For those of you who have studied military history, are interested in it, or have actually spent time in the armed forces, you can skip this early section. For the rest of you, let me ask you a question—what is the difference between “tactics” and “strategy”? Most people use the terms interchangeably when, in fact, they refer to very different things.

In a military sense, tactics refers to the methodology used to dispose or maneuver military forces in battle. Strategy, on the other hand, refers to the methodology used bring forces to bear—in other words, how you use the means of war (like supply), and direct and plan the usage of large military forces (like entire armies) and operations. In essence, strategy refers to large-scale goals and operations, generally involving entire armies, whereas tactics refers to small-scale troop movements. The two are definitely related, but are also different and distinguishable.

Let’s take a look at a military situation to better understand the difference: Gettysburg.

Context

Coming off major victories at Fredericksburg and, in particular, Chancellorsville, Lee decided it was time to mount an offensive, and thus marched into Pennsylvania. His strategic reasoning for this was sound. Lee understood that the Confederacy alone couldn’t beat the Union in a prolonged war. The Confederacy’s best hope for success in the war (Confederate independence) was to either force the Union to quit the fight or secure foreign aid.

The Confederacy was in much the same situation as America itself was about ninety years prior, during the American Revolution. At the time, the assistance of the French, secured by the American victory at the Battle of Saratoga, was crucial in providing the forces, supplies, and in particular the navy needed by America to secure her independence.

Being a general and not a diplomat, the best that Lee could do was attempt to capture and destroy the Army of the Potomac, and thus threaten Washington, D.C. This could accomplish his goal in one of two ways—the threat on Washington, combined with Confederate success early in the war, could force the Union to the negotiating table. If that didn’t happen, it is possible that Confederate diplomats could use the battle like Franklin used Saratoga back in the Revolution, securing foreign aid by showcasing the Confederate ability to win the war. Either way, Lee was facing long odds, but that’s what he had to work with.

Upon moving into Pennsylvania, a small detachment of Lee’s army sighted a detachment of Union cavalry on June 30 in Gettysburg. Upon hearing this information, one of Lee’s commanders, A. P. Hill, sent a detachment to determine the strength of the Union force at Gettysburg, resulting in the first day of battle. As a result, both armies concentrated at Gettysburg, with the resulting fighting on July 2 and July 3, 1863. All in all, given what Lee was working with, Lee’s strategy was sound.

However, Lee made a major tactical blunder—fighting the Union while they occupied a defensive position centered around Cemetery Ridge, which goes against basic military principles of engaging units that have higher ground. It’s not as if Lee wasn’t aware of other options, either. For example, Longstreet suggested a march around the Union left in order to force Union troops to come off their strong defensive position and attack a defensive Confederate position.

This, of course, was the better option. Even if the Union chose not to attack, they would undoubtedly be forced to move off Cemetery Ridge to counter Lee’s movement and thus lose their strong defensive position for Lee’s ensuing attacks. Of course, we have the benefit of hindsight. Even so, Lee committed a very basic tactical mistake—attacking an opponent who possesses high ground. Lee had at least one other tactical option to accomplish the same strategic end—the destruction or capture of the Army of the Potomac.

Applying an Understanding of Tactics and Strategy to Magic

So, how does this understanding apply to Magic? The answer is simple. In any matchup within Magic, you have two major questions to ask:

1. What battle am I fighting?
2. How am I fighting that battle?

The first question looks at your strategy, whereas the second relates to your tactics. Let’s take a look at a modern example—Valakut. Valakut has two central pieces—Valakut itself and Primeval Titan. Thus, you have to determine which of the two you are fighting. This is a strategic question, and once you determine the answer, you should devote your resources (cards) to fight that battle in the most effective means possible. Let’s take a look at each strategic fight.

Fighting Primeval Titan means fighting the trigger—in other words, minimizing the number of times a Valakut opponent gets to trigger his 6-mana giant. This, in general, means countering it or removing it as soon as it resolves. Spells like Flashfreeze, Doom Blade, Go for the Throat, Tumble Magnet, and Mana Leak shine in this application. Most people are familiar with how to fight this fight, so I’m not going to talk about it very much. I want to compare how most people think of Valakut (a fight over Primeval Titan) with an alternative strategy (fight over Valakut itself).

Fighting Valakut is another trigger fight, in a similar sense—you are also trying to minimize the number of triggers, this time on Valakut itself. For this fight, it is very important to know how many Valakut triggers an opponent can achieve. If your opponent has fifteen mountains, the maximum number of triggers he can achieve is eleven. While this is more than enough to kill most players, it is an important number to keep in mind. Why? Because you can attack Valakut from multiple angles. Obviously, the most important card when fighting Valakut itself is land-destruction, in particular Tectonic Edge, and, by extension, anything that can double as a Tectonic Edge (Sun Titan, or Volition Reins, for example). However, other tactical opportunities arise as well, most notably in cards such as Baneslayer Angel.

The goal of fighting against Valakut itself is to try to keep Valakut at one or zero Valakuts on the table. Remember, there is a maximum number of Valakut triggers your opponent can achieve, and if you can weather enough of them so your life total is higher than three times the number of Valakut triggers he has left, a Valakut opponent will have many problems killing you. I have beaten Valakut before allowing someone to attack with Primeval Titan four times over the course of the game, simply because I was able to direct his usage of Valakut triggers and gain some life.

