sort of like all ins. In a sense, stuff like 3 rax, while really strong, if it fails, you have a hard time moving away from it. Much like combo decks, if the combo fails, you're trying your hardest to get your alternate win, assuming you even have one.
|
On November 11 2010 20:07 piroko139 wrote:
Everytime you say beatdown, I think of the inevitable rock paper scissors form in Magic:
Aggro > Control > Combo > Aggro
(I prefer the term aggro over beatdown; beatdown makes me think of Yu-Gi-Oh!)
You could argue that combos are build orders that supersede you, sort of like all ins. In a sense, stuff like 3 rax, while really strong, if it fails, you have a hard time moving away from it. Much like combo decks, if the combo fails, you're trying your hardest to get your alternate win, assuming you even have one.
this is like the old tech > rush > expand > tech
circle from bw
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
