Something like that right?Originally Posted by cartothemax
I'm terrible at learning from context, it's a wonder I ever learned to speak. I would ask my friends wtf they meant by "tempo" as it applied to Magic and they always kind of made it sound like this nebulous je ne sais quoi.
Controlling the tempo of the game to me always just meant "the pace", like… being able to exert oneself over the natural sequence of anticipated events. Being able to directly interfere with the process of goldfishing. Goblins will goldfish you turn 4 whether or not you're playing guys, but if you force their plays to be less relevant through non-menial efforts - like a line of Silver Knight is not "tempo against Goblins", I guess because they can still hit critical mass and ignore it.
I'm not sure why, but "Wrath of God = control" and "Evacuation = tempo" in my brain. That's not really a 1:1 translation and it's not on a per-card basis or anything, it just is what it is. This is probably why I prefer playing guys and burn; it's just a bunch of low-level moving parts with really base interactions with things, and I can just caveman my way to victory. Ungh.
I think D&T generally feels like aggro control. Early on you aren't outright countering spells, but you're either stopping things from resolving by using Thalia/Waste/Port, and/or you're clogging up the board with Moms and bouncing things.
Either way you continue to build your board state until you slap some equipment on someone and generally have a good clock at that point.
I think the biggest thing is the deep seeded emotional understanding that the right play is the right play regardless of outcomes. The ability to make a decision 5 straight times, lose 5 times because of it, and still make it the 6th time if it's the right play. - Jon Finkel
"Notions of chance and fate are the preoccupation of men engaged in rash undertakings."
The title of this thread is misleading. This isn't about "deck" taxonomy, so much as it is "strategy" or "archtype" taxonomy.
I confess I bought Chapin's latest book to understand how he classifies strategies. A free excerpt is here: http://www.starcitygames.com/article...-Of-Magic.html
I prefer the old school triangle: Aggro, Control, and Combo, and then use various permutations to comprehend hybrids: Aggro-Control, Combo-Control, and so forth.
I find those descriptors sufficiently comprehensive to embrace the entire range of possibilities.
I still do not understand what Mid-range is. I've asked experts. I don't see how it is different from Aggro-Control.
Edit: All tempo decks are Aggro-Control, are they not? Not all Aggro-Control decks are tempo, however.
@SMenendian on Twitter
Check out my podcast!
My Eternal Central Article Archive (new articles)
My Star City Games Article Archive (300+ Vintage articles since 2002) r on GUSH, check it out .
Midrange as a general "archetype" has always sounded odd to me as well. It can be much easier unserstood in terms of "Who's the Beatdown?".
The seven cardinal sins of Legacy:
1. Discuss the unbanning ofLand TaxEarthcraft.
2. Argue that banning Force of Will would make the format healthier.
3. Play Brainstorm without Fetchlands.
4. Stifle Standstill.
5. Think that Gaea's Blessing will make you Solidarity-proof.
6. Pass priority after playing Infernal Tutor.
7. Fail to playtest against Nourishing Lich (coZ iT wIlL gEt U!).
Who's the Beatdown does not answer the question of how to classify a deck from a strategy/general strategic orientation POV.
Remember, Who's the Beatdown was conceived in a context in which you had two similar decks playing, i.e. two control decks or two aggro decks, and you have to assess what the optimal role for each deck is *in that match*.
It doesn't tell you what a deck's general strategy is.
@SMenendian on Twitter
Check out my podcast!
My Eternal Central Article Archive (new articles)
My Star City Games Article Archive (300+ Vintage articles since 2002) r on GUSH, check it out .
That's exactly why I'm referecing it when speaking of a "Midrange" deck, as that term itself also doesn't really tell you a lot about a deck's general strategy, as in Combo, Aggro or Control. "Midrange" as a term provides nothing of that information.
It instead lets you know that over the entire metagame, it will most of the time assume the Control role against the aggressive decks; and the Aggro one against the more controllish decks. It's an almost purely relative term with little inherent meaning.
