Deck Taxonomy

[(nameless one)]

We all know about Aggro-Control-Combo but I feel this classification of decks and the debate that this arguement has outdated. Patrick Chapin tried update that classification with "Midrange" in mind but I also feel like there's something missing. It's hard to classify decks when deck shells can be interchangeable. But in order to ask "who's the beatdown?", classifications apply.

As of now, as I see it, the classifications are:

Aggro<Midrange<Combo<Control<Tempo

I put them in that order because:

Tempo usually beats Control and Combo
Control usually beats Combo and Midrange
Combo usually beats Midrange and Aggro
Midrange usually beats Aggro and Tempo
Aggro usually beats Tempo and Control

Defining Aggro, Control and Combo isn't hard but what makes a deck Midrange and Tempo?

Correct me if I'm wrong but Aggro become Midrange when part of the Aggro deck's card selection doesn't care abour how much damage a card can deal but how to help your aggressive strategy (Lightning Bolt vs Swords to Plowshares). At the same time, Tempo is a Control strategy with a clock. The question now is what makes the two different? How is UWr Patriot different from Jund?

Can there be a non blue tempo deck? It is possibly to have a blue-based/splash midrange deck.
What makes a Tempo deck tempo when the very definition of tempo is the pace of the game?

If Tempo is about who has board advantage then shouldn't Stax be classified as a Tempo deck? Why or why not?

[Megadeus]

While Stax cares about board position, it isn't tempo. You are missing Prison. Which I guess some classify as control, but it's not exactly the same. Tempo doesnt care about CA as much and just tries to eek out a win before a deck is able to stabilize. Prison negates your CA by just making your boardstate to the point where you just can't play magic. Sure you have 7 cards in hand vs their 1, but they are all 1 drops vs their chalice of the void.

[(nameless one)]

So a short way of explaining it based on cards:

Aggro - cares about damage per card (Burn/Zoo)
Combo - combination of cards that creates a winning state
Control - card ratio interaction, one card nullifying multiple cards on your opponent's side (which makes Prison control).

How would you explain Midrange vs Tempo then:

Midrange - your cards virtually becomes 2 cards?
Tempo - cards do not matter?

I get Daze and Force of Will are tempo cards (they don't care about your cards in hand and on the board as long as you slowed your opponent down. But when does a non blue shell/group of cards become tempo?

Does land destruction count as Tempo since your it's a trade between your card vs your opponent's development? What's a good non-blue Legacy tempo deck?

[Megadeus]

So a short way of explaining it based on cards:

Aggro - cares about damage per card (Burn/Zoo)
Combo - combination of cards that creates a winning state
Control - card ratio interaction, one card nullifying multiple cards on your opponent's side (which makes Prison control).

How would you explain Midrange vs Tempo then:

Midrange - your cards virtually becomes 2 cards?
Tempo - cards do not matter?

I get Daze and Force of Will are tempo cards (they don't care about your cards in hand and on the board as long as you slowed your opponent down. But when does a non blue shell/group of cards become tempo?

Does land destruction count as Tempo since your it's a trade between your card vs your opponent's development? What's a good non-blue Legacy tempo deck?

I'd say the old deadguy decks playing like 4x SInkhole/4x Vindicate (AKA STone rain :wink:) would be an example of non blue tempo. I think it exists less now than it used to. Especially since blue's tools for tempo decks are so good. You have 1 and 0 mana ways to destroy a land (STifle, waste), you have a 3 power flier on T1 that you can ride to victory, and you have cheap disruption. No non blue tools to play a "tempo" deck really can compete with that sort of efficiency.

[FTW]

I always thought the biggest distinction between aggro and midrange is that aggro needs to win in the early game while midrange prefers to win in the midgame. At least in other formats where midrange is more of a thing, though both are creature-based, midrange typically has a higher curve and bigger dudes than aggro. Or in the case of UWR in Modern, has a slower clock and is willing to wait to set up a win while aggro isn't.

Tempo also cares less about damage output and usually tries to win a bit later than aggro does. But I think the big distinction between tempo and midrange is that tempo runs few threats and tends to run a very low curve, favoring the most efficient 0cc and 1cc and 2cc spells. This allows them to pressure the opposing manabase and trade cheap spells with higher cc spells, giving them a tempo advantage. It's a game plan centred around resources, as opposed to damage output (aggro) or board presence (midrange).

