Throughout the course of the game, you will always encounter times when you need to analyze threats and learn when to deal with them. This is a fundamental part in all card games. In fact, we touched note a great deal on this last week. What we didn't cover was an aspect that goes hand in hand with determining what threats to deal with and when to deal with them: how you deal with them.

In truth, there are many different ways you can answer a problem. In many cases, you need an assortment of answers for a multitude of problems. But just like standardized tests, you need to recognize when to write “True”, bubble in “C”, or write a brief summary. Fortunately for us, answers come in several basic groups. Within each of these groups, there are two categories for what an answer falls under. All answers fall under at least one category of at least one group, though many fall into a category in each group.

Group One: Timing

One of the most important things to realize when answering threats is when you answer them. There are two ways you can go about answering a threat: proactively or reactively.

Proactive

Ever heard the saying “Prevention is the best medicine?” Proactive answers play off this notion. A proactive answer is essentially an answer you play ahead of a problem you expect to face during the game. It's a little odd to think about dealing with a problem before it happens, but there are many real life example of this: vaccines, bomb shelters, and safety gear are all examples of getting prepared for a mishap before it happens. A perfect example of a proactive answer is laying down a "Chipper" Ironbane before an opponent has laid down an ability or equipment. When the target does show up, you'll be ready for it. Proactive solutions are some of the most desired in multiplayer because they allow you to develop your position without needing to hold back and wait for your opponents to do something. They also have the ability to make opponents hold onto their threats until they deal with your answer. However, proactive answers do have their drawbacks. You might misjudge and blow your answer on a lesser threat, making the real threat that much more harmful when it comes. Your opponents also might destroy your answer. When this happens, you're high and dry side when your opponents do play a major threat.

Reactive

While proactive answers may help you deal with problems before they start, reactive ones are the answers that let you deal with problems as they occur. Newton 's third law of motion is what these answers revolve around, appearing only when an opposing force has appeared. An example of a reactive answer is Nether Fracture . Regardless of whether it's an opposing ability, ally, or equipment, you can nail it before it becomes a problem. Zygore Bladebreaker is also a reactive solution; he's only effective once the problem card is already in play. Reactive solutions are useful since they allow you to wait before you commit to dealing with a threat. This allows you time to ponder its use carefully and fully analyze a threat. They are also more covert. Everyone knows what you're trying to do when you play a Tyrus Sheynathren ; you want to counter an ability. With this knowledge, your opponents will play around him. With a card like Nether Fracture, your opponents will often be left guessing on when the correct time is to play their bomb, giving you hidden control over information. The disadvantages of playing reactive answers are that they detract from your development. You can afford to take a turn or two without development, but after a while it's going to start to hurt if you don't play cards. Also, reactive answers aren't as useful after a threat has taken its toll. Nether Fracture is awesome when you interrupt an opposing Sunfire , but if you draw it after your teammate is dead, it does you little good.

Analysis: It's usually best to keep a mix of both reactive and proactive solutions in multiplayer, though mainly focus on proactive. In this way, you'll lose little in the ways of development, but you won't be telegraphing everything to your opponents as you play. Keeping some answers secret is always helpful, allowing you to defend against opposing efforts even when your proactive solutions are down.

Group Two: Approach

While timing is important, so is the method of how you actually deal with a problem. There are two ways to approach a problem: directly and indirectly.

Directly

Sometimes there will be cards you can't leave unanswered; times when you can't even let a threat in edgewise. It is in these cases you need a direct answer. Simply put, you deal with the threat by taking an action to make it go away quickly. A real life example would be exterminating insects. To directly exterminate them, you would use some means to directly dispose of them through your own actions, like a swatter or bug spray. An example of an in-game card that deals with threats directly is Shred Soul . There is nothing sneaky about this card; it's a normal speed ability used to out-right kill an ally, without the possibility of graveyard recursion. Direct answers are good because the deal with a problem without a question. There may be a chance for the problem card to do a little damage, but it gets neutralized quickly. The only problem with direct answers in multiplayer is that they tend to draw the ire of the person who just lost their threat. It may not be much when everyone's first starting out, but it gets messy when the strongest player going into the late game remembers what you did to his Lunen the Moon Baron .