The seven cardinal sins of Legacy:
1. Discuss the unbanning ofLand TaxEarthcraft.
2. Argue that banning Force of Will would make the format healthier.
3. Play Brainstorm without Fetchlands.
4. Stifle Standstill.
5. Think that Gaea's Blessing will make you Solidarity-proof.
6. Pass priority after playing Infernal Tutor.
7. Fail to playtest against Nourishing Lich (coZ iT wIlL gEt U!).
I've always used this to classify decks: https://www.wizards.com/sideboard/ar...?x=sb20010607a
Granted it could use an update but is a bit better as far as descriptions go.
I've always thought of it as a series of spectrums between the three major archetypes of aggro combo and control. If you go along the control spectrum towards aggro, you end up with either tapout control or tempo. When you go along the aggro spectrum towards control, it morphs into the various flavours of midrange that we see. Incidentally, this is probably where decks like the old MBC decks belong. When you go along the control spectrum towards combo, you end up with decks like modern gifts and scapeshift, and when you come from the combo spectrum towards control, you use extremely controlling combos to lock down the game (prison decks). Finally, you have the spectrum between aggro and combo; you can go along the aggro spectrum towards combo, in which case you get things like affinity and elves. You can also go along the combo spectrum towards aggro, in which case you tend to get decks that ramp into an aggressive win condition. This is where you get decks like show and tell, 12 post, tron, etc.
This gives you 9 decks types in total, and covers most of the decks that you see. For example, I would say that toolbox decks tend to lie on the combo spectrum in either direction. Decks like gifts and teachings are on the combo-control spectrum, whereas pod would lie on the combo-aggro spectrum. Most delver decks are on the control spectrum, but lie very far towards the aggro end. You also have decks like the old canadian thresh, faeries, and UG madness on this spectrum as well. Tog would be closer to the control end. Astral slide would lie on the combo spectrum somewhere, but I'm not sure which direction. Jund, rock, and most of the flavours thereof are pretty clearly in aggro spectrum, but go bigger and more controlling than conventional aggro decks. This is also why when real control decks are absent, midrange decks will often take over that role in the meta, as happened last standard season, with jund.
Very good points.
Tempo plays beyond land destruction? There are lots of them. Because one of the inherent factors for tempo are time advantage or mana efficiency.
Submerge your three drop: 0 to 1WG tempo gain.
Forked Bolt your Spirit of Labyrinth and freshly summoned Mother of Runes: R to 1WW tempo gain (with added value of CA).
Daze your Sinkhole: 0 to BB tempo gain.
Spell Snare your two drop: U to 1W or 1U or 1B or 1G tempo gain.
Rushing River, kicker: 2U to Smokestack and CotV mana tempo gain.
Bolt your Crusader. R to 1WW tempo gain.
Ancient Grudge two of your equipments/locks...
Waste/Hymn you (yes, the first example is LD again) and blank your next several turns...
Rough away your side of table...
Force of Will expensive spell...
There was a brilliant article on time control in pre-Tempest Duelist from 1997. Even back there in stone age, plays like "Man-o-war your big bad dude, Winter Orb" were what we classify as tempo today.
Speaking of color pie, tempo plays/tools/cards are (mostly) distributed like this:
- white: removal. Although the best two examples go against tempo as a strategy (kill asap and keep the game in opening stages), because StP gives life points and PtE moves the game forwards from initial stages, in vacuum it's tempo play (I trade my one mana for your X mana) and for the very long time (adn esp. in the early years of MtG) this was the go-to tempo play of weenies, Gro and similar decks.
- blue: cheap counterspells and bounce, efficient creatures (Delver being the best example)
- black: cheap removal and LD, I think points might be raised that even the chepest of discard (except maybe for Unmask) isn't necessarily a tempo play (as it's too controlish and it doesn't proceed board state and may not be mana-efficient enough and is a blind call sometimes, w/e the argument might be)
- red: burn and chep creatures. Red LD is no more a tempo tool (and it doesn't see any play anymore, at least conventional Stone Rain and Friends three mana LD that isn'T mana efficient enough for Eternal
- green: well, cheap dudes?
