All B/R update speculation.

[Crimhead]

Let me put it this way. While it's much worse than Burn, UB Mill (we're talking straight, all-in mill, i.e. Archive Trap and Glimpse the Unthinkable) follows the same basic strategy as Burn, it just attacks the number of cards in the library instead of life. Do you think that deck is aggro?

I almost forgot this post! I didn't feel right at first calling this aggro. This is the best argument I had heard, in that you had me sort f stumped (although I certainly wouldn't call such a deck combo).

Then I thought of this:
What if I build a deck full of creatures like Raven Guild Master, Mirko Vosk, Scalpelexis, Szadek, etc. Make a deck that has no real game plan other than playing these guys and turning them sideways (maybe a couple Glimpse type spells for extra "reach"; maybe something to take care of a blocker, a disenchant, or whatever is acceptable in aggro). This plays like a standard aggro deck in the way that your Glimpse deck plays like Burn. Are you going to call it combo? Are you going to decide that any deck of a similar style (swarm with creatures) is therefore also not aggro?

Infect aggro also doesn't win by causing life loss. It causes something else that also accumulates into lethal.

My point is that Burn is a deck that casts what's functionally the same spell 7 times and then wins. You can't really "block" things like Lightning Bolt and Price of Progress. Burn does run a few creatures...

Again it seems like you are ruling out spell based decks from the category we call aggro. If you consider creature combat an essential property of aggro by definition, we have to agree to disagree. Combo decks can be spell based or creature based. Control decks can be spell based or creature based. Why not aggro decks?

[Megadeus]

If we can call spell based decks like burn and infect aggro, can I also call TES and Belcher aggro when they gogoblins?

[Crimhead]

If we can call spell based decks like burn and infect aggro, can I also call TES and Belcher aggro when they gogoblins?

Fisrt of all Legacy Infect is Tempo - I was referring to a straight aggro build with strictly infect creatures.

Second, your missing my point, that being creature based or spell based is independent of being aggro, combo, or control. Combo decks like Storm and Belcher are based on cards which are ineffective unless combined with one another. Aggro decks like Burn and Zoo are based around individual sources of damage are not dependent on other spells deal their damage (though there might be some synergies as in Merfolk).

[Noctalor]

If we can call spell based decks like burn and infect aggro, can I also call TES and Belcher aggro when they gogoblins?

Is mono green stompy a combo?

Mono green stompy has:
- Creatures
- Pump spells

Infect has
- Creatures
- Pump spells
- Counters
- Cantrips

So infect is a combo because it hits harder?
Mono green is not a combo because it runs more creatures?

I think is dumb to make assumption like those above, i just call infect and burn aggro-combo, because they tend to have combo games (like a turn 2 for infect or a turn 3 for burn) but they also get to play as an aggro deck, generally only if some disruption is present.

TES in indeed a combo, even if you go for goblins you get close to the best goldfish a burn can get, also you have the "once you strike you have nothing left" aspect.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Then I thought of this:
What if I build a deck full of creatures like Raven Guild Master, Mirko Vosk, Scalpelexis, Szadek, etc.

Then don't forget to join our RG Wurms thread where we're discussing decks that you might like.
Also, we read Szadek as "zadek" and believe me, it's so much fun.

[Lord Seth]

Is mono green stompy a combo?

Mono green stompy has:
- Creatures
- Pump spells

Infect has
- Creatures
- Pump spells
- Counters
- Cantrips

So infect is a combo because it hits harder?
Mono green is not a combo because it runs more creatures?

What turns infect into combo (or at least some sort of aggro-combo or tempo-combo) is the fact that it doesn't stack with regular damage. You need to be playing a very particular subset of creatures, i.e. creatures with Infect, in order to win with it. You can hit for 9 Infect damage, and then if your Infect creature dies and you're left with Noble Hierarch, you have to start all over if you want to beat them by attacking with it.

If you've dealt enough damage with Monogreen Stompy, or any deck other than Infect that attacks with creatures, even the tiniest creature or point of damage can finish off the opponent. Not so with Infect. It's operating on a different axis.

