Action Advantage

[Does 3 Damage]

This is the early draft of the article im writing on my theory of Action Advantage.

Perhaps the three most important technical advances in deck design are the concepts of card advantage, tempo or beat advantage and mana curve. One of the most significant weaknesses of these concepts is that they are considered in isolation from each other. There is a way to link these concepts together an idea that I call “Action advantage”. The fundamental components of my theory of action advantage are as follows:

1.Everything a player does in a game is an action. (eg. Drawing a card, playing a land, playing a creature, attacking with a creature, blocking . . .)
2.The more numerous or powerful the actions a player takes the more likely they are to win.

To demonstrate how action advantage connects to the other concepts some examples are needed. The comparison between Counsel of the Soratami and Compulsive Research shows the extension that action advantage provides over simple card advantage theory. Counsel of the Soratami is a simple example of card advantage, by playing 1 card you draw 2 cards gaining you 1 net card advantage. But if one considers Counsel of the Soratami on the basis of action advantage the extra action of sifting a card to replace the Counsel becomes obvious. Now consider Compulsive Research instead you draw 3 cards instead of 2 but then have to discard a land or 2 cards, if you discard a land you gain 1 net card advantage. So on the basis of card advantage theory Counsel of the Soratami is equal to Compulsive Research, but anyone who has played with both cards knows that Compulsive Research is almost always better. While sifting a card provides no card advantage it is a relevant action because it gets you closer to drawing a card that you need. Because of the extra card sifting action Compulsive Research has a total of 3 actions, while Counsel of the Soratami has a total of only 2 actions, which explains the observed advantage of Compulsive Research.
In relation to tempo advantage and mana curve action advantage follows very closely with a 1 for 1 correlation of beats to actions. Where action advantage expands on the concepts is in counting attacking and blocking with a creature as actions instead of just counting creatures played and killed. For example a turn 1 Suntail Hawk will create a beat advantage if the opponent has no turn 1 play but will also create a repetitive action advantage by attacking. This brings an important fact to ones attention, that permanents and especially creatures provide a source of continuing action advantage.
Another class of cards that deserves special attention is cantrips. Neither card advantage or beat advantage can properly explain the power of cantrips. Because cantrips generally have 1 beat and 1 card which creates neither pure card advantage such as Counsel of the Soratami as or pure beat advantage such as Nekrataal. What cantrips do create is action advantage for example Kavu Climber creates a 3/3 creature and draws a card for a total of 2 immediate actions, also as a creature it has the potential for future actions as does the card drawn. Because cantrips produce a minimum of 2 actions by definition they are a significant source of action advantage.
Finally some examples of non beat or card action advantage should be noted. One such example is Waxmane Baku with its trigger giving it the ability to tap a creature for every spirit or arcane spell you play, it provides an extra action for every such spell but gives no beat or card advantage. Another example in the same cycle of cards is Blademane Baku with its ability to pump by 2. A separate type of action advantage comes from utility from sacrifice effects such as that of Kami of Ancient Law which provides enchantment removal after it has gained action advantage by attacking or blocking. There are of course many other examples of non card or beat action advantage, but it would be pointless to list them all here.
The last example of action advantage that is needed is the examination of a game to see if the player with more actions at the end actually wins the game. What follows is a game in the standard pdc format which is an all commons format played on Magic Online. My totals are denoted by a D because my screen name is “Does 3 Damage”, also of note is that I'm playing a polished version of the dominant deck against an unpolished experimental deck. For those interested in the details the full game with notations follows.
After going first and mulliganing a color screwed hand I start of with a plains (D 1 action, 1 total) and pass the turn. Alotrel draws, plays a mountain, and Lava Spike (A 3 actions 3 total). On my turn I draw, play a swamp, and Kami of Ancient Law (D 3 actions 4 total). Alotrel draws, and plays a mountain (A 2 actions 5 total). I draw, play a plains, and attack with the kami (D 3 actions 7 total). Alotrel draws, plays a swamp, plays a Ronin Houndmaster, and attacks with it, I respond killing it with Last Gasp, and stopping the attack (A 4 actions 9 total) (D 2 actions 9 total). I draw, play Orzhov Basilica returning the swamp, and attack with the kami (D 3 actions 12 total). Alotrel draws, plays a Ronin Houndmaster, and attacks with it (A 3 actions 12 total). I draw, play a swamp, attack with the kami, and play a Nezumi Cutthroat (D 4 actions 16 total). Alotrel draws, plays Rend Flesh targeting the cutthroat, I respond with blessed breath saving it, and Alotrel attacks with the houndmaster (A 3 actions 15 total) (D 1 actions 17 total). I draw, attack with the kami, attack with the cutthroat, and play a swamp (D 4 actions 21 total). Alotrel draws, plays Unholy Strength on the houndmaster, plays Taste for Mayhem on the houndmaster, plays another Taste for Mayhem on the houndmaster, and attacks with the houndmaster, I play Last Gasp on the houndmaster destroying it and the 3 auras, and stopping the attack (A 5 actions 20 total) (D 5 actions 26 total). I draw, attack with kami, and attack with cutthroat (D 3 actions 29 total). Alotrel draws, and plays rend flesh on the cutthroat (A 2 actions 22 total). I draw, attack with the kami, and play a Veteran Armorer (D 3 actions 32 total). Alotrel draws, plays Emberfist Zubera, and plays Taste for Mayhem on the zubera (A 3 actions 25 total). I draw, play a Veteran Armorer, attack with the kami, and attack with the first armorer, Alotrel blocks the armorer with the zubera, both creatures die, Alotrel pings me with the zuberas death ability (D 5 actions 37 total) (A 3 actions 28 total). Alotrel draws, plays a swamp, and plays wrecking ball on the kami (A 3 actions 31 total). I draw, and attack with the armorer killing Alotrel (D 2 actions 39 total).
In the final comparison I am up by 12 life, 1 beat, 3 cards, and 8 actions which is an average margin of victory. In my experience so far most games have been decided by a difference of around 8 actions. One thing that can be done to make the counting easier is to skip counting each player's normal draw since that always ends up almost exactly even.
As a tool action advantage allows one to examine the card choices in a deck and also the success of different strategies and mana curves. Unfortunately I have yet to find a simple system for judging the strength of actions due to their nearly complete interdependence. So I must leave you with a challenge to attempt the creation of such a system and the hope that my own contribution of action advantage provides a useful tool for understanding.
Aaron Collier
“Does 3 Damage” on Magic Online come play pdc with me some time, just type “/join pdc”.

