Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 88

Thread: Deck Taxonomy

  1. #41

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer View Post
    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..

    It could be though.

    Playing Spiritmonger, and then casting Duress to disarm the opponent is a tempo play. Similarly, playing Spiritmonger and then using Deed to wipe out the opponent's mana birds/elves and defensive cards can generate tempo.

    Tempo is simple: playing a threat and then using tactics to buy time. The classic tempo play in Vintage is:

    T1: Workshop, Mox, Juggernaut (or, if you are an old school player, Dark Ritual, Mox, Juzam Djinn)
    T2: Strip Mine/Wasteland the opponent.

    This play rewinds the partially by a turn.

    Similar:

    T1: Delver
    T2: Duress/Spell Pierce

    Is a tempo play. It buys time, and generates tempo.

    But, so is:


    T1: Delver
    T2: Bolt opposing Delver.

    There isn't a single Aggro-Control deck that doesn't generate tempo.

    I think the earliest decks to be recognized as Aggro Control were probably Countersliver. They were quintessential tempo decks using countermagic to buy time. Grow decks illustrated this even better.

    All Aggro-Control decks sometimes play a tempo game.

  2. #42

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    I wrote an article on tempo 10 years ago that defined tempo pretty clearly: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/f...teresting.html\

    Oddly enough, it's cited in the Wikipedia entry on Tempo.

  3. #43
    Land Destruction Enthusiast
    Megadeus's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jul 2012
    Location

    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts

    5,572

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Smmenen View Post
    It could be though.

    Playing Spiritmonger, and then casting Duress to disarm the opponent is a tempo play. Similarly, playing Spiritmonger and then using Deed to wipe out the opponent's mana birds/elves and defensive cards can generate tempo.

    Tempo is simple: playing a threat and then using tactics to buy time. The classic tempo play in Vintage is:

    T1: Workshop, Mox, Juggernaut (or, if you are an old school player, Dark Ritual, Mox, Juzam Djinn)
    T2: Strip Mine/Wasteland the opponent.

    This play rewinds the partially by a turn.

    Similar:

    T1: Delver
    T2: Duress/Spell Pierce

    Is a tempo play. It buys time, and generates tempo.

    But, so is:


    T1: Delver
    T2: Bolt opposing Delver.

    There isn't a single Aggro-Control deck that doesn't generate tempo.

    I think the earliest decks to be recognized as Aggro Control were probably Countersliver. They were quintessential tempo decks using countermagic to buy time. Grow decks illustrated this even better.

    All Aggro-Control decks sometimes play a tempo game.
    Agreed. Tempo doesn't necessarily have to mean you are netting card disadvantage in hand to create a more favorable board state.
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Cheese View Post
    I've been taking shitty brews and tier 2 decks to tournaments and losing with them for years now. Welcome to the club. We meet for cocktails after round 6.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevestamopz View Post
    Top quality german restraint there.

    If I'm at the point where I'm rage quitting, you can bet your kransky that I'm calling everyone involved a cunt.

  4. #44

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Megadeus View Post
    Agreed. Tempo doesn't necessarily have to mean you are netting card disadvantage in hand to create a more favorable board state.
    Yeah, that's definitely wrong. 1-for-1 trades or even 2-for-1 trades are tempo plays. Fire on my opponent's two Delvers is certainly a tempo play. In fact, that used to be a paradigm of tempo in Vintage. I remember someone commenting on what a good tempo play Fire was in Grow, and I made fun of them saying I'll just Berserk my Tog instead. TAMPO, etc.

    Wastelanding an opponent is a classic tempo play and one of the best examples, because it frequently rewinds the board state by exactly a turn, illustrating tempo perfectly.

    EDIT: I think people are just getting confused because sometimes its card disadvantageous (ala Force, Misdirection, Foil, etc).

  5. #45
    Land Destruction Enthusiast
    Megadeus's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jul 2012
    Location

    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts

    5,572

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Right. Something as simple as playing a Goyf off of a DRS and wasting your opponents land is a tempo play. Basically swinging the game into your favor and putting your opponent on the defensive.