Indirectly

While you might need to answer a card, it just might not be at the top of the “to do” list. It's in these cases you might want to use a more covert way, dealing with the threat only when it bothers you. When you indirectly answer a problem, your answer doesn't deal with it right away. Rather, your answer limits how threatening a problem card is for you and can potentially solve it at a moment's notice. Going back to the bug example, you would indirectly answer an insect problem with a bug zapper. You don't go actively hunting the arthropods, but if they come your way they get blasted into little bits of exoskeleton goo. An in-game example would be Guardian Steppestrider (or any protector that's worth its cost in attack power). There might be some big allies that you really don't want to attack your guys, but aren't so threatening that they need to be dealt with outright. In these cases, if they do attack you, you can return the favor by showing them a big protector for their efforts. Indirectly answering a threat has several major advantages. The biggest advantage is that you don't waste your resources dealing with things that aren't that important. If you have to use your indirect answer to deal with a problem then so be it. However, if a different opponent deals with your problem, you're free to direct your answer to the next best thing. Lastly, you don't draw any hate for using an indirect answer. Your opponent saw that protector and new what was going to happen if they ran it at you, so they aren't going to take it personally later in the game (though they may have already targeted you anyway). The inherent problem with an indirect answer is that the problem is still unsolved until something happens to it. In some cases, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as a Moko Hunts-at-Dawn isn't scary to leave around. However, if someone plays a Barous the Storm Baron , you might be in a little trouble if you let it stick around.

Analysis: As far as multiplayer goes, you want to primarily use indirect answers with some direct answers as back up. The reason for the more reactive approach in this case is that this is a war of attrition. The more resources (and not the resource row kind) that you use to deal with opposing cards, the more you lose in the long run. With indirect answers, you'll be able to answer cards only when they become relevant to your side of the table. The reason you want some direct answers though is that you can't always ignore everything until it comes at you. It's in those cases you'll need to deal with the problem before it gets out of hand.

Group Three: Power Level

While two cards may handle a problem, some of them do it a little different than others. In fact, some of them create problems for your opponents. The two categories of an answer's power level are threat and non-threat.

Threat

One cliché, “The best defense is a good offense” holds true when it comes to answering a problem. Nothing can be more disheartening for an opponent than when you play a card that not only ruins their plans, but also forces them to go on the defensive. A good example would be Twist of Faith . It not only directly answers their threat, but it turns it right back against them with just as much deadly force. Likewise, Doom Lord Kazzak , while expensive, allows you to decimate your opponents and provide a big body that needs to be dealt with. Heck, sometimes something simple like Myriam Starcaller , might be enough to get an opponent thinking about their hero's health total instead of yours. The advantage of using a threat as an answer is that it allows you to keep up with your war effort while tearing down the opposing forces. In this regard, you're still focusing on your main goal, winning, even though you've dealt with an enemy. The disadvantage of using a threat is an answer is that it draws attention your newly created threat. Nothing is ever done in a vacuum in multiplayer, and your opponents will be sure to point their attention in your direction when this happens. If your threat is big enough, like Kazzak, you just might have everyone gunning for you. This isn't a problem per-se, but if your threat(s) are neutralized, you may still have the unwarranted attention until the next big play.

Non-Threat

Winning the game is your main goal. Sure it's nice to play with friends and have fun, but deep down, we all want to prove that we're good at this game. But not all games are won by strength alone. This is where non-threat answers come in. Non-threat answers are the cards that deal with threats, but don't actually give off any hostile signals. A good example of this is The Natural Order . It destroys what you want and then its job is done. It doesn't signal harm, but, more importantly, it doesn't attract as much attention. This is the primary advantage of playing non-threat answers; you never have to worry about a serious retaliation from playing one. The draw back is, of course, that they don't directly help you win the game, but the time they buy you is usually sufficient.

Analysis: While answers that are threats do attract attention, they are the ones you primarily want to use in your decks. Don't get me wrong, in the big theatrical play of multiplayer. Being a minor character on the stage is a good thing, but you'll eventually want to go for the lead. This is where those answers come in handy. The important thing to remember is that you don't want them to be overbearing. Still, it's a good idea to pack some non-threat answers. The fact they don't attract attention is nice, but they're better at fulfilling diplomatic actions.

Playing multiplayer is all about laying down threats in order to win. But between playing threats and winning comes questions, problems that need to be solved. But like all problems, they have answers. So the next time you get ready for multiplayer, get that metaphorical number two pencil on the ready and be prepared to start bubbling.