It’s important to remember that you start with 20 life, which means that the Valakut player needs to trigger his namesake card seven times to kill you. If, however, you play a lowly Kabira Crossroads, that number goes up to eight. If you hit him with a Baneslayer Angel, it goes up to nine. Considering Valakut can only trigger his namesake card between ten and twelve times, nine triggers is a lot if you are only letting him have one Valakut.

You can see how it’s possible to put the Valakut player in a position where his Valakut triggers are overstressed if you can force him to use Valakut to defend against threats like Baneslayer Angel, Sun Titan, and Jace, the Mind Sculptor. This creates a slightly different angle of attack, where sometimes you want Primeval Titan to resolve so there will be Valakuts on the table for you to destroy. Remember, there are only four Valakuts in your opponent’s deck and almost certainly no way to recur them. If you can deal with all four, you have gone most of the way toward winning the game.

If you are fighting the Primeval Titan fight, you are likely trying to have as many cards as possible that deal with Primeval Titan directly. This means little room for cards like Sun Titan or Venser, the Sojourner (unless you are running Journey to Nowhere), and definitely no room for cards like Condemn (which gives the Valakut player two triggers). However, if you are fighting the Valakut fight, cards like Venser can be extremely effective in combination with cards like Volition Reins and Kabira Crossroads. Here’s an example:

Your opponent has no Valakuts on the table (but at least five Mountains) and plays Primeval Titan. If you have a Tectonic Edge and Venser on the table and a Volition Reins in hand, you can probably let the Titan resolve, even if you are relatively sure you can counter it. Why? Because no matter what he gets, it turns out to be beneficial for you. If he gets two Valakuts, you blow one up and Volition Reins the Titan. This forces him to kill his own Titan with Valakut (absorbing one trigger if he has a Valakut in hand, two if he doesn’t). If he can’t kill his own Titan, you get to attack with it, search up two Tectonic Edges, and then blink the Volition Reins to take his Valakut. Assuming you can deal with the 6/6 part of the Titan (not hard, considering you are probably playing U/W control), you’re now in a position where you have dealt with all four of your opponent’s Valakuts (one blown up by Tectonic Edge, two Edges on the table, one Volition Reins). If your opponent only gets one Valakut, it’s even worse for him, since you still blow up the Edge and take the Titan, leaving him with no Valakut and facing his own Titan.

If you combine this idea with Kabira Crossroads, Venser starts to show some value, as not only can he move around a Volition Reins like above (allowing you to use the Reins to deal with, for example, an Oracle of Mul Daya early), he can also blink Kabira Crossroads, which negates two-thirds of a Valakut trigger each time you blink it. This life gain, combined with pressure you can put on with Sun Titan, Baneslayer Angel, and Celestial Colonnade, can push you over the edge.

The main difference between the two fights essentially boils down to this:

If you are fighting the Primeval Titan fight, you never want Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle to be in play.

If you are fighting the Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle fight, you often want Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle in play (so you can blow it up, probably with Tectonic Edge).

I only say “often” because there are situations where you are fighting the Valakut fight in actuality, but you have to fight the Primeval Titan fight for now, and thus you don’t want Valakut in play for the moment. The main point is that you have different tactical options for each fight, and you have to plan them differently. Baneslayer Angel is actually one of your best cards if you are trying to fight Valakut itself and not Primeval Titan. This is because it does a bunch of things:

• If it dies, it absorbs two Valakut triggers.
• If it hits your opponent, it absorbs 1.66 Valakut triggers (5 life / 3 damage).
• If it blocks a Primeval Titan, it still absorbs 1.33 Valakut triggers (Titan deals 1 damage to you, so you only net 4 life). I used this one a lot back in the days when I played U/W control, a few months ago.
• It completely shuts down one of Valakut’s best way of getting around you fighting Valakut itself—Gaea's Revenge.

Of course, your best card in the anti-Valakut fight is still Sun Titan, but there are other good cards as well.

The main point is to understand the ground of the battle you are fighting on. Back when Valakut was the “best deck,” most Valakut players were not prepared tactically to fight over Valakut. They were prepared to fight over Primeval Titan. Thus, by shifting the fight from Primeval Titan to Valakut, I had quite a bit of success against the archetype running a very unconventional list. Luminarch Ascension was an example of this type of strategic shifting as well. At the time, most control mirrors were about Jace, the Mind Sculptor. This was the battle most control players were prepared to fight in the control mirror. By playing Ascension, I was able to shift the ground of the battle to Luminarch Ascension and not Jace, thereby leaving most players both strategically and tactically unprepared for the fight.

The lesson here is that decks can often be attacked in multiple ways. Whereas one fight may be the right fight for most decks, it is not always the right fight for your deck. As a player, you should always be looking for opportunities to shift the strategic ground of the fight to something you are prepared for and your opponent is not. This will leave him at both a strategic and tactical disadvantage, as he will not only have the wrong cards to fight the fight, but will also make tactical play mistakes because he is not used to the battle you are fighting.

I realize that Valakut is not a particularly relevant example at this point, but I used it because it illustrates the point very well. Caw-Blade, however, is a relevant example.

Why is Caw-Blade such a tough deck to beat? Well, Caw-Blade has three potential relevant battles for you to fight, and the deck is very good at fighting all three:

• Stoneforge Mystic
• The equipment itself
• Jace, the Mind Sculptor

The problem is that the deck is effectively a three-pronged assault. While you are trying to attack it on one front, it will attack you from the other two. This puts you in a huge pickle. So, let me ask you, which battle are you fighting? Can you shift the focus away from one of these three cards?

Chingsung Chang

Conelead most everywhere and on MTGO

Khan32k5 at gmail dot com