    I think a good example is over the weekend. Joe Losset was facing a Batterskull on a Germ and a SFM, and he had a tapped VClique and 4 lands. His opponent attacks all out, he Casts Venser, Shaper Savant. Bounces the batterskull germ token, and blocks and eats the Stoneforge with Venser. Now Joe has generated massive tempo and the result is that he is now the beat down in the game.
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Cheese View Post
    I've been taking shitty brews and tier 2 decks to tournaments and losing with them for years now. Welcome to the club. We meet for cocktails after round 6.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevestamopz View Post
    Top quality german restraint there.

    If I'm at the point where I'm rage quitting, you can bet your kransky that I'm calling everyone involved a cunt.

  6. #46
    banned

    Join Date

    Jul 2013
    Location

    black metal bed room
    Posts

    2,188

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Smmenen View Post
    I wrote an article on tempo 10 years ago that defined tempo pretty clearly: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/f...teresting.html\

    Oddly enough, it's cited in the Wikipedia entry on Tempo.
    Wikipedia is a pile of bullshit. Don't even ask what stupidities I read there about affairs I knew were completely the opposite. Not to belittle your article, though! It's just that bringing Wikipedia makes me laugh like crazy.

    Reading the last few posts it looks like everything is tempo. I guess I'm starting to appreciate nedleeds' quote on SCG lousy coverage.
    "Value. Value. Grindy grindy tempo?" "Value play. Grindy. Mid Range. Value value? Tempo. Grindy. Actual." "Where you wanna be." "Value. Grip. Value play. Tempo."
    Maybe I was too lazy when I wrote that midrange lacks tempo tools. I should have written that it uses far less of them or that they are higher on mana curve or whatever. I guess my point that tempo means time control and mana advantage still stands, so Deed away your dudes for the cost of a card and (say) three plus two mana is definitely a tempo play, if it meant you've lost your ten-mana permanents accumulated over five turns or so.

    IDK, this thread starts to resemble a words game.
    I like MGB's post. It makes sense, goes deep into strategy/tactc behind the decks and touches the basics of game.

  7. #47
    Land Destruction Enthusiast
    Megadeus's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jul 2012
    Location

    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts

    5,572

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    SCG commentators are definitely annoying when it comes to shit like this. They overuse everything, a lot of the time because they don't really know what they are talking about. However in the sense of making a "tempo play", you don't necessarily need to be using some sort of card disadvantage as you have said to keep a favorable board position.
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Cheese View Post
    I've been taking shitty brews and tier 2 decks to tournaments and losing with them for years now. Welcome to the club. We meet for cocktails after round 6.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevestamopz View Post
    Top quality german restraint there.

    If I'm at the point where I'm rage quitting, you can bet your kransky that I'm calling everyone involved a cunt.

  8. #48

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Megadeus View Post
    SCG commentators are definitely annoying when it comes to shit like this. They overuse everything, a lot of the time because they don't really know what they are talking about. However in the sense of making a "tempo play", you don't necessarily need to be using some sort of card disadvantage as you have said to keep a favorable board position.
    So true. The truth is that alot of Magic lexicon is poorly employed and poorly applied. Part of the reason for that is because many terms are ambiguous or imprecise, or are inherently so because they are metaphorical. In other areas, there is a lack of consensus on what things mean, and no standardization process or way to standardize. There isn't like a professional academy of Magic or a certifying body.

    In my writing, including my Gush book, I try to be much more careful than writers of the past, but most people are really sloppy.

    Getting back to my question: I still don't understand what Midrange is, and how that differs from Aggro-Control. A few months ago I asked Brian Demars to define it for me, and he couldn't define it in a way that is different from Aggro Control.

