Revisiting Pack Rat in Legacy

Towards the end of Pack Rat’s domination of Standard, many players began to experiment with the once over-looked card in other formats. Tad Macaraeg and others had some success with it in the Modern format, but I went one step further and attempted to bring it to Legacy.

my apologies to everyone who likes legacy pic.twitter.com/cLJIo4boeF

— Ty Thomason (@ceciliajupe) August 21, 2014

We all quickly discovered that Pack Rat was not the force to be reckoned with that it was in Standard. While our attempts may have been more to frustrate opponents who were tired of losing to the Rat round after round, I learned quite a bit from the process. Today, I’ll be going over some of the things I learned as well as presenting one of the more recent experimentations.
Why play Pack Rat?
One of my favorite concepts in deck building is the idea of different Axes of Attack. The best example is Standard-era CawBlade. The deck could beat you by using Stoneforge Mystic to find Batterskull or various swords. It could also beat you just by playing a bunch of Squadron Hawks and protecting them with countermagic. Or it could beat you by acting as a control deck centered on Jace, the Mind Sculptor. Having three different plans allowed the deck to take the best role for the matchup, and it also made it very resilient to the opponent’s actions. Diversifying your threats makes it much harder for your opponent to negate your plan with sideboard cards.
Pack Rat as a threat is not the fastest, most disruptive, most resilient, or hardest to answer. But it does present a unique challenge for opponents to answer. Relying on 1-for-1 spot removal to answer creatures like Delver of Secrets or Dark Confidant won’t be as effective. Graveyard hate, like Rest in Peace creating Virtual Card Advantage against threats like Deathrite Shaman and Tarmogoyf, won’t stop Pack Rat. By using Pack Rat in conjunction with a diverse set of threats, you add an Axis of Attack to your deck that could be useful.
What are the drawbacks of Pack Rat?
Pack Rat is slow by Legacy standards. Without Mutavault, the clock it presents is slightly slower than a fully powered up Tarmogoyf. It also requires a huge commitment of resources every turn. Pack Rat is also black. I think black is one of the worst colors in Legacy, maybe even the stone worst. Pinpoint discard like Thoughtseize is not as good in a format where Brainstorm is the most played card. Also, the power level of decks is so high that opponents are much more likely to topdeck something good. Liliana is expensive in a format with Daze and Wasteland.
Cards to Play with Pack Rat
While Thoughtseize may be the best set up card for Pack Rat in Standard and Modern, I don’t think it's necessarily needed in Legacy. Since we're using Pack Rat to supplement other threats, we can use those threats to act as disruption, drawing out the removal that would normally go towards Pack Rat. Once both players are out of gas, Pack Rat can come down and take over the game. Discard might still be wanted to disrupt the lightning quick combo decks of the format, but it shouldn’t be relied upon to set up the horde.
Dark Confidant is Pack Rat’s best friend. He shares a color and provides the additional cards to create more rats. He also acts as a lightning rod for removal. Liliana is also very good with Pack Rat. You can use her +1 ability after discarding to Pack Rat every turn, so you will gain Card Advantage.
Cards that can be used from the graveyard also have synergy with Pack Rat. Lingering Souls, Punishing Fire, and Life from the Loam are all great compliments to Pack Rat. It’s important to remember that Pack Rat itself is a compliment to other strategies, so loading your deck full of these will just slow down your deck past the point of playability.
Mutavault is always a card to consider, but Legacy really emphasizes the need for colored mana sources with the prevalence of Wasteland. Mutavault could be right if you want to play a large number of lands (22+).
Some Pack Rat Brews

Legacy
BG Pack Rat - Ty Thomason

Creatures (16) 4 Deathrite Shaman 4 Tarmogoyf 4 Dark Confidant 4 Pack Rat Non-Creature Spells (22)2 Sylvan Library 3 Liliana of the Veil 4 Hymn to Tourach 4 Abrupt Decay 4 Thoughtseize 1 Maelstrom Pulse 2 Life from the Loam 1 Disfigure 1 Umezawa's Jitte

Lands (22) 4 Wasteland 4 Bayou 4 Verdant Catacombs 3 Swamp 1 Forest 4 Bloodstained Mire 1 Treetop Village 1 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth Sideboard (15) ???