EDIT: Yeah, Deadguy is a great example of this in non-blue, with lots of LD and then efficient 1-2cc spells.

IMO, Patriot and Stoneblade decks are midrange. Like Jund. Stoneforge+TNN+blade is too mana-intensive and non-interactive a strategy to really count as tempo. Decks that dig up Batterskull against attacking creatures are taking a control role, trying to stabilize board presence.

But really, I think in Legacy the taxonomy centres around

Brainstorm > non-Brainstorm

[rufus]

We all know about Aggro-Control-Combo but I feel this classification of decks and the debate that this arguement has outdated. Patrick Chapin tried update that classification with "Midrange" in mind but I also feel like there's something missing. It's hard to classify decks when deck shells can be interchangeable...

It seems like those are more like x-y-z dimensions, and less individual categories.
Combo elements are ones that try to end the game in a single turn.
Aggro elements are ones that end the game over the course of multiple turns.
Control elements are ones that don't move game forward, but hinder your opponent.

None of this is pure. Many strong cards will do things in more than one of these categories: Magus of the Moon can stop your opponent and also help you grind away life. Pact of Negation can win the game for you with Hive Mind or counter a key spell your opponent is casting. Goblin Ringleader can usefully swing and also be a component in game-ending turns.

Another way to think of it might be:
Aggro cares about card advantage.
Combo cares about card quality.
Control cares about the stack or the board.

[btm10]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Aggro becomes Midrange when part of the Aggro deck's card selection doesn't care about how much damage a card can deal but how to help your aggressive strategy (Lightning Bolt vs Swords to Plowshares). At the same time, Tempo is a Control strategy with a clock. The question now is what makes the two different? How is UWr Patriot different from Jund?

Can there be a non blue tempo deck? It is possibly to have a blue-based/splash midrange deck.


I think that "control deck with a clock" is a bit too simple a description of what tempo strategies are shooting for. Like Megadeus said, a tempo deck wants to stop you from establishing your game just long enough to kill you. The older name of "aggro-control" is actually a lot more descriptive because the deck construction philosophy is far closer to that of an aggro deck: run the most efficient threats (i.e., the creatures with the highest power-to-mana cost ratio), minimize the number of mana sources you run (to maximize the number of live draws), and keep your curve low so you can make do with your limited manabase. The control elements are there principally to protect your threats and to stop you from rolling over to combo like straight aggro strategies usually do, and everything is held together with cantrips. The strategy evolved in combo heavy formats like Extended and Vintage between 2002 and 2004, specifically because the combination of a reasonably fast clock and just enough countermagic and disruption (frequently just Force, Daze, and Null Rod) could stall combo like control while keeping control off balance long enough to win like an aggro deck. I think that if combo were to disappear, much of the incentive to play a tempo strategy over a pure aggro strategy would disappear also.

In short, tempo is what aggro becomes when it needs to fight against combo. As a result, I find it unlikely that a non-blue-based tempo deck can be built because the appropriate disruption just won't be there. BUG Delver/Team America is the closest thing I've seen to non-blue-based tempo deck (it's probably best described as equal parts blue and black), and it's more of a tempo-midrange deck because it runs more lands to support cards like Liliana of the Veil and is sometimes willing to run incremental advantage cards like Sylvan Library and small threats like Dark Confidant that a "pure" aggro-control strategy like RUG Delver wouldn't consider because they don't kill the opponent quickly.

I think midrange is better thought of as a control deck that is willing to play for an incremental advantage and win from there rather than going all-in on inevitability. It's far closer to your "control deck with a clock" than tempo, IMO.

[Finn]

Interesting topic. I don't know that there is a clean answer, though I did like Chapins categories they included "unfair" and "fair". I also like FTWs idea that tempo is what happens to aggro when it is adapted to beat combo.

I suspect that almost all Legacy decks have undergone this metamorphosis because the format is so powerful. That is - Legacy decks play two roles at once. This makes them devilishly difficult to pigeonhole.