  9. #49
    banned

    Join Date

    Jul 2013
    Location

    black metal bed room
    Posts

    2,188

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Megadeus View Post
    SCG commentators are definitely annoying when it comes to shit like this. They overuse everything, a lot of the time because they don't really know what they are talking about. However in the sense of making a "tempo play", you don't necessarily need to be using some sort of card disadvantage as you have said to keep a favorable board position.
    Why do you concentrate on card disadvantage? If I'd wrote "Bolts" instead of "card dis-A" would the whole thread turn into "but tempo isn't only Bolts!" derail?
    Card disadvantage is inherent to tempo's picture because it's inherent to the iconic tempo card that is FoW. Most of the hardcore tempo decks use it and they eschew CA, which is pretty significant in the world where every other deck tends to gain (virtual) CA. Thresh doesn't care about CA. UW control does. Yes, one-mana WoGs are tempo plays, but to define a tempo deck, there needs to be many more tempo tools present than just sole three to five miracles cards.
    If you want to make an example of tempo play, there are hundreds of it and they are not limited to Ux Delver.dec, but every deck is capable of them, except maybe for some linear ramp. (And even then, playing a 10/10 on turn 3 is a tempo play, isn't it?) I thought the main discussion was about what makes a tempo DECK, not what is a tempo PLAY. Becasue for the latter, we may simply adjust the wikipedia article on Chess theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by Smmenen View Post
    Getting back to my question: I still don't understand what Midrange is, and how that differs from Aggro-Control. A few months ago I asked Brian Demars to define it for me, and he couldn't define it in a way that is different from Aggro Control.
    That's because IT IS aggro-control. But it goes for its goal (opponent's life=0 through creature beats) differently then tempo decks.
    Tempo: play cheap dude, protect it, win.
    Midrange: play protection, play (not necessarily cheap) dudes, play protection if need be, win. It's usualy spread over more turns, uses more expensive spells, etc.

    I guess that anybody who played Erhnam-and-Burn-em and Erhnamgedon (or Zoo and Big Zoo or w/e the example) has a sense how differently the decks operate. There's a difference in how the decks feel and over the years one of the two types became known under a term tempo, while the other type is called midrange. There's nothing special about it, just a namng convenience. It's not like Threshold decks play Werebears and Mystic Enforcers anymore, yet they are still called like that and for the most part, people know what's talked about.
    I think that as long as you saying "tempo deck" or "midrange deck" makes an appropriate pictures in a listener's head, then the taxonomy is fine. I for one don't know why BGx decks with Spiritmongers are called Rock, I don't know why the very same decks but with Tombstalker are called Eve Green and I don't know why adding blue for the FoWs and Delvers turns them into Team Murica and where this name comes from, but as long as "Rock!" paints a mental image of deck with Deeds, it really suffices.
    Rock. Spiritmonger. So big! Pro: Terror. Deed, Arena, so much CA.
    EG. Tombstlaker, Stuff Out - no plays Bob.
    TA. Force, Daze, et cetera.

  10. #50

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer View Post
    Wikipedia is a pile of bullshit.
    In a neutral study, researchers actually discovered that Wikipedia has less errors per entry than Encylcopedia Brittanica. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it's not a pile of bullshit.


    Reading the last few posts it looks like everything is tempo. I guess I'm starting to appreciate nedleeds' quote on SCG lousy coverage.
    "Value. Value. Grindy grindy tempo?" "Value play. Grindy. Mid Range. Value value? Tempo. Grindy. Actual." "Where you wanna be." "Value. Grip. Value play. Tempo."
    Magic commentators are by and large idiots. I can't stand Magic vernacular. It's truly dumb.


    Maybe I was too lazy when I wrote that midrange lacks tempo tools. I should have written that it uses far less of them or that they are higher on mana curve or whatever.
    Which begs the question: how is Midrange not simply Aggro-Control?

  11. #51
    banned

    Join Date

    Jul 2013
    Location

    black metal bed room
    Posts

    2,188

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Smmenen View Post
    In a neutral study, researchers actually discovered that Wikipedia has less errors per entry than Encylcopedia Brittanica. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it's not a pile of bullshit.