This was my first Pack Rat brew. It's based on Modern Jund and other BGx decks but really playing up the disruption and aggressiveness. It looks like it shares a lot of cards with recent BUG Delver lists, and Pack Rat might just be a worse Delver of Secrets. This would be the best deck to try Mutavault in.

Legacy
BW Pack Rat - Ty Thomason

Creatures (16) 4 Deathrite Shaman4 Stoneforge Mystic 4 Dark Confidant4 Pack Rat Non-Creature Spells (22)3 Lingering Souls 1 Batterskull 1 Umezawa's Jitte1 Sword of Fire and Ice4 Thoughtseize3 Liliana of the Veil4 Swords to Plowshares4 Hymn to Tourach1 Vindicate

Lands (22) 4 Wasteland 4 Verdant Catacombs 4 Marsh Flats 2 Windswept Heath 1 Bayou 4 Scrubland 1 Swamp 1 Plains 1 Savannah Sideboard (15) ???

I love Stoneforge Mystic, but she isn’t the best with Pack Rat. Abrupt Decay versus Swords to Plowshares is an interesting swap and depends on the metagame you expect. There are probably better Abzan lists and definitely better Stoneforge lists.

Legacy
Shardless BUG Rat - Ty Thomason

Creatures (16) 4 Deathrite Shaman3 Tarmogoyf4 Shardless Agent4 Pack Rat1 Tasigur, the Golden Fang Non-Creature Spells (21)2 Jace, the Mind Sculptor 2 Liliana of the Veil4 Ancestral Vision4 Brainstorm4 Abrupt Decay2 Hymn to Tourach2 Thoughtseize1 Life from the Loam

Lands (23) 4 Wasteland 1 Creeping Tar Pit 4 Polluted Delta 4 Verdant Catacombs 2 Misty Rainforest 2 Bayou 2 Tropical Island 4 Underground Sea Sideboard (15) ???

Drawing lots of cards with Ancestral Visions and Jace is a good way to fuel Pack Rat. Without Force of Will (not enough blue cards plus non-bo with Pack Rat), you might need more disruption cards. I haven’t played enough with this to know if it’s good or not. Shardless BUG probably doesn’t need more ways to win the long, grindy games.

Legacy
Chalice Jund - Ty Thomason

Creatures (12) 4 Tarmogoyf4 Dark Confidant4 Pack Rat Non-Creature Spells (24)4 Chalice of the Void 3 Life from the Loam3 Liliana of the Veil2 Sylvan Library4 Abrupt Decay4 Punishing Fire4 Mox Diamond

Lands (24) 1 Barren Moor 1 Tranquil Thicket 1 Forest 1 Swamp 1 Badlands 2 Bayou 2 Bloodstained Mire 4 Grove of the Burnwillows 1 Taiga 4 Verdant Catacombs 4 Wasteland 2 Wooded Foothills Sideboard (15) ???

This is the latest brew I have. I based it off of the Punishing Abzan lists that have done well lately. The manabase is more forgiving since it’s only three colors. Tarmogoyf is actually great in these decks, but Pack Rat is not as good as Knight of the Reliquary. Not having access to Gaddock Teeg is also a negative. This deck can still be a force in the metagame because Chalice of the Void is that strong. Pack Rat and Life from the Loam are good together, but Dark Depths and Thespian's Stage might be better uses of Loam. This is somewhere between Jund and Lands, and I’m not sure it needs to exist. It's fun if you like making rats every turn. The list might need a Volrath’s Stronghold, probably as a 25th land.
So…Now what?

So maybe Pack Rat won’t ever change the Legacy landscape. But it’s still a uniquely powerful card to keep in mind when building a deck. And if you really love making rats, it's not so bad to hurt your deck significantly. Perhaps focusing on it less can increase its success. Adding in one or two to an existing deck won’t hurt the consistency and will add a new dimension. Maybe you'll be the one to find the perfect home for the card in Legacy. Good luck brewing!
Thanks,
Ty

Basics of Magic Theory

In the upcoming year of writing once a week, I may try to discuss some theoretical aspects of the game. Magic theory has always been of interest to me and I think taking a serious academic approach to some concepts can be beneficial to a player. Some of my favorite articles that I’ve read over the years have been theory articles.