- brown: various zero-to-one-mana utility cards like Tormod's Crypt or certain Spellbombs; then of course affinity-esque type of spells.
- pale: Strip Mines of any kind.
Now, what am I missing?
ad 1: Yes.
ad 2: Thanks!
ad 3: Me too. (But I like the "Tempo" term, see below why)
ad 4: Mid-range is Aggro-Control without tempo tools. It's faster than control and it's more controling then aggro, yet it does it in the exact opposite way then tempo. Tempo defeats midrange in short games kept in early game. Midrange defeats tempo is long game prolonged into mid/late game. It's a Gro vs. Rock duel.
ad 5: See above.
Basically, using the tempo/midrange to classify different types of same strategy is just a convenient way how to save unnecesary words when describing your favourite aggro-control deck. Moreover, while all the aggro-control decks have the same general strategy, they got completely opposite tactic. Mixing them into one aggro-control (super)bracket is right (as their main strategy is same: control the game with permission and seal it with dudes), but their tactics is different: Tempo is cavalry, midrange is phalanx; tempo is Stosstruppen, midrange is Festung-Infanterie. Tempo vs. midrange is mobile war vs. trench warfare. That's why there are the Tempo/Midrange (sub)brackets.
Last edited by Bed Decks Palyer; 04-12-2014 at 09:53 AM.
From my experience with a few formats, I would classify tempo as a deck that tries to disrupt its opponent's resources while clocking them with a threat. Sometimes its just trading cards to stop opposing threats and removal.
Basically the tempo deck tries to one for one its opponent while its one or two creatures go into the end zone unopposed. Remand is very good when it gains "you get another combat phase" or Stifle is best when it says "Destroy target land, its controller takes 3 damage"
I would classify midrange as a deck trying to gain card advantage with most its plays, usually using creatures to fulfill that goal. Those creatures range from bone shredder, blade splicer, dark confidant, thragtusk. Or even virtual card advantage, like stopping your opponent from attacking with a large tarmogoyf.
Green tempo, ladies and gents. An opponent has a hard time doing things if he is dead. Also, if it doesn't kill it becomes Abyss.
Citing Craterhoof Behemoth as an agent of tempo tells me that we all just like to say words and deal in false equivalencies.
Not like trying to single anyone out, and you might just be trolling and Im too sleep deprived to notice, but if there is any 'for srs' in there, either I genuinely have no idea what tempo actually is, or the OP has no idea.
Like I might actually just be legit poorly informed. Which is fine, but whatever i can fix it. But it's like saying Charbelcher is tempo because it wins first.
sent from phone, don't be a dick
dingdingding
Oh shit you got me good you fucker
My understanding of tempo is that it's time advantage, and that a tempo deck is really just an inverted control deck. Control decks try to disrupt their opponents long enough to survive the early game, and then land a win condition with inevitability; a tempo deck flips that on its head by landing the win condition first, and then controlling the opponent just long enough to kill them. Where control decks need to rely on card advantage to stay ahead of their opponent, tempo decks create time advantage by disrupting their opponent. That is, you disrupt them to delay their game plan, and give you the time you need for your threat to win the game. Incidentally, tempo decks need insane creatures to exist, because the better the creature is, the lower the amount of protection required. Not only do they kill the opponent faster (increasing your virtual card advantage; your opponent gets to see 6 cards, for example, instead of 10), but you don't need to spend as many resources protecting them. Having a TNN on the field means that all of your resources can be devoted to protecting your delver, rather than having to protect, say, a delver and a DRS.