[Megadeus]

I agree. In a format such as legacy where you probably have a roughly 33% chance of playing vs a combo deck, the notion of a full blown aggro deck that has 0 way to profitably interact with combo is hilarious.

[FTW]

I agree. In a format such as legacy where you probably have a roughly 33% chance of playing vs a combo deck, the notion of a full blown aggro deck that has 0 way to profitably interact with combo is hilarious.

True. I guess most decks other than combo and pure control and pure prison take on 2 roles. RUG can be seen as aggro morphing to add control elements to beat combo. D&T can be seen as aggro morphing to add prison elements to beat combo. Most other UWx decks seem like control splashing aggro elements to have a clock. Too easy to mix everything together in Legacy.

[Megadeus]

Yeah this isn't standard where you either have a deck full of spells to draw, kill, and counter like UWx control, a deck with lots of men, like the Montrous decks, and the aggro decks like RW Burn. There is more depth, and since there are more high impact cards, every deck sacrifices a bit of their speed or whatever in order to have a chance at interacting.

[Zombie]

I like the circle of predation concept a lot myself:
http://www.gatheringmagic.com/sculpting-formats-circle-predation/
http://www.gatheringmagic.com/circle-predation-part-2-indepth/

[ironclad8690]

I like the circle of predation concept a lot myself:
http://www.gatheringmagic.com/sculpting-formats-circle-predation/
http://www.gatheringmagic.com/circle-predation-part-2-indepth/

I just read this for the first time and it makes so much more sense than the "metagame wheel". A great read.

[Zombie]

I just read this for the first time and it makes so much more sense than the "metagame wheel". A great read.

Yeah, dunno why it's not quoted more. It's much better at dissecting the nature of formats than most any metagame wheel I've ever seen - excepting format-specific ones like the Midrange > Tempo > Combo > Midrange wheel that used to define and describe Legacy pretty well before That Damn Fish.

[TheArchitect]

I have always thought of tempo as basically being an aggro deck is still trying to win when the opponent is (effectively) on turn 4, but instead of winning on actual turn 4, it just slows the opponent's game down enough that they never really get an early game, and they lose by the time they start to stabilize (and look like they are on like turn 4). The trade off is basically just aggro that is making a concession to combo decks that isn't terrible against non-combo decks too.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

I think that...
Very good post!

I think about tempo decks as an aggro that decided to not get beaten by bigger classmates (be it combo or dedicated board control) anymore, thus it trained and raised muscles (Daze, Foil, FoW) to stop anything ugly, be it Ill-Gotten Gains or Wrath of God. But for quite a long time I did not realize how much is tempo (of all the possible deck types) designed to work only in a certain metagame. Combo may win anywhere, there are creatures to kill and spells to counter for any control deck in any format, and turning dudes sideways, the fundamental principle of aggro, is one of the main principle of the whole game. So I guess these three deck types may thrive in any field. Tempo, however, seems to be limited to a developed metagame and of course: a developed format. One can't build a real tempo from Homelands draft; otoh, everyone who remembers any decks with Serendib/Frenetic Efreets and Bolts/Incinerates should admit that Tempo is a pretty old concept.

My favourite tempo deck of all the times is Ice Age ─ Weatherlight TypeII 5CG.dec that had every tempo tool possible: inexpensive and resilient beaters (River Boa, Whirling Dervish), cheap removal (Terror, Swords to Plowshares) with some of it working as reach (Incinerate, Granger Guildmage), permission tools to stop Wrath, Disc, Prosperity or w/e (Memory Lapse, Uktabi Orangutan, Pyroblast) and several ways how to keep game in early stages, be it Winter Orb or Armageddon. It's miserably outdated today, but (as I already wrote, IIRC), it was the deck I took to my second T1,5 tournament back in 2005/6 (after the one that I attended with an awfully built Marogeddon sometime in early 2000's went really really bad) and it lead me to a Top8 finish, so I simply MUST like it.
/old age babble

[FTW]

I really like this circle of predation. Surprised it's not used more.

It helps classify Legacy decks beyond "runs Brainstorm + FoW", since different variations of tempo can fit in different places in the wheel.