    Magic commentators are by and large idiots. I can't stand Magic vernacular. It's truly dumb.

    Which begs the question: how is Midrange not simply Aggro-Control?
    In a neutral study, Wikipedia lies. You know, wiki fucking lies.
    And not your daughter's "It wasn't me, a small bird flew in and threw down the vase" lies. Much bigger lies. Really big. Not your usual tempo lies, but some real midrange value.
    Completely mendacious pages. Propaganda. Phantasmagorias. Defamations. Espionage games.

    I know about lies that I won't dip into, as I don't feel like I need to unravel my real identity on yet another open website.

    I agree on MtG commentators, though. I can't understand why something as simple like "Brainstorm, returns two, Force" can't be enough.
    Like in football where they help those with small screens.
    "Beckham. Zidane. Beckham again. Maradona. Panenka." Maybe ad some small joke or interesting thing. "I remember when Onslatch was new and we all thought that Lothar Mathäus is the new chase rare."

  12. #52

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer View Post
    In a neutral study, Wikipedia lies. You know, wiki fucking lies.
    It's a crowdsourced resource. Of course there are errors, mistakes, and probably lies.

    Have you ever used the app Waze? Or google maps? Or apple maps? They all have flaws, but the crowd sourced one is usually the best.

    Wikipedia is far from perfect, but it's hyperbole to describe it in the terms you did. There are literally tens of thousands of useful entries on Wikipedia.

    But this is a total non-sequitur.

  13. #53
    banned

    Join Date

    Jul 2013
    Location

    black metal bed room
    Posts

    2,188

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Smmenen View Post
    It's a crowdsourced resource. Of course there are errors, mistakes, and probably lies.

    Have you ever used the app Waze? Or google maps? Or apple maps? They all have flaws, but the crowd sourced one is usually the best.

    Wikipedia is far from perfect, but it's hyperbole to describe it in the terms you did. There are literally tens of thousands of useful entries on Wikipedia.

    But this is a total non-sequitur.
    You know that google maps use the real photographs of the planet you live upon, don't you?

    Wikipedia is a place where anyone may write any biased article he wants to. Saying that "it was on wiki so it's true/valuable/important" makes me giggle. Every time I want to have a fun l may simply open the wiki pages about the things that happened in my very own life and simply burst in laughter/anger while reading the misconceptions, logical phalacies, manipulations, propaganda, misinformation, text-out-of-context, obfuscations, gossip and outright lies about the things I was part of and know with 100% certainty that they happened in the exact opposite than Wiki describes, if they ever happened at all.
    So yes, saying that your article is cited by Wikipedia doesn't make it any more relevant for me than saying that it was cited on freepr0n.org

    But this is a total non-sequitur.

    Back on tempo, please.
    As I already wrote, it's a naming convenience and over the years people became accustomed to the terms (and their dichotomy) Tempo/Midrange. You keep insisting that no one may easily describe and separate the two, and to make things more messy, you mix tempo decks and tempo plays. While the first describes a type of decks with certain qualities (see MGB's post above), the other describes a play played in a certain gamestate context, a play with a tempo result. (That's why I said that for this matter we'd be good enough with chess perception/understanding of tempo play - less turns = more tempo.)
    Again, there's a fundamental differenc between playing Thresh and Rock; although the decks try to reach the same goal (deal 20 dmg), they do it in the opposite ways, so over the years the MtG community decided to call one of them tempo, while the other one is called midrange. One seeks to win asap, and protects its threats, the other one is fine with a longer games and follows the protection spells (mostly discard or lock pieces) with threats. One often doesn't care of CA (as it's a non-issue in a game won on turn4; don't bring Gush-Gro, please, it's dead now and will never be a part of Extended/Legacy meta again), while the other one seeks CA as it's a necessary tool to win prolonged games. (No matter if it's actual CA like Harmonize/Wrath of God or virtual CA via CotV/CB lock.)
    Cavalry vs. phalanx. Goyf vs. Spiritmonger.