The reason the best tempo decks tend to be blue is that blue has the most efficient disruption suite. When your opponent taps out for that fatty, you can counter it (for free, if you like) for a much smaller mana investment. That eats their turn, and lets you ping away for another combat phase. Hand disruption is counterproductive to tempo decks because removal can still be cast in response, and you're investing mana into removing a card that hasn't consumed any of your opponent's resources. For this reason, it's hard to find a tempo deck that isn't blue-based. Even if you have really efficient creatures, and an ass-load of efficient removal, you still generally lack the ability to protect your threats. In fact, I think DNT is probably most aptly classified as a tempo deck, since they do exactly what a tempo deck does. They rely on passive protection and mother of runes to protect their early threats, and use wasteland and port to disrupt their opponent and keep them in the early stages of the game. Aether vial means that they can still land threats when their mana is tied up choking yours, giving them the early game resource advantage. They finish with fliers, or by making their threats unblockable, which is again a hallmark of tempo decks.
@ Illusions: I think Eva Green was a fine non-blue tempo deck. It had threats big enough to not care of some of red removal and the disruption suite was pretty solid. With turn1 Seize, turn2 Hymn/Hole, turn3 Waste and Goyf, the creatures were proactively protected instead of reactively. Yep, topdeck kills them, but then there's another one to be played (although second Stalker is not that easy to play) and it wasn't that easy to play against deck with 8 LD, 12 discard, etc.
I'd love to build the deck just for fun, unfortunately I don't own a single Bayou anymore.
Honestly, I think we might want new criteria for deck taxonomy altogether. Certainly, Aggro/Combo/Control isn't satisfactory as it really doesn't say anything about Tempo or Midrange. While I don't have a particular system in mind, here are some axes I think need to be addressed for future classification.
Proactive/Reactive: This is the axis that separates Aggro from Tempo and Prison from Control. Aggro and Prison force the opponent to react to their threats whereas Tempo and Control seek to react to the opponent's threats.
Fast Clock/Slow Clock: Aggro and Tempo have fast clockspeed. Control and Prison are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Midrange is, well, in the middle.
Operating along these axes, the only issue we have (other than not having addressed combo as of yet) is with Midrange as it really only a classification of clockspeed. Now, if we consider Midrange to be a proactive, creature-centric deck as is typical, there should be a mid-speed reactive counterpart to it.
Now, combo is a bit weirder. Maybe Chapin's fair/unfair axis is the best way to address this.
That doesn't make sense to me. All Aggro-Control decks have tempo tools. Every time you play a threat and use a disruption spell, that generates tempo.
That's clearly wrong, to me.
As I said, all tempo decks are aggro-control decks. Tempo is a mode played by Aggro-Control decks when facing control decks.
@SMenendian on Twitter
Check out my podcast!
My Eternal Central Article Archive (new articles)
My Star City Games Article Archive (300+ Vintage articles since 2002) r on GUSH, check it out .
I view Magic as a game of resource management where the resources are split into the following groups: Primary and Secondary, and there are three types of advantage to be gained over the course of the game: Card Presence Advantage, Tempo Presence Advantage, and Play Presence Advantage.
Primary resources are those involved in the satisfaction of the objectives of the game. Life, Poison threshold, and Cards in library. The objectives of the game are to win by either a.) depleting life b.) going beyond poison threshold c.) depleting library or d.) explicit win condition. An opponent can concede before any of these goals are met but every game is won either explicitly or implicitly through one of these objectives.
Secondary resources are those more heavily involved in the actual strategy of the game itself.
The first of the secondary is Card presence, which is defined as cards playable from hand or graveyard or even exile (in cases like Misthollow Griffin). The second of these is Play presence, which is defined as anything that functions as a vector of some kind in play, either on the battlefield like a creature/artifact/enchantment/planeswalker or on the stack like an instant or sorcery. Vectors of this game, to me, are any value in play that affects either a primary or secondary resource. I.e. a Grizzly Bear has a 2 power vector to attack opponents/planeswalkers via combat and to do combat damage to other creatures. Similarly, it has 2 toughness vector as a reactive role in combat. Thus, the Grizzly Bear is positive play presence, but in a quantitative sense, it is a relatively average play presence with 2 power and 2 toughness vector, and no other vectors. Thalia, Guardian of Thraben shares Grizzly Bear's power vector and 1 less toughness vector, but would also have a vector that adds -1 Tempo Presence to opponent per noncreature spell and in turn +1 Tempo Presence to caster. Direct damage spells like a lightning bolt are single-shot vector that does damage (of 3 in the case of Bolt) to opponent or a creature toughness vector (or planeswalker loyalty vector) in play, whereas creatures obviously represent combat damage vectors that accrue value over the course of multiple turns. But both have Play presence concerned solely with either the Primary Resource of opponent's life total, or opposing opponent's Play Presence vectors in combat.