RUG Delver would be 1-drop+"the counterspell"
BUG Delver would also be 1-drop + "the counterspell" (which explains the few copies of Liliana, progression towards dropping slower stuff for lower cc slots)
Patriot is "the counterspell" + some weird hybrid of 1-drop/big spell (T1 Delver makes it play like the 1-drop, SFM-> Batterskull/TNN makes it play like the big spell)
Esper Stoneblade/Deathblade is the "the counterspell" + incremental card advantage
Shardless BUG would be "the counterspell" + Incremental card advantage
Miracles is "the counterspell" + incremental card advantage (CounterTop is virtual CA; Top+Terminus and Jace generate actual CA)

Punishing Jund (and Punishing Lands) seems like a classic incremental card advantage deck
Goblins is the 1-drop+incremental card advantage
I'm at a loss for Death & Taxes.

It also splits up combo pretty well.
"turn 1" decks are basically the 1-drop applied to combo. try to stick a threat on turn 1 and ride to victory.
Reanimator is the 1-drop + the counterspell . stick an early threat and protect.
SneakShow is the big spell + the counterspell. fundamentally slower, but often dropping scarier threats.
TES/ANT are the big spell. sculpting to generate storm count is like the combo-equivalent of ramp.

[ironclad8690]

I'm at a loss for Death & Taxes.


Would death and taxes also be 1 drop and incremental advantage style deck? Rather than having true card advantage, it builds up inevitability through many small lasting effects.

[maharis]

Midrange - your cards virtually becomes 2 cards?

I like this point about midrange a lot. All of the best midrange cards threaten this: Liliana, Lingering Souls, SFM, DRS, Bob, BBE, Hymn. Even a card like Zealous Persecution has that quality: pick off your TNN, my Souls tokens smack in for 8, all with one card.

[cartothemax]

My definition of tempo was always trumping your opponents early turns with superior cards in the early game while also disrupting their plan and "keeping" your opponent in the early stages of a game or forcing opponents into situations where they need to make unorthodox plays just to survive.

Because in a vacuum Delver of Secrets is arguably the best one drop creature card, but when you look at the other creatures in context to one another this can be debatable. The point of a Tempo strategy is to remove that context from the game. For example: I play Delver, they play Wirewood Symbiote. I blind flip and attack for three, Waste the land, and Stifle a fetch. Maybe on turn three they play another one drop, but it still will not be better then my T1 play of Delver. By limiting your progress in the game I am keeping you in the early stages to ensure that all of my plays are more powerful in that moment because I ensure that we don't get beyond the early stages of the game with "tempo" plays.

That's why decks that are resilient enough to actually get into the mid/late stages of a game do so well against tempo strategies. When a game progresses to those points the cards you are laying down are much better then the tools available to Tempo decks. Good examples in Legacy are Batterskull, True Name, Knight, Jace, and Entreat the Angels.

In Legacy though the strongest cards for this are (of course) blue. Not to mention that a little bogey man of combo exists that a tempo deck needs to calculate into its plan. I think that it is the strength of counter spells in the lens of a tempo strategy that makes tempo as we know it today so strong against combo.

This is where I got a lot of my ideas from -> Mike Flores' Tempo Definition (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/fundamentals/7249_Magic_University_Tempo_is_Really_Interesting.html)

Feel free to share your opinions if you think I am describing something wrong or thinking about it incorrectly.

Now I have trouble thinking of "tempo" plays beyond land destruction. What other examples exist? Making an opponent replay a card I think is one, but what else? And do other types of plays that generate tempo matter?

[TsumiBand]

My definition of tempo was always trumping your opponents early turns with superior cards in the early game while also disrupting their plan and "keeping" your opponent in the early stages of a game or forcing opponents into situations where they need to make unorthodox plays just to survive.

Something like that right?

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.

[Richard Cheese]

Would death and taxes also be 1 drop and incremental advantage style deck? Rather than having true card advantage, it builds up inevitability through many small lasting effects.

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.

[Smmenen]

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/26620_Next-Level-Deckbuilding-Sneak-Peak-The-Sixteen-Archetypes-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.

[Julian23]

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?".

[Smmenen]

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.

[Julian23]

It doesn't tell you what a deck's general strategy is.

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.

