Today, I am going to try and address a problem that plagues PDC across skill lines- from the newest player to the seasoned veteran, the concept of power is misunderstood in all commons competitive Magic. The Bennie Principle, as I will it, is the idea that because PDC is only played with commons, it is inherently less powerful than “power” Magic and should be treated as a lesser format (I mean no ill will towards Bennie Smith, it is just that he is the most high profile writer to have participated and voiced his views on the format). Here is the thing: The Bennie Principle is partially true. The fact of the matter is that PDC is less powerful than “power” Magic. There are true Wrath of God effects, no Tarmogoyfs that grow to immense sizes, no friggin' NarcoBridge decks. Without the effects that appear at non-common rarities, PDC will be a less powerful format- there is no doubt about that. There are two problems this principle creates. The first problem is that many players have when first viewing the format is that they think of PDC in terms of regular Magic. This creates decks that might be great in the casual room for taking down decks packed with rares and uncommons, but are woefully unprepared for a PDC metagame (yes, these do exist). This problem, does not occur very often.

The second problem is that people tend to believe that because there are no typical powerful effects that the format is wide open, and often come with, well, piles. Sometimes these players are scared away by the Spike nature of the format; sometimes they stick around and adapt and become better players.

Both of these problems stem from the same problem: misevaluating the power level of PDC. Instead of seeing the format in the parameters that exist, they judge the PDC against two poles that have little to do with the format: actual tournament Magic and actual casual Magic. PDC is a pole unto itself. It is a competitive format that has its own parameters and limiting factors and needs to be treated as such. This basic concept can often impair the development of both PDC decks and metagames: they are being judged against unfair criteria.

The fact is that PDC has to exist in a world without rares and uncommons. It does not matter that the card Wrath of God exists in the abstract- it does not even matter in PDC. While this is easy to say, sometimes it can be more difficult to enact. The fact is the lack of cards in this power bracket often leads PDC players to feel that either commons lack any power level, or that their power level is totally static- card X will always have value Y. Because players perceive a lack of power structure, the cards and decks they tend to play are viewed in terms of absolute power. What I mean to say here is that cards are viewed with only minute changes in their power level. The idea that PDC is somehow less powerful than other formats misinforms players to believe that the cards are weak. This leads to many players trying strategies of playing cards that simply nullify instead of attack. This is dangerous.

There is a player who comes and goes in and out of the PDC scene with some regularity. This player believed that the cards in PDC were all weak. As a result, he packed his decks with reactive cards such as counterspells and life gain. His strategy was to grind out the opponent and then win on the back of weak offensive creatures. His reasoning was that since every card in PDC was “bad” that life gain was good and would keep him alive long enough until his dorks would whittle down life totals. He won many matches because his opponents bought into the same idea: their cards were weak and therefore not going to do any real damage. However, when his decks came up against those that were tightly focused and played good cards in synergy, his slow plodding monsters would fail. He was playing individually powerful reactive cards, but could not handle a deck based upon the power of synergy. This is the first lesson of power in PDC: while some cards are outright powerful on their own, the best cards are powerful in the right deck. This goes back to my Guardian of the Guildpact argument- awesome in the right deck but it gets played in the wrong spot far too often. Some decks, if there is a plan, can be a collection of independently powerful cards- Parlor Tricks for example- and be successful. If it is simply a collection of cards, chances are the more focused decks will succeed.

Similarly, certain players will misjudge the power of cards because of the format. Because there are no cards that create sweeping effects or massive shifts in power, players tend to judge spells in either “absolute best” or “absolute worst” scenario. I remember many conversations when I was playing Okina Blue- a Blue based control deck built around resolving an Okina Nightwatch and then loading up the hand to beat for seven a turn. I was often told that the Nightwatch was not worth it because in the worst-case scenario, it was a 4/3 for five mana. If I countered with the argument that it was a sick beater because it was a 7/6 for the same cost, I would also be wrong. The fact of the matter is that in PDC, creatures and spells should be judged on the situation that is most likely to occur, since the lack of sweeping changes tends to eliminate extreme conditions. Wild Mongrel is only a (Grizzly Bear) if you are in the unenviable position of having an empty hand. On the other side of the coin, it is savage beats if you have a full hand. However, most of the time it will be a solid card capable of dealing between two and five damage on a given turn. In the above example, Okina Nightwatch was the right call because more often than not, my hand had more cards than that of the opponent, meaning that in the majority of situations, it was worth it to run Nightwatch. Cards in PDC need to be judged at most likely scenario because that is how they will be seen the vast majority of time due to the low amount of game altering effects. Note that this is deck specific.

The final problem with power judgments in PDC is that players are too willing to judge cards in terms of true power. Sometimes card X is just worse than card Y in the same deck, but to them it does not matter, as card X is more powerful in the abstract. A perfect example of this is Galina's Knight. In many Blue and White decks, this card is beneath the power level. It is a two drop that is hard to hit on turn two and often will have no relevant ability. However, in a metagame dominated by Red based aggressive decks, the Knight shines because of its ability to render burns spells less useful and hold off attacks. In terms of abstract power it may be weaker, but in the art of metagaming, cards like the Knight are golden. Just as above, in the Red metagame, the value of running Knight is higher, so the expected value of it will be greater.

These concepts are not new, however, many PDC players fail to grasp them because of the perception of a lower power level. PDC cannot be judged against the power of rare cards- it does not make sense. The power level of PDC is high, within the parameters of PDC. What I mean is that Wild Mongrel is a strong card in regular Magic and is a strong card in PDC. Fugitive Wizard is weak in PDC and weaker in regular Magic. There is a wider spectrum of what is a playable card, thanks to the fact that the power level is lower.

There are vocal camps that claim an even power level, and that is just wrong. Yet this camp, being more vocal than the others has followers and often influences poor deck building based on misunderstanding power levels. For example, one player who has had some success recently advocated a target package of Saltfield Recluse and Merfolk Thaumaturgist as a way to handle the “most powerful two power creature in the format”: Aven Riftwatcher. In fact, this was the statement that led me to write this article. There are numerous things wrong with this statement, not the least of with is that Riftwatcher is the most powerful two power creature in the format. It is definitely one of the more powerful reactive threats that has two power, but there are other two power creatures that could vie for the title, such as Mongrel, the Boa twins, or Ninja of the Deep Hours. The bigger problem is the thought that advocating the packing of a two card combo where the pieces are independently weak and are easily handled shows a view of the format as “weak.” If the format was weak enough to support that combo, and if the creatures were vulnerable to the aforementioned creatures, then this might have been a correct metagame call- except PDC is not of a low enough power level to warrant the inclusion of these cards.

The last bit of power I want to discuss is the concept of defensive strength in PDC specifically. Far too often, decks in PDC will feature poor win conditions and instead load up on prevention effects. Much like Gabriel Nassif's MatryrTron deck from Worlds 2006, these decks stall and stall and stall, but have no real win condition. In PDC where the rounds are 60 minutes long and the format tends towards fast aggro, this is a high risk, low reward move. These decks win, but mostly because they frustrate the opponent into the concession click (or maybe that is just my reaction). Regardless, without the large sweeping effects available on rarer cards these decks have no real way to dominate except by stalling. Instead of winning, these decks try to not lose. When asked why they decide to build decks this way, the answer is always because they view the power level as too low. And then RG Aggro smashes face.

Parting thought: Lightning Bolt is common, right?

Keep slingin' commons-

-Alex