Card Presence represents Card Choice and Playing Potential in the abstract, in an earlier stage (pre-casting), while Play Presence represents that potential fulfilled in a later stage (post-casting). These two things represent everything that matters in the actual strategy of the game.
The bridge between Card Presence and Play Presence is Tempo Presence. In my model, it simply represents the energy to convert Card Presence into Play Presence and thus further the game-plan of interacting with the Primary Resources, and thus the objectives, of the game. In the parlance of Magic: the Gathering, it is usually known as "mana", but it can also be other costs such as payment of some other resource. Without Tempo Presence of any kind, you could have a hand full of 60 cards and not have any way to fulfill the objectives of the game unless the requirement of Tempo Presence was nullified by a cost-free win condition. Tempo Presence is the combination of cost-producing or cost-affecting (in some way) vectors in play. Lands typically provide +1 tempo presence vector (in a linear progression of one per turn), unless existing Play Presence vectors (say, a Exploration effect) modify that, or the land is something like Mishra's Workshop that adds a high level of Tempo Presence advantage and thus busts the curve.
How does this fit into archetype discussion? We can group archetypes by their ability to positively or negatively affect their own or their opponent's Tempo Presence and their ability to positively or negatively affect their own or their opponent's Card Presence. Additionally, advantage can be gained with Play Presence, but every deck is seeking to do something there, by definition, whereas the really successful decks usually amass either Card Presence Advantage or Tempo Presence Advantage or both.
When we talk about successful archetypes positively and negatively affecting their own and their opponent's Tempo, Card, and Play Presence, we have to do this in reference to a Replacement-Level deck. Every card that has some feature that will affect Card, Tempo or Play Presence does it in reference to what the average card in the average deck is able to do. A Replacement-Level pure Aggro deck, for example, is filled maybe with Grizzly Bears and Grey Ogres and generates Tempo Presence one one-mana land at a time. A Replacement-Level pure Control deck, for example, is filled with Cancel effects and Doom Blade effects and generates Tempo Presence one one-mana land at a time.
- Stax-type Prison/Control decks: negatively affect Opponent's Tempo Presence through lock pieces, positively affect Player's Tempo Presence through Sol-Lands, Workshops, artifact mana.
- Delver-type Aggro-Control decks : negatively affect Opponent's Tempo Presence by Wasteland, Daze effects, positively affect Player's Tempo Presence through extremely low-cost counterspells and cheap creature damage vectors which provide high Value Above Replacement Level entities -i.e. discounting the cost of high power/toughness vectors.
- Miracles-type Control decks: negatively affect Opponent's Play Presence Advantage through sweepers like Terminus (thus in turn positively affecting its own Play Presence), negatively affect Opponent's Card Presence options through repeatable counterspell effects like CounterBalance, positively affect Player's Card Presence through selection effects like Top and Brainstorm (note - card filtering is card presence like draw, but a weaker form of draw) and draw effects like Jace.
- ANT-type Combo decks: positively affect Player's Card Presence advantage through card filtering effects, positively affect Player's Tempo Presence through fast artifact mana and Dark Ritual effects. Only concerns itself with itself (and not opponent) until a single life loss vector or library depletion vector is generated.