[HSCK]

I've always used this to classify decks: https://www.wizards.com/sideboard/article.asp?x=sb20010607a

Granted it could use an update but is a bit better as far as descriptions go.

[Illusions]

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.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

My definition of tempo was always trumping your opponents early turns with superior cards in the early game while also disrupting their plan and "keeping" your opponent in the early stages of a game or forcing opponents into situations where they need to make unorthodox plays just to survive.

...

Feel free to share your opinions if you think I am describing something wrong or thinking about it incorrectly.

Now I have trouble thinking of "tempo" plays beyond land destruction. What other examples exist? Making an opponent replay a card I think is one, but what else? And do other types of plays that generate tempo matter?
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? :smile:



1) The title of this thread is misleading. This isn't about "deck" taxonomy, so much as it is "strategy" or "archtype" taxonomy.

2) I confess I bought Chapin's latest book to understand how he classifies strategies. A free excerpt is here: http://www.starcitygames.com/article/26620_Next-Level-Deckbuilding-Sneak-Peak-The-Sixteen-Archetypes-Of-Magic.html

3) 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.

4) I still do not understand what Mid-range is. I've asked experts. I don't see how it is different from Aggro-Control.

5) Edit: All tempo decks are Aggro-Control, are they not? Not all Aggro-Control decks are tempo, however.

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.

[mishima_kazuya]

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.

[Zombie]

Speaking of color pie, tempo plays/tools/cards are (mostly) distributed like this:
- green: well, cheap dudes?


http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=240027&type=card

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.

[TsumiBand]

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

[Zombie]

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

[TsumiBand]

dingdingding

Oh shit you got me good you fucker

http://076dd0a50e0c1255009e-bd4b8aabaca29897bc751dfaf75b290c.r40.cf1.rackcdn.com/images/files/000/948/872/original/original.jpg

[Illusions]

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.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

@ 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.

[TheDarkshineKnight]

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.

[Smmenen]

Very good points.
ad 4: Mid-range is Aggro-Control without tempo tools. I

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.



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 .

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.

[MGB]

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

[Bed Decks Palyer]

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.
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.

[Smmenen]

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.

[Smmenen]

I wrote an article on tempo 10 years ago that defined tempo pretty clearly: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/fundamentals/7601_Tempo_IS_Interesting.html\

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

[Megadeus]

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.

[Smmenen]

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).

[Megadeus]

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.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

I wrote an article on tempo 10 years ago that defined tempo pretty clearly: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/fundamentals/7601_Tempo_IS_Interesting.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.

[Megadeus]

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.

[Smmenen]

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.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

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? :rolleyes:
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.



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.

[Smmenen]

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?

[Bed Decks Palyer]

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."

[Smmenen]

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.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

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.

[Illusions]

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.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

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).

[Megadeus]

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).

[Bed Decks Palyer]

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.

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.



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.

[MGB]

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.

[Tea]

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.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

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.

[TsumiBand]

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.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

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:

Control Decks and Midrange Decks, maybe Tempodecks if the don't run Lightning Bolts.
:tongue:

[TsumiBand]

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:

:tongue:

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.

[EpicLevelCommoner]

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.

[HammerAndSickled]

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?

[Smmenen]

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=sideboard/strategy/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.

[TsumiBand]

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=sideboard/strategy/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

[amalek0]

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.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

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.

[amalek0]

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.

[Smmenen]

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.

[(nameless one)]

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.

[Zombie]

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.

[marax]

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.





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.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

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.

[Smmenen]

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/opinion/why-nothing-is-truly-alive.html?_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.

[ukyo_rulz]

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.

[TheDarkshineKnight]

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.

[TsumiBand]

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.


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


{
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.

[Smmenen]

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).

[MGB]

If you want to classify decks, it seems that the most common starting point is by win condition. There are lots of ways to classify decks, but most people gravitate toward this one.

I like to view decks win conditions as a binary category: Accrued vs. Non-Accrued. By this I mean: does the deck most want to fulfill its win condition(s) over the course of multiple turns or in one turn? Which is the *primary* mode of victory (i.e. which happens most frequently)? And which of the four (Life total, Poison Threshold, Cards in Deck, Explicit "You Win" effect) objectives is this deck seeking to satisfy to win the game?