    I do understand that you're unsatisfied with the intangibility of the "tempo deck" and "midrange deck" collocations, and I do understand your frustration. But don't pretend you do not comprehend the difference between playing a tempo deck and a midrange one. Lines may be blurred, but on a scale ranging from Gro to Rock it shouldn't be hard to distinguish the decks one from each other... at least the decks that sit on the most extreme peripheries.

    Again, tempo decks play differently than midrange and although my articles are not cited by wiki (no offense man, just joking...), I still believe that the many years of my playing of both tempo DECKS and midrange DECKS make me wise enough to humbly comment on the different aspects/gameplay/factors/call-it-as-you-wish of tempo DECKS and midrange DECKS.
    It's not like I'm saying that tempo PLAYS are limited solely to the tempo DECKS, and it's a little pity if anyone had such a feeling just because I expected that no one will think like that and thus I worded my idea lazily.

    Also, I played like ten Vintage games in my whole life and I don't plan to increase this number in the upcoming years. So forgive me that I will read your article in parts, as it's really exhausting to read about the cards I don't even know they exist.

  14. #54

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    You guys are running yourselves in circles. Tempo is generating a time advantage over your opponent, effectively making it like their turns never happened. The two ways of doing this are either playing a threat so dangerous that it needs to be dealt with immediately (in which case you effectively dictate your opponent's turn), or by disrupting your opponent's game plan (in which case, they don't get a turn). You can create that time gap independent of card advantage (virtual or otherwise), and without ever playing a spell, as long as the threat is powerful enough. The threat of a game ending combo will generate tempo, for example, even when you don't have it.

    The reason midrange is not tempo is because the plan is completely different. If you're playing midrange, you're focusing on getting to the midgame, and that means accelerating through the early game. Midrange decks don't try to invalidate their opponent's turn, because they don't particularly need to. They just play better creatures and go over the top. They aren't generating tempo in the sense that they are time walking their opponent, they're simply overwhelming their opponent with card quality and quantity. It's a totally different thing. Sure, you can generate tempo in the process of doing that (dictating your opponent's turns with your threats) but that doesn't make it the deck's primary strategy. Tempo decks specifically aim to exploit that gap by being hyper-efficient in the early game, and specialising in preventing the game state from developing. Midrange decks want the game state to develop, because their goal is to dominate with bigger threats. The disruptive element is there to ensure that they actually survive to reach the midgame, and to help ensure that their already dominant threats become backbreaking.

    Edit: a midrange deck is just an aggro deck going big. If you take decks like the rock, jund, big red, big naya, naya zoo, etc., they all lie on the same spectrum. The bigger the threats, the more controlling the deck, and the more acceleration it needs to run. Rather than relying on virtual card advantage like conventional aggro decks, midrange decks like to land big threats before they would commonly be played, but the overall beat down strategy is still there. It's an answer to incredibly fast aggro decks made up of small creatures. A turn 2 loxodon smiter, for example, is a huge problem for that kind of deck.

  15. #55
    banned

    Join Date

    Jul 2013
    Location

    black metal bed room
    Posts

    2,188

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    The reason midrange is not tempo is because the plan is completely different. If you're playing midrange, you're focusing on getting to the midgame, and that means accelerating through the early game. Midrange decks don't try to invalidate their opponent's turn, because they don't particularly need to. They just play better creatures and go over the top. They aren't generating tempo in the sense that they are time walking their opponent, they're simply overwhelming their opponent with card quality and quantity. It's a totally different thing. Sure, you can generate tempo in the process of doing that (dictating your opponent's turns with your threats) but that doesn't make it the deck's primary strategy. Tempo decks specifically aim to exploit that gap by being hyper-efficient in the early game, and specialising in preventing the game state from developing. Midrange decks want the game state to develop, because their goal is to dominate with bigger threats. The disruptive element is there to ensure that they actually survive to reach the midgame, and to help ensure that their already dominant threats become backbreaking.
    That's what I meant.
    Of course midrange is different and it uses the early turns to get into the mid/late game where it dominates through CA and high quality cards. (Like, what's better? A 4/4 bear druid or 6/6 regenerating beast?) I was just surprised that Stephen, although one of the most experienced players, decided to (pretend that he does) not understand the fundamental differencies between tempo and midrange decks, however wrong the names might sound. That's why I keep bringing that one example over and over again, the Gro vs. Rock duel/dilemma/dichotomy, because these two decks (and their playstyle, goals, cards, etc.) compared paint a clear picture of what is the difference between tempo and midrange subcategories of aggro-control.

    But this all was in that good old 1997 Duelist and the "Time Control" article, and ever since then, Mike Flores, Eric Taylor and many many others including Smmenen wrote a lot about the phenomenon of time control (no matter how exactly they named it).

  16. #56
    Land Destruction Enthusiast
    Megadeus's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jul 2012
    Location

    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts

    5,572

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Stephen and I were not in any way saying that midrange (Aggro-Control whatever) is classified as a tempo deck. We were simply saying that Midrange decks could generate tempo and that the common misconception of tempo is only done by creating some sort of Card Disadvantage to help on board presence. And Midrange decks may not be classified as tempo decks, but swinging tempo in your favor can be huge in dictating the pace of a game. There are many times that a possibly sub optimal line that helps you get in an extra attack or something from a mid range deck is extremely important in swinging tempo in your favor. This is especially true in a mirror where Jittes and Swords of X&Y are concerned (commonly played cards in midrange decks).
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Cheese View Post
    I've been taking shitty brews and tier 2 decks to tournaments and losing with them for years now. Welcome to the club. We meet for cocktails after round 6.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevestamopz View Post
    Top quality german restraint there.

    If I'm at the point where I'm rage quitting, you can bet your kransky that I'm calling everyone involved a cunt.

  17. #57
    banned

    Join Date

    Jul 2013
    Location

    black metal bed room
    Posts

    2,188

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Megadeus View Post
    Stephen and I were not in any way saying that midrange (Aggro-Control whatever) is classified as a tempo deck. We were simply saying that Midrange decks could generate tempo and that the common misconception of tempo is only done by creating some sort of Card Disadvantage to help on board presence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Smmenen
    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.
    I don't know what to answer.
    Also, stop with tempo and card disadvantage, please. That horse barely moves.

    Edit: It looks like this thread won't move anywhere further as long as people will deliberately mix together tempo decks (which is basically a Time Walk deck as Illusions wrote) and tempo plays. "But, but, but midrange also has tempo plays" brings nothingto the discussion, and it definitely doesn't help in distinguishing the one type of aggro-control (tempo) from another type of aggro-control (midrange). Also, from Stephen's words I somehow read that he dislikes even the very possibility to distinguish the two ("I still do not understand what Mid-range is. I've asked experts. I don't see how it is different from Aggro-Control... 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. ") which is once again mixing apples and orages, tempo DECKS and tempo PLAYS. While tempo play is possible with any deck in existance (e.g. Terminus), the tempo deck is designed to link a chain of tempo plays one after another, dictate pace and win by the subesquent Time Walk after Time Walk. Midrange decks operate differently and... no, please, no more, I'm worn out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Smmenen View Post
    I think the earliest decks to be recognized as Aggro Control were probably Countersliver. They were quintessential tempo decks using countermagic to buy time.
    I don't remember pre-1996 Magic, but I guess there were Mana Drain decks (other than Weissman's control pile) that were winning with Serendib Efreet and twelve Bolts. (Yes, I speak about ICE times... but even back before Incinerate, the eight bolts could suffice). No matter what, the first real tempo decks were imho the blue decks of Mirage block/Type2 with Memory Lapse, Arcane Denial, WOrb, etc., and then of course Five-Colors Green of the same era.

  18. #58

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Tempo to me is simply the entire linear progression of aggregate cost for each player.