- Zoo-type Aggro decks: positively affect Player's Tempo Presence through extremely efficient (and thus discounted, high Value Above Replacement Level) combat damage vectors - both accrued and one-shot, i.e. creature and burn. Has no affect on Card Presence on either side, typically, unless something like Dark Confidant or Sylvan LIbrary is used. Has no effect on Opponent's Tempo Presence unless using Wastelands.
As we analyze some common archetypes, we see patterns emerging.
- What we typically call "Combo" is simply something seeking to make positive gains in Card Presence and Tempo Presence, and doing it usually to fulfill objectives through a one-shot vector that depletes a Primary Resource.
- Aggro decks are simply Combo that tries to make positive gains with its own Card Presence and Tempo Presence, but does it to fulfill objectives through accrued creature-based combat damage vectors. Zoo, for instance, is an aggro deck, and a deck that seeks to positively affect its own Tempo Presence like a combo deck, but again, with creature-based Play Presence instead of sorcery-based.
- Control is anything seeking to negatively affect opponent's Card Presence, Play Presence, and/or Tempo Presence. This is what distinguished Control from Combo and Aggro. Anything focused on negatively affecting opponent's presences to simultaneously positively affect its own is an element of Control.
Any deck can have any combination of those three archetype's elements. Zoo, in the above examples, is heavily skewed to positively affecting its own tempo presence, and does it with a mixture of accrued damage vectors and one-shot damage vectors. It has little to no Control elements that negatively affect opponent's Presences. Merfolk shares the Aggro features of Zoo but add Control elements that negatively affect opponent's tempo presence, but still fulfill objectives through accrued combat damage vectors, and are thus Aggro-Control. A Show and Tell deck features ways to negatively affect opponent's Play Presence through Counterspells alongside many positive effects on Tempo presence and Card Presence, and fulfills objective with typically a one-shot effect, is thus a Combo deck with some element of Control focused on Play Presence. Because it does damage through combat vector, you can even make the argument that it is an Aggro deck, and in some ways the line is blurred between Aggro and Combo, but in most cases both archetypes are more concerned with their own positive gains than affecting the opponent's advantages.
So Aggro is a slower, more reliable Combo. Aggro-control is Aggro with more of an emphasis on negatively affecting opponent's Tempo Presence and/or Card Presence. All of this is in varying degrees. If you splashed white in Zoo for Spirit of the Labyrinth, you would increase the small fraction of that deck that is "Control" because Control by its definition is concerned with negatively affecting opponent's Tempo Board, and Card Presence. Combo can have elements of control but, is, like Aggro, primarily focused on its own Tempo Presence and Card Presence. The only distinguishing characteristic between Combo and Aggro is the nature of its fulfillment of objectives (accrued, more reliable, less centralized multitude of win conditions or a centralized, usually - but not always - one-shot damage or depletion vector).
TL;DR I don't blame you!
But what my model is basically saying is: that Aggro and Combo are active decks concerned with their own Tempo, Card, and Play Presence with the only difference being mostly the method by which they fulfill the game's objective (centralized, usually non-accrued - Combo vs decentralized and usually accrued - Aggro), and Control is simply primarily reactive (or proactive). A deck is first and foremost Aggro or Combo depending on its win condition, and then is considered Aggro-Control or Combo-Control based on the percentage of reactive (negatively affecting opponent's Card and Tempo presence) cards, or is considered simply Control when a certain percentage threshold of reactive (negative) cards is met. And the Control deck will simply be an Aggro or Combo deck at heart with many Control elements.
Aggro --- Combo
Aggro-Control --- Combo-Control
Control
Then we clearly have a different view of what's tempo. Flying Wild Nacatls supported by card disadvantage tools are tempo. Spiritmonger with Deed and Phyrexian Arena... isn't. Yet both decks are aggro (they win by reducing opponents life total to zero) and control (they use control elements to protect their threats and prevent the opponent's plays). Cavalry vs. phalanx.
MGB, your post is brilliant. Added to my stickies and I would translate it for a Czech Mtg site if only the site's admin would not have been a total moron whom I despise wholeheartedly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote