This is the first Profile in the Pilot Archetype series, where I discuss four major archetypes I have identified, across two specific questions:

1. How aggressive is your threat assessment?

This question aims to understand not the quality of a player’s threat assessment, which is more closely tied to their experience with that skill, but rather how a player responds to threats. Are players proactive in their threat assessment, targeting certain decks, commanders, and playstyles, or are they reactive, targeting only problematic permanents, varying across how quickly they respond?

2. How flexible are your card choices?

This question aims to understand whether you pick cards that are more synergistic or more functional. This is not a question necessarily about the cards themselves, although that certainly plays a factor, and more about what the pilot prioritizes.

These two questions, together, provide a spectrum of information that can be understood as archetypes. The four major archetypes that I have mapped out are as follows:

• Assassin

• Opportunist

• Snowballer

• Field General

I believe they can be mapped out across quadrants, like so:

The Assassin is a player who assesses targeted threats and chooses cards to prioritize specific functions.

The Assassin plays reactively but still aims to eliminate specific opponents quickly. They utilize flexible tools to dismantle the most significant threats efficiently before moving on to the next. Your friend who always packs a minimum of ten removal spells might be an assassin. But a player who plays Voltron or other aggro strategies that kill the person most likely to halt their progress is also an Assassin. When the Assassin is asked about their deck, they have not just specific reasons for playing a card, but an understanding of the different scenarios in which the player might use this card, and also knowing when it wouldn’t work.

When asked “How aggressive is your threat assessment?”, they would say very. When asked, “How flexible are your card choices?”, they would most likely be confused. Their deck is a collection of specific answers and functions, and any flexibility that would be present is that it overlaps with being able to answer multiple different threats to the Assassin.

If I had to guess, I think Assassins are players deeply guided by experience. They got into the game and quickly identified a type of card that frustrated them. Perhaps a dinosaur player was constantly getting countered.

How does the Assassin differ from the Snowballer?

The Snowballer and Assassin simply have different goals. While they are both targeted in their threat assessment, the Snowballer likely has more flexible cards that will allow them to outvalue opponents and then take them out, whereas the Assassin wouldn’t let the threats to them sit idly. The Assassin’s threat assessment is more reactive than proactive, but still aggressive. You may think that the Assassin is proactive when preparing their attempts to kill, but while their game actions are proactive in taking out threats, these actions are ultimately based on a reaction to perceived threats.

How does the Assassin differ from the Opportunist?

The Assassin and Opportunist are both picking specific cards for specific functions, but the Assassin has a particular target, while the Opportunist uses their functions to create a specific “moment”. These moments, opportunities, will allow the Opportunist to create powerful combos or simply hyperspecific synergy that lets them run away with the game. The Opportunist would rather cast an overloaded Cyclonic Rift, while the Assassin would rather cast Counterspell.

In a future Part Two, I will list the strengths and weaknesses of Assassins and common commanders that Assassins enjoy.

Bonus Card

If you enjoy Painful Quandary, you’ll like Dash Hopes. This card is excellent in a mono-black deck looking to make opponents lose life and be unprepared for a black counterspell.