Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 88

Thread: Deck Taxonomy

  1. #61
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    It's one of those analogies that can be taken too far, really.

    Sakura-Tribe Elder is a Green Time Walk. Right? It blocks an early attack; it then sacs and turns it into a land; if you were lucky enough to sac it after blocking before the rules reverted to "pre 6th Ed combat damage" then it even killed a 1-toughness creature if it had the gaul to swing, thus generating mad mad mad tempo. It was like turning the clock back one turn on exactly one side of the table. Tempo plaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

    Only it wasn't *really* a Time Walk, because it applies to a very narrow set of circumstances (as opposed to a real Time Walk which just says "Take an extra turn. Full stop." whereas analogues to that card tend to have conditions and provisos that make them 'equivalent' plays).

    I mean how much extrapolation does one need to do in order to determine how "tempo" a play actually is? If you take it too far you have to measure each play - each stupid fucking play, like dropping your 9th land versus holding it - by how much tempo is gained or lost. Maybe there is a degree of validity to it, but it is really helpful to do so? Pardon my comparison while trying to avoid them in Magic -- but it's a bit like Zeno's Paradox after a minute. You're chasing an ever-shrinking goal which is applicable to a point, yes -- but it's an academic exercise after a while and it isn't the final say in who wins or loses. I mean, that 9th land drop could be the difference between 9 land in play and no cards in hand, versus 8 land in play and the ability to say you have a card in hand (insert legitimate Jedi mind tricks at this point -- you know the routine, tap/untap your land, then 'allow' a spell to resolve or an attack to go unanswered, let the opponent presume you've got tech in your hand when it's a white-border Plains card). Getting your opponent to think twice about dropping a game-ending threat because he thinks he should wait for you to cast your bomb (that Plains is a house, to be fair) -- that's a tempo play.

    I could just be taking the simple man's way out on this, but if it's a situation where you have to justify the use of the word, you might want to consider that you're doing it weird. As with many things, I personally can't tell you what it is exactly, but I think I know it better by when I don't see it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  2. #62
    banned

    Join Date

    Jul 2013
    Location

    black metal bed room
    Posts

    2,188

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Yes, of course. Every analogy with Time Walks is taken too far. Because neither STE nor Goyf are Time Walks.

    I mean how much extrapolation does one need to do in order to determine how "tempo" a play actually is?
    I don't know. But I still think that the Tempo bracket of Aggro-Control decks has a merit, at least if you want (for whatever the reason) differentiate or specify which kind of aggro-control decks you mean when you speak about a particular matchup or situation. Ok, one may say that this is unnecessary (esp. when nobody knows what exactly is that mythinc Aggro Control Tempo Time Walk deck we all waffle about), but then again using your Sakura Time Tribe Walk, we may move even further and not care about the categories at all.

    Commentator: "So, here we are at SCGLA and we got the finalists here, Matt Love and Dave Blake. Guys, before we start, what are your favourite decks, what deck type serves you the best, which archetype is best suited for your playstyle? Matt?"
    Matt: "My favourite Magic deck? Well, definitely Magic deck. Yeah, that's my scene."
    Commentator: "And Dave? Do you also like deck?"
    Dave: "Nah. Instead of deck, I rather play deck."

    edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Lighning Bebbi View Post
    Control Decks and Midrange Decks, maybe Tempodecks if the don't run Lightning Bolts.

  3. #63
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer View Post
    Yes, of course. Every analogy with Time Walks is taken too far. Because neither STE nor Goyf are Time Walks.


    I don't know. But I still think that the Tempo bracket of Aggro-Control decks has a merit, at least if you want (for whatever the reason) differentiate or specify which kind of aggro-control decks you mean when you speak about a particular matchup or situation. Ok, one may say that this is unnecessary (esp. when nobody knows what exactly is that mythinc Aggro Control Tempo Time Walk deck we all waffle about), but then again using your Sakura Time Tribe Walk, we may move even further and not care about the categories at all.

    Commentator: "So, here we are at SCGLA and we got the finalists here, Matt Love and Dave Blake. Guys, before we start, what are your favourite decks, what deck type serves you the best, which archetype is best suited for your playstyle? Matt?"
    Matt: "My favourite Magic deck? Well, definitely Magic deck. Yeah, that's my scene."
    Commentator: "And Dave? Do you also like deck?"
    Dave: "Nah. Instead of deck, I rather play deck."

    edit:

    Indeed!

    So maybe it's better to not think of a "tempo deck" because that is simply redundant. Right? If tempo sort of exists everywhere and is all relative, it's probably better to say that a deck "generates tempo" or "uses ____ to control the tempo of the game" but it is not a "tempo deck" like the way we think of Stax as a "prison deck".

    I guess I don't think tempo is defining an archetype. It's just a quality that a play has relative to the plays before it and after it. Calling something a "tempo deck" is like saying a tree in a forest is a "wooden tree" - rarely does the distinction need to be made, especially if you're already standing in a forest.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  4. #64
    Play Deed. Nuke the World.
    EpicLevelCommoner's Avatar
    Join Date

    Oct 2010
    Posts

    321

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Not an expert with Magic vernacular by any means, but I believe Tempo should be short for 'Temporary Hindrance'. This, I also believe, allows to correctly classify decks outside of the classic aggro-combo-control-hybrid taxonomy.

    First, let's say there are [at least?] two categories of cards: Tempo (see above by what I mean by this), and Attrition (aka Midrange). Tempo cards buy time to win no matter the net gain or net loss in value: 1:1 removal like Bolt, Decay, StP, etc, Daze, Force of Will, Thoughtseize, and even Goblin Guide and Delver of Secrets could be considered Tempo cards. Attrition cards, on the other hand, gain value to win, no matter how much time it takes to set up. CounterTop, Deed, Lili and Jace 2.0, Batterskull, Cabal Therapy+Veteran Explorer, Mangara+Karakas, and Punishing Fire+Grove of the Burnwillows could be considered attrition cards/combos.

    As for how to classify the decks themselves . . . perhaps a ratio of tempo v attrition cards maybe? Kinda just rambling right now.

  5. #65

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "tempo" a borrowed term from chess? Why are we arguing about it's usage and definition when it has a clearly defined meaning already?

  6. #66

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    We aren't reinventing the wheel here. Tempo has a well established definition in Magic as well.

    It's simply decks that buy time. The classic example, as I said is Turn 1 Juggernaut/Juzam Djinn, T2 Strip Mine to rewind the game.

    Perhaps the most famous tempo deck of all time is Alan Comer's Miracle Grow: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x...gy/sb20020124b

    Literally, all he was doing was playing Dryad, and then using countermagic to slow the game while his creature grew larger, and killed the opponent before they could do anything about it.

    Dryad was literally the archetype for Tarmogoyf, and other tempo finishers that grow larger (like Delver, etc).

    My point is simple: Aggro-Control describes all tempo decks, and therefore there is no need for a separate category. The Aggro/Control/Combo trichotomy is more than adequate to describe any strategic orientation in Magic. We can use subcategories to further specify, like Prison as a form of Control. But "midrange" is utter bullshit to me. Mid-range is nothing more than another term for Aggro-Control that has beefier creatures, and is less likely to be blue-based.

  7. #67
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Smmenen View Post
    We aren't reinventing the wheel here. Tempo has a well established definition in Magic as well.

    It's simply decks that buy time. The classic example, as I said is Turn 1 Juggernaut/Juzam Djinn, T2 Strip Mine to rewind the game.

    Perhaps the most famous tempo deck of all time is Alan Comer's Miracle Grow: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x...gy/sb20020124b

    Literally, all he was doing was playing Dryad, and then using countermagic to slow the game while his creature grew larger, and killed the opponent before they could do anything about it.

    Dryad was literally the archetype for Tarmogoyf, and other tempo finishers that grow larger (like Delver, etc).

    My point is simple: Aggro-Control describes all tempo decks, and therefore there is no need for a separate category. The Aggro/Control/Combo trichotomy is more than adequate to describe any strategic orientation in Magic. We can use subcategories to further specify, like Prison as a form of Control. But "midrange" is utter bullshit to me. Mid-range is nothing more than another term for Aggro-Control that has beefier creatures, and is less likely to be blue-based.
    It still sounds to me like tempo is an effect of the plays the deck makes, instead of a describing factor of the deck. Any deck can generate tempo unless it can't interact with the opponent or their permanents... right?

    sent from phone, don't be a dick
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  8. #68

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    The way I've always viewed it is as follows:
    Tempo decks are typically agro-control decks who seek to completely overshadow their opponents on a tempo axis--keeping the game locked in virtual early turns while riding a cheap but not necessarily resilient threat to a win.
    Midrange decks are typically agro-control decks which seek to completely overshadow their opponents in terms of card advantage--resilient threats, card advantage, discard, and the like.
    Control decks are typically shells that seek to extend the game in time, surviving through CA and Tempo plays until their much more expensive and powerful spells can take over the game.
    Combo decks seek to avoid interaction on all of the aforementioned goals, instead seeking to end the game before their opponents can execute their gameplans and develop an overwhelming advantage on whatever axis they seek to exploit.

  9. #69
    banned

    Join Date

    Jul 2013
    Location

    black metal bed room
    Posts

    2,188

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by amalek0 View Post
    The way I've always viewed it is as follows:
    Tempo decks are typically agro-control decks who seek to completely overshadow their opponents on a tempo axis--keeping the game locked in virtual early turns while riding a cheap but not necessarily resilient threat to a win.
    Midrange decks are typically agro-control decks which seek to completely overshadow their opponents in terms of card advantage--resilient threats, card advantage, discard, and the like.
    And that's what Smmenen dislikes. We shouldn't call those decks tempo and midrange. It bothers him.

    Comm.: "Matt, I heard you like playing decks. Is that true?"
    Matt: "Well, it's because decks fit to my playstyle."
    Comm.: "And Dave? What kind of decks do you enjoy the best?"
    Dave: "I like decks, but I also like decks."

    I'm done with this thread. Thanks MGB for very good post, though.

  10. #70

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer View Post
    And that's what Smmenen dislikes. We shouldn't call those decks tempo and midrange. It bothers him.

    Comm.: "Matt, I heard you like playing decks. Is that true?"
    Matt: "Well, it's because decks fit to my playstyle."
    Comm.: "And Dave? What kind of decks do you enjoy the best?"
    Dave: "I like decks, but I also like decks."

    I'm done with this thread. Thanks MGB for very good post, though.
    Honestly, Get caught up on your "classic literature". The Theory of Everything by Zvi Moshowitz is a good read, especially if you consider WHEN he wrote it. MGB's post is a relatively accurate but not as elegant redux of things that have come before. I believe there's even a thread somewhere on these boards that compiled plenty of these theory articles, some of which did very, very thorough analysis of various strategies and systems for viewing tempo, card advantage, archetype presence, etc.

  11. #71

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer View Post
    And that's what Smmenen dislikes. We shouldn't call those decks tempo and midrange. It bothers him.

    Comm.: "Matt, I heard you like playing decks. Is that true?"
    Matt: "Well, it's because decks fit to my playstyle."
    Comm.: "And Dave? What kind of decks do you enjoy the best?"
    Dave: "I like decks, but I also like decks."

    I'm done with this thread. Thanks MGB for very good post, though.
    Come on. That's a bit over-the-top. Don't be a drama queen.

    I'm not bothered by the use of terminology or even classification systems.

    I'm simply pointing out that the attempts to distinguish Tempo and Midrange from Aggro-Control don't seem justifiable. Tempo decks, like Grow or Delver today, are Aggro-Control decks. Tempo is a mode that Aggro-Control plays when facing Control decks, among other strategies.

    I still have yet to have someone provide me with a clear, defensible definition of Midrange.

    As far as I can tell, Midrange came into parlance to distinguish slower, beefer Aggro-Control decks like The Rock or Jund from their blue-based brethren.

  12. #72
    Keep Calm and Brainstorm
    (nameless one)'s Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2009
    Location

    GTA, Ontario
    Posts

    2,878

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    I guess I am wrong in calling the title of the thread as such. Though what I am trying to achieve is to distinguish different playstyles that exist within a Magic metagame (not just in Legacy).

    I just want to know how to explain to someone who plays another card game. While to concept of Aggro/Control/Combo exists in other CCGs, the concept between Midrange and Tempo doesn't. It would be nice to teach someone the distinguishing factors between the two and where they fit in the metagaming spectrum.
    I am convinced that WotC is "dumbing" the game because of all the stupid posts they come across on MTG-related forums
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle View Post
    13NoVa plays Force of Will from his hand.
    Finglonger plays Spell Pierce from his hand.
    [10:22:43]  13NoVa: lol
    sure
    Finglonger points from his Dack Fayden to 13NoVa's Sol Ring.
    [10:23:04]  13NoVa: lol dumb ******; nice draws with retard.dec
    stupid cocksucker
    You have been kicked out of the game.

  13. #73
    It's not easy being green

    Join Date

    Jul 2010
    Posts

    1,635

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by (nameless one) View Post
    I guess I am wrong in calling the title of the thread as such. Though what I am trying to achieve is to distinguish different playstyles that exist within a Magic metagame (not just in Legacy).

    I just want to know how to explain to someone who plays another card game. While to concept of Aggro/Control/Combo exists in other CCGs, the concept between Midrange and Tempo doesn't. It would be nice to teach someone the distinguishing factors between the two and where they fit in the metagaming spectrum.
    From what little I understand of Netrunner thus far, tempo ~= Criminal and midrange ~= big rig Shaper are pretty OK analogies. First is very aggressive with a pretty bad long game but lots of tools to stunt opponent development for a short while. Second just builds a big board and goes over you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemnear
    (On Innistrad)
    Yeah, an insanely powerful block which put the "derp!" factor in Legacy completely over the top.

  14. #74

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Legacy decks are tougher to categorize than decks of other formats because the card pool is a lot more powerful and synergy therefore is less important for "fair" decks than in other formats. Context is extremely important. Plow Under was one of the most devestating Tempo plays ever, but the card is laughable in the context of Legacy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Smmenen View Post

    I'm simply pointing out that the attempts to distinguish Tempo and Midrange from Aggro-Control don't seem justifiable. Tempo decks, like Grow or Delver today, are Aggro-Control decks. Tempo is a mode that Aggro-Control plays when facing Control decks, among other strategies.

    I still have yet to have someone provide me with a clear, defensible definition of Midrange.

    As far as I can tell, Midrange came into parlance to distinguish slower, beefer Aggro-Control decks like The Rock or Jund from their blue-based brethren.
    You focus too much on similarities but not enough on differences. It is important to think about weaknesses of deck types to realize their feel instead of just looking at only the curve or the content. It is also important to keep in mind that decks might also blend different styles of cards. The difference between Tempo, Aggro-control, and Midrange is the (in)ability of winning once you got behind. Tempo decks try to have a more powerful start by playing more efficent cards and using mana better. Tempo decks need to be positioned to be faster than all the other decks in the meta or prepare with a sideboard against MU where they can not do this. Aggro-Control decks try to slow faster decks down and have a few tools to catch up to switch from a controling into an agressive role once they are in front at later stages of the game. Often Life can be spend as a buffer for board or tempo adavantage. Both Aggro-Control and Tempo can play overlaping cards and depending on MU might play very similar. Midrange has a very different make-up. Midrange focusses more on the beefy threat side. Midrange decks have enough clock and difficult to answer threats to beat controling decks by causing them to fail the apropriate answers and agressive decks by outbeefing them.

    Case in point: BUG decks in Legacy.
    Tempo BUG used to play a suite of Monguse/Confi/Goyf together with Daze/Force/Discard and the cantrip cartel. Today this is coined Team America.
    (Aggro-)Control BUG is playing without Delver and Daze but more planeswalkers and other lategame cards.
    Midrange BUG is called Shardless BUG. The decks lacks interaction for combo decks but tries to crush other fair decks with up to 7 PW, Baleful Strix, DRS, and Shardless Agent.

    Some decks are multi-facetted and can play more than one roll. This is especially true in Legacy with it's cheap and efficient creatures and counters. Differences are more pronounced in other formats.

    The Plow Under/Hermit deck from ~12 years ago is a clear cut tempo deck. You can see it because of the 4 Plow Unders. People switched to the monogreen version to RG just to have a way to interact when falling behind (and also to play Avalanch rider). Which moved the Angry Hermit closer to an Aggro-Control deck.

    Faeries is a wonderful example for an aggro-control deck.

    Thragtusk/Huntmaster/Liliana Jund from Innistrad Standard was a Midrange deck.

    Those decks also have a very different feel of play - so differentiating between those is in order (more so between Midrange and Aggro Control than between Tempo and Aggro-Control). There few decks that play Tempo well, but suck at the controlish side of aggro-control.

  15. #75
    banned

    Join Date

    Jul 2013
    Location

    black metal bed room
    Posts

    2,188

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Smmenen View Post
    I still have yet to have someone provide me with a clear, defensible definition of Midrange.

    As far as I can tell, Midrange came into parlance to distinguish slower, beefer Aggro-Control decks like The Rock or Jund from their blue-based brethren.
    That's wjhat I wrote for several times. And I still lack your answer to my (well, unspoken) question why is this any problem.
    Look, as long as people know what is midrange... oh, well, no. Sorry, simply no, not again.

    I wanted to write something about fundamental differencies between Rock-like and Gro-esque decks, about the fact that one is designed around tempo plays, while the other goes over the top with CA and CQ, I thought I'll write about the fact that people adopted the terms and they are clear for most of them, because they (the terms) paint a mental images of a particualar decks, I wanted to ask why you're so adamant about the Aggro-Control-Combo triangle when it clearly isn't anything else then a birdview of the game, I wanted to start a discussion on a fact that there's no real Aggro anymore and no Heavy Control anymore, and thus saying that some deck is Aggro-Control is too wide and so people adapted the Tempo-Midrange dichotomy, et cetera et cetera, but no, this has no meaning.
    You simply decided you dislike the terms, that's your choice, but I'll stay true to my original decision: there's nothing to discuss here, we're just running in circles, catch words and generally try to look wise when speaking of a childrens pictorial game.

  16. #76

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer View Post
    That's wjhat I wrote for several times. And I still lack your answer to my (well, unspoken) question why is this any problem..
    It's hard to answer questions that are unspoken.

    The reason its a problem is because Aggro-Control is a better classification for Midrange that preserves the useful trichtomy of Aggro/Control/Combo.

    Deck taxonomies are all folk taxonomies -- they aren't scientific classifications schemes (which, incidentally, aren't even necessarily that precise anyway (re: try to define "life" (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/13..._r=0&referrer=)).

    I find it problematic when people use Midrange as a classification when they really mean Aggro-Control, since Aggro-Control is easily comprehensible and already a widely used term. Calling something Midrange is not only unnecessary, but its obfuscatory and imprecise.

    The difference between Tempo, Aggro-control, and Midrange is the (in)ability of winning once you got behind.
    This is not at all persuasive. Grow, the quintessential tempo deck from Magic's history, could easily win from behind. It didn't need to start the game with tempo. It started buying tempo as soon as its creature resolved.

    What is the difference between Aggro-Control and tempo? Tempo is something that is generated by Aggro Control decks, and is generally Aggro-Control decks' game plan against Control decks: play a threat and use tempo cards to win the game (keeping them off balance) before the control deck's inevitability kicks in.

    Aggro-Control is an archetype strategy, whereas Tempo is a mode within that archetype AS WELL as something that is generated by specific plays.

  17. #77

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    I've always hated how Storm decks have come to be called "combo" decks. I feel that in a perfect deck taxonomy, "combo" would refer to decks like Aluren and Painted Stone that actually try to assemble a specific combination of cards. "Ramp" would refer to decks like Storm (ritual/artifact ramp), 12-Post (land ramp) and SnT ("put directly into play" ramp) that are really just trying to get around large mana costs.

  18. #78
    I'm Jewish!
    TheDarkshineKnight's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2006
    Location

    Arlington, Virginia
    Posts

    433

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    After reading the past few pages of discussion I started to think about which classifications are used with relative frequency. I eventually settled on the following nine: aggro, control, combo, aggro-control, prison, tempo, ramp, midrange, and combo-control. While there are others that are frequently used like Storm, Dredge, etc., they aren't able to be used in a generic sense like the ones I listed previously. Although, the community at large has taken to calling every non-reanimator graveyard-centric deck dredge in recent times...

    Anyhoo, it's pretty clear I think that it would be difficult to create a new and potentially more accurate taxonomic system without discussing in detail each of the nine generic categories. We need to define these concepts and determine in what ways they're similar and what ways they're different. Once we've done that, we'll have all of the information required to create a better taxonomy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinder View Post
    Now, how can you be sure it's rape when there's no way to tell if a barnacle is consenting or not? For all we know it was actually two first time lesbian barnacles who signed a release for the footage to be used in the newest installment of Barnacles Gone Wild: Seafoam Splash.

  19. #79
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarkshineKnight View Post
    Anyhoo, it's pretty clear I think that it would be difficult to create a new and potentially more accurate taxonomic system without discussing in detail each of the nine generic categories. We need to define these concepts and determine in what ways they're similar and what ways they're different. Once we've done that, we'll have all of the information required to create a better taxonomy.
    See I was thinking likewise. Just something that separates things into different classes and different methods of recognition.

    Like if you were going to build a key-value dictionary that describes a deck, like a JSON object or something. And it could borrow off of common metrics that are used to talk about decks, and you could borrow against any which aspect to describe the deck in a certain fashion.
    Code:
    deck = {
    	name: "White Weenie",
    	rps_rating: {
    		aggro: 5,
    		control: 2,
    		combo: 0
    	},
    	fundamental_turn: 3,
    	gets_tempo_by: "Sticks a threat and uses SFM to tutor for a silver-bullet equipment card that undermines the opponent's strategy",
    	staples: [
    		"Stoneforge Mystic",
    		"Thalia, Whatever Her Title Is",
    		"Mother of Runes",
    		"Mirran Crusader",
    		"Sword of Fire and Ice",
    		"Batterskull",
    		"Swords to Plowshares"
    	]
    }
    Like let's pretend I'm not way off base with my assessment of White Weenie's primary method of controlling the tempo of the game, and that really it does so by finding not only a motherfucker of a creature that already is hard for the opponent to take out (like Mirran Crusader vs a Rock deck or whatever) and then gives it dat SoFI to quickly end the game. So it doesn't matter if that's the *kind* of deck it is; we know that it uses such-and-such a mechanism to hold onto that tempo.