My goal is not to develop a universal theory that relates everything because I think the best way to talk about theory is to keep it applicable. A good understanding of theory can help in three ways: 1) A better understanding of the game situation and what's important 2) A way to differentiate between possible decisions and outcomes 3) A way to evaluate cards from new sets for use in various formats.

In this article I want to define some of the basic concepts of theory so that in my future writing they can be used as a reference to understand exactly what I’m talking about. This list is not comprehensive or exhaustive. One day I may expand it and add references when necessary. But for the purposes of this site, brevity wins out. I'll assume you know most of the rules of the game and have a decent enough grasp on basic strategy. I shouldn't need to explain what chump blocking is, why it’s bad to do on turn three, or why other similarly awful things are bad.

Resources, Their Limiting Factors, and the Big Three Concepts

Magic is a game of resources, but it’s much more than a game of resource management. There are three major resources in the game: cards, mana, and life. Each of these resources is limited by one or more rules. You only draw one card a turn and can't have more than seven in hand at the end of a turn. You can only play one land a turn. You start with only twenty life points. These three resources and their limiting factors are integral to the big three theoretical concepts: Card Advantage, Philosophy of Fire, and Tempo. There are other limitations in the game, chiefly getting only one attack and untap step each turn. These will be discussed when appropriate. I define the big three concepts as the exchange of resources for an increase in a certain type of resource.

Card Advantage

This is the exchange of resources (cards, mana, life) for cards.

If all cards are equal, the person with the most card advantage will win. The simplest illustration is two decks full of Memnites playing against each other. If a player is allowed to draw even one more card than the other, that card will be the deciding factor of the game*. The way I define a card for CA analysis includes creatures on the battlefield, including tokens even though they aren’t technically cards per the comprehensive rules. Permanents on the battlefield that can’t attack or block generally don't count as cards.

*This is actually only true if the player drawing the extra card is on the draw. The player on the play would be required to draw two additional cards to tip the scales in his or her favor, or the creatures would need haste. This is a good illustration for the difference between being on the play versus being on the draw.

The exchange of resources (cards, life, mana) for life (either yours or your opponents).

This concept was originally put forward by Michael Flores in his article by the same name. I don’t like the name, but I like the concept (the opposite will be true for tempo). I’ve expanded on the main points of his article to apply to more than just Burn decks. A good illustration is a deck full of Lightning Bolts and Mountains. Drawing seven Bolts is all that is needed to win the game. Any Bolt spent not killing your opponent is one more you need to draw down the road to finish him or her off. Some decks immediately start with a philosophy of fire mindset, trying to convert resources to damage right away. Others wait until the game is firmly in control before using the resource advantage to end the game. Using cards to gain life is also part of the philosophy of fire. For each Healing Salve your opponent plays, you'll need to draw an additional Lightning Bolt. Philosophy of fire also covers situations where you attack with a greater number of creatures than your opponent has as blockers. You lose one or more attackers in the process, but gain from the damage dealt by your unblocked creatures. You traded resources (cards / creatures in play) for life (damage to the opponent).

Tempo

The exchange of resources (cards, life, mana) for mana.

This is perhaps an oversimplification of a very complex subject, but talking about tempo can be difficult at times. Some commonly held ideas about tempo can be described in terms of card advantage and philosophy of fire. Only by clearly defining those other two, can we see the negative space left as it’s own independent concept. Tempo is a great name. But historically, it has been poorly defined. I won’t try to convince you that my definition is correct, but it'll be the definition I use in future articles. My concept of tempo only works because the mana system works the way it does. Cards increase in power level as their mana cost increases, and you can only play one land a turn (lands being the primary source for mana). Note that playing a land is a tempo play: it costs a resource (card from hand) and since the land does not attack or block, it no longer counts as a card. The word tempo implies a time-dependent quality, usually described as a turn. Missing a land drop can cost tempo. Not making a play on a critical turn (failing to utilize mana you have available) is also negative tempo. Being behind one or more turns in a game can lead to a swift defeat. The other restrictions mentioned above (only one untap, only one attack) also apply to tempo in some situations.