    Tempo disadvantage is when an effect of your opponent's (like Thalia) adds cost to your cards. Positive tempo advantage is when you play a land like Ancient Tomb that lets you generate 2 mana per land drop and not 1.

    Bouncing a fatty with a Man-O-War is a tempo play in that it increases the aggregate cost of the pool of plays for the fatty's controller for the course of the game. It's tempo advantage for the player that cast the Man-O-War because he usually spent less mana to do so than you did to play your guy.

    Tempo is simply the bridge between Having Access to Cards and Playing Them, as I described in my model a few posts back. Anything that affects that bridge positively or negatively creates Tempo Advantage or Disadvantage.

    Tempo is not its own archetype. The only archetypes are Aggro, Combo, and Control and variations of those three like Aggo-Control, Aggro-Combo, Combo-Control, or even Aggro-Combo-Control.

    Certain decks of the Aggro-Control persuasion are more focused on Tempo plays - generating positive Tempo Presence Advantage for themselves or creating negative Tempo Presence for its opponent - than others. You can classify them as Tempo-focused (as in Tempo Presence) Aggro-Control decks.

    Just like some Aggro-Control decks seek to draw alot of cards with Dark Confidant to create positive Card Presence advantage for the player and cast Hymn to Tourach to create negative Card Presence for the opponent, these would be Card-focused (as in Card Presence, in my model) Aggro-Control decks.

  19. #59
    Member

    Join Date

    Feb 2009
    Location

    Germany
    Posts

    119

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Smmenen View Post
    Getting back to my question: I still don't understand what Midrange is, and how that differs from Aggro-Control. A few months ago I asked Brian Demars to define it for me, and he couldn't define it in a way that is different from Aggro Control.
    I think midrange refers to the strategy of trumping an opponent's creature with a slightly bigger creature whereas aggro-control is rather removal/disruption oriented.
    "I see their moral dilemmas. I see their raw courage. I see their self-sacrifice. I see our victory." (Keep watch)

    The strength of one. The courage of ten. (honor Guard)

  20. #60
    banned

    Join Date

    Jul 2013
    Location

    black metal bed room
    Posts

    2,188

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by MGB View Post
    Tempo is not its own archetype. The only archetypes are Aggro, Combo, and Control and variations of those three like Aggo-Control, Aggro-Combo, Combo-Control, or even Aggro-Combo-Control.

    Certain decks of the Aggro-Control persuasion are more focused on Tempo plays - generating positive Tempo Presence Advantage for themselves or creating negative Tempo Presence for its opponent - than others. You can classify them as Tempo-focused (as in Tempo Presence) Aggro-Control decks.
    Yes. But you still can use the term "tempo deck" to describe the kind of aggro-control decks that are build around Tempo Pressence Advantage. Because the Aggro-Combo-Control triangle is not detailed enough to specify the decks in subacategories. If I'd go to extreme, I may say that even the aggro-combo-control brackets are unnecessary and that all we need is a single term: "A Magic deck". After all, all decks are that, decks.

    So, what I mean is that while every deck is a deck (ahem...), they are divided into three main branches...

    Aggro ________________ Combo____________________ Control

    ...with subcatogories in each bracket, one of them being called Tempo, which is a bit misleading name, because every deck is capable of tempo plays. But as long as this term* makes an appropriate mental image (Time_Walk.dec, and yes, I exaggerate), I'm fine with it, although this subcategory is not exactly explicable even by MtG experts. Rose, other name, smell, you know what I mean.

    A mixed strategy known as aggro-control thus may be divided into several subcatogories, lets say something like this:

    Aggro-Control:
    • Tempo
    • Midrange
    • Hatebears
    • Slow Swarm
    • Whatever the else




    *) the inexplicability of the terminus technicus "Tempo deck" doesn't bother me. To follow with another saw, it's like erotique and pornography. I can't explain the difference, but I'm sure I can distinguish the two; maybe I can't explain what's The Tempo Deck, but I definitely feel how it looks and plays.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)