    Meanwhile a deck like -- if it were legal -- Food Chain Goblins, could have a higher "combo" rating because it can be both aggro and combo really effectively, but maybe is not as good at control because its flex spots are all dedicated to Food Chain garbage instead of randomly good Goblins, so it'd be imaginarily rated like
    Code:
    {
    aggro: 5,
    control: 1,
    combo: 3
    }
    I mean none of this *means anything*, this is just spouting useless ideas, but I just mean that a more evolved sensibility than just calling things stuff might be more useful. "Is this an aggro deck?" can be replaced by "how aggro is the deck?" and "is this a tempo deck?" can be replaced by "how does this deck generate tempo?" and on and on.

    And then there's other garbage to toss in to like the deck's alleged fundamental turn and good matchup vs. poor matchups, etc etc. But that's not really totally relevant to the point I'm making, which is that it's hard enough to just throw a deck into a classification system that doesn't allow for more discussion than something like a dichotomous key allows for. And maybe this is worse too, because there are intangibles, right -- what the hell does "aggro: 5" even mean? It's like reading the back of a Transformers box; Hot Rod has 8 Strength and 8 Wisdom and 4 Karma and all that junk. The hell good it does anyone, I have no idea.

    But really, there are aspects to this whole talk which sort of naturally confuse the issue between whether or not a deck is something or does something. That's why I find the assertion that certain decks 'are' tempo decks to be a little bit redundant or even just useless, because except in the broadest senses a deck's ability to generate tempo can be subverted by just playing on a totally different plane. That's the Burn argument; my opponent expected Miracles or StoneBlade or TNN-Agogo, and they got a deck full of basic Mountains and few if any creatures. Burn's tempo grab is based on the assumption that my opponent's tools become entirely irrelevant, so they can't interact in a real enough way to prevent me from casting 7 copies of Lightning Bolt. It's not what the deck is, it's what the deck does.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  20. #80

    Re: Deck Taxonomy

    Quote Originally Posted by TsumiBand View Post

    But really, there are aspects to this whole talk which sort of naturally confuse the issue between whether or not a deck is something or does something.

    Exactly. A problem which is further compounded by the fact that decks do more than one thing .

    Consider Aggro-Control. An Aggro-Control deck can play a tempo game against Control, but it can play a pure or nearly pure control role for a long time against Combo.

    In the combo matchup, it is the Control deck. In the control matchup, it is The Beatdown, to put it in "Who's The Beatdown?" Terms.

    I pointed this out in my first post in this thread, but people truly don't understand "Who's The Beatdown?" on several levels.

    First, they think it means that it defines a deck's strategic orientation in general. This is not true. Who's the Beatdown is a *purely * contextual question: it asks: IN THIS MATCHUP, what is my optimal role?

    Second, and this is even more subtle, "Who's the Beatdown?" was framed in a matchup of SIMILAR strategies, i.e. two aggro decks or two control decks.

    This second point is especially important because it clarifies that "who's the beatdown?" does NOT help you classify a deck or an archetype. Remember, it doesn't tell you who is a control deck among two control decks. It simply tells you which deck should play the control role in that matchup.


    've always hated how Storm decks have come to be called "combo" decks. I feel that in a perfect deck taxonomy, "combo" would refer to decks like Aluren and Painted Stone that actually try to assemble a specific combination of cards. "Ramp" would refer to decks like Storm (ritual/artifact ramp), 12-Post (land ramp) and SnT ("put directly into play" ramp) that are really just trying to get around large mana costs.
    I agree. It's a vestigal classification from the early game.

    Instead of ramp, you could call them Critical Mass combo decks. But, from an evolutionary perspective, those decks are the same as the Stroke decks and the Fireball decks before them.

    I always clarify that "combo" decks does not exclusively refer to particular combinations of cards to produce infinite mana (Ala Worldgorger Dragon + Animate Dead) or auto win (ala Time Vault + Voltaic Key + any threat), but that it encompasses decks that do not win with creature attack or decks that seek to thwart opponent's objectives via removal and permissinon (control).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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