Tergrid, God of FrightTergrid, God of Fright | Art by Yongjae Choi

I'm usually drawn to write an article because of a game that had gone off the rails during FNM

Usually it's because I'm a salty baby. Someone did something uncouth in a game and I wanted to rant about it online. I usually am inspired by the hubris of my opponents after they win. Oddly, the person that gave me the idea was the loser.

Scenario

I was itching for a Bracket 4 game all week, but my usual pod couldn't get together. We usually play as close to cEDH without tipping over, so I was yearning and there were slim pickings. It was time to skulk around my local LGS. I went from table to table asking if anyone wanted to play Bracket 4. Most people were interested in 2-3 game, which is fine. I'm used to this, hence the craving.

Then my partner and I stumbled across a guy who was willing to play. He said he had a very strong deck. He casually said he was playing Massacre GirlMassacre Girl. I thought it was Massacre GirlMassacre Girl proper and internally groaned.

It was bound to be a miserable game keeping creatures out, and I really wanted to play Zimone, Mystery UnravelerZimone, Mystery Unraveler, which is a creature-heavy deck. I was desperate, though, so I shuffled up. I thought it might be nice to see how my deck handles this kind of disruption.

He said he'd switched from a mono-black Tinybones deck that his play pod hated because it was annoying. Regardless if it was Tinybones, Bauble BurglarTinybones, Bauble Burglar, Tinybones, Trinket ThiefTinybones, Trinket Thief, or Tinybones, the PickpocketTinybones, the Pickpocket, I knew his play pod was likely right. It's sort of the reason I haven't built a Tinybones deck myself: it's pretty annoying to play around.

I laughed and clarified that going from Tinybones to Massacre GirlMassacre Girl wasn't going to be an improvement. My partner pointed out that his card was Massacre Girl, Known KillerMassacre Girl, Known Killer, not traditional Massacre GirlMassacre Girl. I nodded, but figured it would still be anti-creature.

And I was right. He found creature ways to put -1/-1 counters or give -1/-1 in various ways and then blow up creatures to draw cards. Standard Massacre WurmMassacre Wurm and traditional Massacre GirlMassacre Girl made an appearance. I managed to scrape by, though.

My partner was playing The Jolly Balloon ManThe Jolly Balloon Man and Goblin BombardmentGoblin Bombardment, making the -1/-1 irrelevant to his board. He would sac them before they died with counters on them. I played some interaction pieces removing Massacre Girl, Known KillerMassacre Girl, Known Killer in various ways to deny the card draw. Luckily for me, my deck was resilient and could rebuild fairly fast against creature-removal-kindred.

Ultimately, my partner got The Jolly Balloon ManThe Jolly Balloon Man and Coercive RecruiterCoercive Recruiter and stole my board and killed the table with it. I wanted explain that just in case a resolution to this story is important to you.

The Problem

Why am I yapping about my game, though? I noticed something interesting about his deck. It didn't strike me as a Bracket 4 at all. I couldn't see how he planned to overwhelm the board and sink a win in most situations, against most decks. I could see how he could hold players back, creature-wise, but the damage wasn't there to kill the table no matter how much mana and cards he got. Perhaps it was an unlucky game and the intention was to combo, but either way it got me thinking.

Can we confuse oppressive decks, decks that make it hard to play against, with powerful or even successful ones? There is a lot to define here.

What Does Oppressive Mean?

EDHREC is known for its Top 100 Saltiest Cards. These cards all get voted on my players, and a lot of Game Changers make this list. I don't know if all of them are particularly oppressive, but a lot of them are. This particular list will help delineate the basis for my distinction between "strong" and "oppressive." Sometimes cards in certain strategies can be both.

A Winter OrbWinter Orb in a Urza, Lord High ArtificerUrza, Lord High Artificer deck could be both oppressive and strong in their strategy. The denial Praetors, like Jin-Gitaxias, Core AugurJin-Gitaxias, Core Augur and Vorinclex, Voice of HungerVorinclex, Voice of Hunger, are notably oppressive, but very powerful cards. They're Game Changers for a reason. What the Praetors deny, they double for the player of the card.