Additional Concepts

Velocity

The amount of cards you see in a game.

If card advantage is important when all cards are equal, velocity is important for finding a specific card that is much better than the rest. Cards like Preordain, Ponder, and Serum Visions create velocity without a loss of card advantage. Traditionally, a card that sees more cards but doesn’t replace itself (i.e. Index) wouldn’t count as Velocity since it doesn’t quantitatively get you further into your deck. I think Index should still count, but understand that velocity is not generally worth a card. Note that card-drawing spells like Divination create both card advantage and velocity. A card that creates only card advantage would be something like Entreat the Angels.

Threat Density

The amount of relevant cards left in your deck.

Velocity explored the idea that not all cards are equal. Threat density takes this further by acknowledging that in the later stages of the game, many cards are no longer useful. Lands are almost always useless after a certain point. When this point is reached, having more spells than lands left in your deck than your opponent means you'll be less likely to experience mana flooding. Threat density is very important for aggressive decks, and one of the biggest reasons to play aggressive decks is their low land count.

Card advantage “created” by neutralizing your opponents cards without actually destroying or discarding them.

Don't confuse virtual card advantage with threat density. Sometimes people use the term to refer to creation of tokens, but this is confusing and I think my system allows for tokens to be pure card advantage in a way that works. Virtual card advantage can be created by cards like Chalice of the Void, or Moat, or Rest in Peace against a deck with Tarmogoyfs. Usually they're permanent-based.

Some Good Articles to Read

1. Stage-Skipping Standard

Stages describe what part of the game you are in.

This is a great concept from Mike Flores. I quote his explanations because they really are great.

Stage 1 - “In Stage I you are basically mana screwed.”
Stage 3 - “In Stage III one player is both 1) dictating the field of battle and 2) playing in such a way that only a subset of the opponent's cards (if any) are live any more.”
Stage 2 - “Stage II is...everything else.”

If you want to know more, click on the link to the article. It’s a very good concept that hasn’t really entered into common theory discussion, and I don’t see a need to put it in my own words.

2. Who's the Beatdown?

This describes the roll you take in a matchup.

Yet another Mike Flores creation. It can’t be overstated how much great stuff Flores has contributed to Magic theory over the years. In my opinion, he's the best writer of all time, but I’m kind of a geek for the theory stuff.

3. Chatter of the Squirrel - What Matters

Focus on what matters. Enough said.

Strategy, Tactics, and Operations

Flores put forth these three terms here, but the definitions have shifted over the years. Thus, my definitions are presented here.

Tactics

These are the choices you make in a single turn to maximize the effectiveness of the turn. Tactics can occasionally be expanded to beyond a single turn, but it's the nuts and bolts of solid Magic play. You can be very successful in Magic just by using good tactics. I won my first PTQ in Limited by relying on tactics and some good instinct, but really not on any in depth strategy (I also got pretty lucky).

Strategy

This is broader than tactics. It's knowing what's important in a match-up, as well has how to sideboard. Deck construction can also be considered a part of strategy.

Operations

This is stuff outside the game that you use, some parts of it more impactful than others. Playing all matching basic lands in your deck is part of operations. Scouting in the late rounds of a tournament is operations. Shuffling the card you draw into your hand is part of operations. Some of it can border on the fringes of ethical and legal play, so be careful! My favorite Magic quote has to deal with operations: “Your ability to succeed at the top levels of Magic is directly related to your ability to control your tells.” - Gary Wise (I promise I won’t quote this every article!)

Looking Ahead

Hopefully this gives you enough foundation and background that I can communicate effectively going forward. I know I’m working on something to dive more in depth to my ideas about tempo. In the meantime, I’ve been drafting Mirrodin on Magic Online. Follow me on Twitter to find out when I’m streaming!

Thanks,
Ty