For example, I would classify Storm combo as a Non-Accrued Life Depletion deck. In most cases (98%+) it wins by depleting opponent's life total with a Tendrils of Agony in one turn. Or it will generate a ton of Goblin tokens and win in one attack phase (maybe 85% for this win condition, and maybe 90% in two turns or less). It *sometimes* wins over the course of multiple Tendrils or multiple attack phases, but by far the most common pattern of winning with this deck involves a single burst of life depletion.

Any "aggro" deck is an Accrued Life Depletion deck. You win, typically, over the course of multiple turns through combat damage and/or burn.

Any "mill" deck (non-competitive but for the sake of argument) is an Accrued Deck Depletion deck. It treats decks in the library in the same way that an aggro deck treats opponent's life total. A combo deck like Imperial Painter, however, is a Non-Accrued Deck Depletion deck. Instead of incremental milling, it is done in one shot. Occasionally that type of deck will win through the attack phase, but the primary goal is a single activation of Grindstone.

Control decks like Miracles are trickier to classify because they can win through Jace ultimate, or through Snapcaster / Batterskull / Clique attacks. The more heavily controllish builds I like to classify as primarily Non-Accrued Deck Depletion / Life Depletion because the main goal is to either build toward Jace ultimate and win in one turn, or to build toward a massive Entreat the Angels and win in one attack. The important thing to note here is that the natural mode of the deck is to win in this manner. A control deck doesn't *want* to win through a steady attrition of opponent's life total. A control deck wants to know that the game is won through control of resources / board state and that actual winning is a formality. In this respect, the desire of the deck is a Non-Accrued win condition even if in practice it has to attack for 3-4 turns to formally seal the victory.

Of course, there must be other categories by which we can classify decks, such as whether or not they are active or reactive in regard to secondary resources like Card Presence and Tempo Presence... but the first category by which I would classify them is through their win condition, and in this manner.

[Smmenen]

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.
l

The way that I deal with those distinction is simple. In my Gush book I distinguish between four different types of cards that constitute The Plan:

1) Ultimate strategic objectives (Finishers)
2) Interim or intermediate strategies objectives
3) tactics
4) mana resources

ultimate strategic objectives are the cards that satisfy the conditions established by Rule 104 for winning the game. Intermediate strategic objectives are the ones that most decks pursue, to the extent that they aren't actually the win conditions themselves. Tactics are the resources you use to support your strategic objectives and disrupt the opponent's pursuit of their own.

Categories 1 would correlate to your "primary" objectives, and 2-4 woudl be "secondary" in your rubric.


If you want to classify decks, it seems that the most common starting point is by win condition.

I disagree with this. Many decks can share win conditions, but that doesn't tell you about their strategy. For example, Control and combo decks in Vintage may use Tendrils of Agony. But the combo deck may use Tendrils aggressively, whereas the Grow deck uses Tendrils as a secondary win condition. That really doesn't tell you anything about how central it is to their game plan.



active or reactive i

I don't believe active and reactive is a tenable distinction, when closely inspected.

[MGB]

I disagree with this. Many decks can share win conditions, but that doesn't tell you about their strategy. For example, Control and combo decks in Vintage may use Tendrils of Agony. But the combo deck may use Tendrils aggressively, whereas the Grow deck uses Tendrils as a secondary win condition. That really doesn't tell you anything about how central it is to their game plan.


I agree that a more fine-grained definition is necessary beyond simply categorizing win condition, but I believe it to be a good starting point. Eventually, I want to develop a system that categorizes a deck with regard to its approach to both Primary and Secondary resources (i.e. Accrued Life / Active Tempo Presence / Reactive+Active Card Presence).

Also, I disagree with you regarding your statement that Win Condition classification "doesn't tell you about their strategy". You are saying it yourself that the combo deck uses Tendrils aggressively, while the Grow deck uses Tendrils as a secondary win condition. That tells you quite a bit about their strategies. The Combo deck is first and foremost a non-Accrued Life Depletion deck. In my system, I categorize by what the deck wishes to do in an ideal winning scenario. Every deck can have a secondary win condition, but what differentiates most decks is the primary goal. And the primary goal informs the entirety of the rest of the deck. All other card choices are filtered through the lens of the primary objective. If Tendrils was merely a secondary goal of the Combo deck, more cards would be devoted to support of satisfaction of a more Accrued Life Depletion game, and thus the deck would take on a different character maybe featuring more Dark Confidants and other creatures, and would thus be shifted in its taxonomic status.




I don't believe active and reactive is a tenable distinction, when closely inspected.

How else can we make a distinction between a card like Thalia, Guardian of Thraben... and a card like Nightscape Familiar? Both affect tempo in a similar manner, but one does it while interacting with the opponent's pool of tempo, and the other does it while interacting with its controllers'. Is there no way at all to make a meaningful distinction between these two cards? Can you suggest something better to label these distinctions when discussing cards?

[TsumiBand]

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.

Yeah, that. This is probably why I favor guys and burn or aggro-control and why I've long loved Legacy for permitting (whether falsely or correctly permitting is up for debate I suppose) aggo-control strategies to flourish. While people were still arguing that the only good creature decks in Vintage were Fish and UR Fish, Legacy had this whole range of decks from Goblins to Madness to Zoo to Angel Stompy that had all these moving parts that could end the game or control the game in different ways. It's not *easy* to play strict control with something on a par with, like, RG Kird Ape beats, but I love it for that - if push comes to shove the deck does not have to be 'the beatdown'.

Do people really get perplexed by the concept of WtB? I thought it was clear as day; you can ask it on a per-match, per-game, per-turn basis. And you should do, in particular when playing Guys and Burn Spells; you probably don't have robust draw at your command, so each spell matters a ton - if you're not racing when you should be, you're fucked. And if you're trying to play first-to-zero when you should be playing the attrition game, you're fucked. The tools are simple, but the decisions are more complex than that. I think that's why I have a difficult time accepting tempo as anything but a residue of design and potential for interaction, because as a Guys and Burn deck will quickly point out to its pilot, not being able to play stack games sucks - no wonder RUG is a thing right? Burn + Counters + Guys = ways of generating tempo in every major zone in the game.

[HammerAndSickled]

Classifying decks by their method of winning seems asinine. Functionally, in a game where your opponent is playing combo, it really doesn't matter whether you're dying to Tendrils or Brain Freeze or some Omniscience bullshit or whatever: the fact is the method of interacting with all of those decks is 90% the same (counterspells, discard, maybe some Stax effects, mana disruption) and it does not matter in most cases how you actually die. Similarly, losing to control is the same no matter how they actually win. A Jace ultimate or Snapcaster attacks are fundamentally identical, because both mean that you were locked out of the game and any win condition would have been identical. Once you have countertop assembled and the board is clear you could usually win with a Rainbow Efreet. Entreat the Angels flips the script a bit, though, because sometimes they can win from an otherwise losing board state by just sticking an Entreat. This is where your distinction between accrued and non-accrued actually matters: there are probably decks that can win a fair game with Miracles but cannot beat a sizable end step 5 point Entreat, because there is a functional difference between grinding and winning in one overwhelming sweep. But if the entreat had been some hypothetical mill spell or poison spell or even a burn effect, it's not functionally different in most games HOW they actually kill you.

My main deck is Lands, and I play the prison build of Lands. My win conditions are Jace ultimate, Creeping Tar Pit, Dark Depths combo, and recurring an artifact with Academy Ruins so I can't lose to decking. But really, how I win every game is with prison tactics and mana denial. Most of my games end when I establish Ghost Quarter lock or Chasm lock or even just a few wastes and ports. The actual win method rarely matters.

[MGB]

Classifying decks by their method of winning seems asinine. Functionally, in a game where your opponent is playing combo, it really doesn't matter whether you're dying to Tendrils or Brain Freeze or some Omniscience bullshit or whatever: the fact is the method of interacting with all of those decks is 90% the same (counterspells, discard, maybe some Stax effects, mana disruption) and it does not matter in most cases how you actually die.

That's exactly why classifying decks by "Accrued" or "Non-Accrued" win condition *is* illuminating - all of the combo decks you mentioned are trying to win in one turn, and the majority of their deck construction is designed to support that kind of win. By saying they are "non-Accrued" we instantly know that the design will likely feature a centralized plan to amass overwhelming play presence on a single critical turn, while when we say "accrued" we know instantly that the deck is likely de-centralized and full of redundant individual parts.

By bringing up Tendrils / Brain Freeze / Omniscience you are just reinforcing how clear and simple this classification can be.



Similarly, losing to control is the same no matter how they actually win. A Jace ultimate or Snapcaster attacks are fundamentally identical, because both mean that you were locked out of the game and any win condition would have been identical. Once you have countertop assembled and the board is clear you could usually win with a Rainbow Efreet. Entreat the Angels flips the script a bit, though, because sometimes they can win from an otherwise losing board state by just sticking an Entreat. This is where your distinction between accrued and non-accrued actually matters: there are probably decks that can win a fair game with Miracles but cannot beat a sizable end step 5 point Entreat, because there is a functional difference between grinding and winning in one overwhelming sweep. But if the entreat had been some hypothetical mill spell or poison spell or even a burn effect, it's not functionally different in most games HOW they actually kill you.

My main deck is Lands, and I play the prison build of Lands. My win conditions are Jace ultimate, Creeping Tar Pit, Dark Depths combo, and recurring an artifact with Academy Ruins so I can't lose to decking. But really, how I win every game is with prison tactics and mana denial. Most of my games end when I establish Ghost Quarter lock or Chasm lock or even just a few wastes and ports. The actual win method rarely matters.

That's why when we classify control we also use the term "Non-Accrued"... because the incremental gains made by control decks are not the kind that a deck chipping away at life total is making. Most incrememental gains the control deck is making is in the realm of Card and Tempo presence. The win condition, like in combo, is ideally a combo kill, but can sometimes be a manland attacking. But what does the control *want* to do? It wants to establish control of the board and making the actual process of winning a foregone conclusion. Thus, the ideal state for the control deck is to have a Non-Accrued win condition.

In a deck like Miracles, ideally they want the same thing. Just because some games are won with multiple attacks of Snapcaster or Entreat tokens doesn't change the fundamental goal of the deck - to make the actual process of formalizing the win a formality.

[HammerAndSickled]

You misunderstand: I actually like the concept of accrued/non-accrued advantage. My point with Entreat was to illustrate that there is a real difference in play between the two styles. I just think that classifying it as life depletion/deck depletion is utterly meaningless. It doesn't change how the deck plays at all. You're saying nothing meaningful about a deck by saying how it actually closes the game.

[TsumiBand]

You misunderstand: I actually like the concept of accrued/non-accrued advantage. My point with Entreat was to illustrate that there is a real difference in play between the two styles. I just think that classifying it as life depletion/deck depletion is utterly meaningless. It doesn't change how the deck plays at all. You're saying nothing meaningful about a deck by saying how it actually closes the game.

I think it's got potential as a way to describe a rudimentary counter-strategy, but that's definition by inference I guess.

Like, as a surface level observation - life loss in increments can be addressed by incremental life gain. Exalted Angel vs. a 7/7, both swinging for the opponent's life totals, is a win for the Angel player, not the 7/7. It's dead simple math:
Player A@20 life: attack for 7 (opp 13)
B@13: a4 (opp 16, self 17)
A@16: a7 (opp 10)
B@10: a4 (opp 12, self 14)
A@12: a7 (opp 7)
B@14: a4 (opp 8, self 11)
A@8: a7 (opp 4)
B@4: a4 (opp 4, self 8)
A@4: a7 (opp 1)
B@1: a4 (opp 0). Win.

It's interesting, actually, because it isn't always enough to say 'aggro loses to X', because in the above situation, Exalted Angel wins out over time. Decks like Goblins or Elves! might take the 'burst' route and nix that line of play, but their ability to do so shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether or not the deck *is* aggro or combo. Any given aggro deck can swing for a player's entire starting life total if left unanswered. It isn't their primary means to an end, but it exists within the realm of occurrence.

Also, not trying to horn in on anyone's nomenclature but IMHO Incremental is more intuitive than Accrued, and an antonym would be better than the 'non-' prefix, but I'm not a technical writer or anything. :)

sent from phone, don't be a dick