Stax Lite

Even on the Salt List above the line blurs a bit between strong and oppressive. Cards like Rhystic StudyRhystic Study and Smothering TitheSmothering Tithe are notably on the list. These are cards that I like to call Stax Lite. They can be either oppressive, paying mana to take any basic game action, or powerful, providing mana or card advantage. So what would we categorize these for my purposes, if a deck is filled with cards like this?

I think Tergrid, God of FrightTergrid, God of Fright helps clarify my point. Tergrid is a card that gains its power from its oppressiveness. On paper, Tergrid isn't oppressive, but in order to take advantage and maximize the strategy to a win, it must be oppressive. It has to make players discard cards and sac creatures to maximize its power. Players are likely put way behind in their own strategies because of this.

Oppressive First or Powerful First

Rhystic StudyRhystic Study and Smothering TitheSmothering Tithe work similarly, but not the same. We have to consider Rhystic and Tithe powerful first and oppressive second. They are optionally good, but they necessitate oppression to function. They are more annoying than bringing the game to standstill. You can still play around them.

Tergrid, on the other hand, plays cards that make discard and sac non-optional. It's oppressive first, and powerful second. The strategy is to remove value from the player to the point where you wincon is connected to resource denial. If players run out of creatures in their hand and on board, is there then enough value to eliminate all the remaining players, or is it sort of win of attrition?

I think in a vacuum players can understand how powerful all these cards are, but Tergrid less so. Alone the card doesn't provide value or even necessarily oppress either. I want to extricate that a strategy that requires oppression to get ahead does not necessarily demonstrate the success of the deck.

What Does Success Look Like?

It's simple: winning. Can you win often? I think we start to understand how powerful our decks are, based on how often it wins, obviously with successful rule zero conversations. Winning often against precons likely means your deck is in the wrong Bracket. However, if you can consistently win in Bracket 4, without the meta of CEDH, then you're doing something good.

What does your deck do to protect itself against strategies that would try to eliminate them, specifically? Have you protected against your Kryptonite? Yes? Still winning? Last question: is it through scooping or elimination?

This last question throws a monkey wrench into this idea of success. Are you winning because people don't want to play it out, or are you winning because your deck has the ability to close the game. This distinction might not matter to most players, but I think it can demonstrate whether your deck is oppressive instead of strong.

Is Your Deck Oppressive or Strong?

I was watching a lot of Pro-Tour video essays lately. Mostly against my will. My partner is hyper-fixated on them right now, and what can I say, they're interesting. I was watching one talking about the Enduring IdealEnduring Ideal lock by Hungry on Plane. Something interesting about this lock was that it was fairly stax-y oppressive and capable of winning. However, once the lock began, it was obvious there was no way out, and often players scoop.

However, a simple StifleStifle ended up being the thing to bring down this deck. Just because you've gotten most people to scoop doesn't mean there isn't a way to figure out, through grinding and waiting. I say this because someone might find an answer to your lock and win that way, so it's important to know how you're winning.

Were you winning decisively thus a scoop, or winning through frustration? I think this will indicate whether your deck is strong, oppressive, or both. Combo Stax decks are often oppressive and strong. Winning is based little on concession. I point this out because often times if someone has a tech against your oppressive strategy, does it all fall apart?

Does it Matter?

I think so; I hope so. I wrote a whole article about it. Sometimes I face decks that are very unsuccessful at out valuing me into a grindy win because my deck just accelerates effectively against resistance. Saccing creatures and discarding cards don't matter if I manifest a creature with a land drop and draw when a face-down card enters. Shout out my Zimone deck.

I don't say this to toot my own horn--maybe a little bit--but to point out that just because you are stax-y or oppressive doesn't mean your deck can manage a win against a stronger, more resilient deck. The stax-y and oppressive nature of the deck doesn't equate a win, but it definitely will set certain players back.

But what do I know? Let me know your thoughts; I'm @Strixhavendropout at Blue Sky.