[SpikeBoyM]

D3D (may I call you Aaron?) is doing something very spectacular here.

Magic theory is trying to take the things we know are good (drawing cards, dealing damage) and creating terms and philosophies to tell us why they are good (Card Advantage, Philosophy of Fire). D3D is trying to unite these theories to create a measurement system that will put Sligh decks into conversation with Mono Blue Control Decks.

This is no easy task, and I believe this is a great start to a mountainous task.

[theauthenticsimpsonian]

That's a really good article. I'm also curious how you would rate actions such as using mass removal that kills 3 of your opponent's threat while killing 1 of yours. Also is there a difference between a regular action, a bad action and a quality action? A bad action would be something like attacking into a creature where the attacker is guaranted to die. Of course then there would be an attack, a block, and a kill or soemthing like that.

[Does 3 Damage]

In the case of playing wrath that kills 3 opposing creatures and 1 of yours you have 3 actions in your favor and 1 action in your opponent's favor giving you a net gain of 2 actions. In the case of a bad attack you get 1 action for the attack and your opponent gets 1 action for the block neutralizing the attack and 1 action for killing the creature so since their creature didnt die they are up 1 action.

[Does 3 Damage]

I think it is worth mentioning that i will be available to answer any questions about the article. Especially since you may think of a situation i hadn't considered, or just force me to give a much needed explaination such as TAS did in asking about wrath effects.