And even if you reject the combo claim, it sure isn't aggro. It's very much tempo in its goal to use just one or two creatures to gain victory and protect them with counters.

[Lord Seth]

I almost forgot this post! I didn't feel right at first calling this aggro. This is the best argument I had heard, in that you had me sort f stumped (although I certainly wouldn't call such a deck combo).

Then I thought of this:
What if I build a deck full of creatures like Raven Guild Master, Mirko Vosk, Scalpelexis, Szadek, etc. Make a deck that has no real game plan other than playing these guys and turning them sideways (maybe a couple Glimpse type spells for extra "reach"; maybe something to take care of a blocker, a disenchant, or whatever is acceptable in aggro). This plays like a standard aggro deck in the way that your Glimpse deck plays like Burn. Are you going to call it combo?

Well, it's sure as heck not an aggro deck. If your creature's mana curve starts at 3 mana and you're running 7-drops, you're definitely not an aggro deck.

Infect aggro also doesn't win by causing life loss. It causes something else that also accumulates into lethal.

The reason it's hard to see Infect as actual aggro is its inability to stack with non-Infect creatures. Heck, the thing you were going on about with those mill creatures can still be played alongside regular attackers because they do deal damage.

Again it seems like you are ruling out spell based decks from the category we call aggro. If you consider creature combat an essential property of aggro by definition, we have to agree to disagree. Combo decks can be spell based or creature based. Control decks can be spell based or creature based. Why not aggro decks?

Because attacking with creatures is a fundamental part of aggro? You can "agree to disagree" all you want, but that's a key portion of an aggro deck.

Though again, even if one does consider Burn aggro, this doesn't do anything to dispute the fact that the aggro playstyle is not particularly available in Legacy because:
1) Burn isn't particularly viable (it can get a finish here and there but it's not really that common). So pointing to a Tier 2 deck (maybe lower, depends on how strictly you're defining tiers) as evidence of the archetype being available in Legacy seems weak. If you're going to do that with Legacy, you can't object to someone doing that with Modern and pointing to the archetypes you were claiming weren't around.

2) It really doesn't play like someone would expect an aggro deck to play due to everything being designed to go straight at the opponent's face rather than the general aggro strategy of using efficient creatures to push through damage on the board with any burn serving as backup. If the claim is that Legacy has so many play styles, then Burn still doesn't really show a case of the aggro playstyle because it plays out so differently and certainly feels far more akin to a combo deck. Now, I've argued that Death & Taxes is a control deck, and I stand by that, but if Miracles and Lands weren't around, I wouldn't try to point to it as an example of how the control playstyle is available in Legacy because it doesn't feel at all like one would expect a control deck to.

[Zombie]

I'd personally classify Infect as combo purely because of how explosive it can be - I mean, it can zero-to-death people pretty easily, and certainly do it after a couple hits from a 1/1. With that, I'd class something like the old monogreen Pauper deck as aggro-combo (it's basically a Stompy deck with few and bad creatures that can just end you) and Legacy UG Infect as tempo-combo. Main gameplan plus explosive power.

[maharis]

Summer of Miracles...

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...l=1#post901342

Hopefully Wizards accidentally printed Ancestral again in BFZ so we'll get another winter break.

[jrsthethird]

Summer of Miracles...

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...l=1#post901342

Hopefully Wizards accidentally printed Ancestral again in BFZ so we'll get another winter break.

"Landfall - Draw a card. If that land was an Island, draw three cards instead."

[ironclad8690]

Summer of Miracles...

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...l=1#post901342

Hopefully Wizards accidentally printed Ancestral again in BFZ so we'll get another winter break.

I wonder if Monastery Mentor is the reason for this boost. Sideboarding vs Miracles is much harder than it used to be.

[Admiral_Arzar]

Summer of Miracles...

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...l=1#post901342

Hopefully Wizards accidentally printed Ancestral again in BFZ so we'll get another winter break.

It's interesting how the meta seems to have adapted to Omni-tell but not to Miracles (last month they were at about the same penetration).

[iatee]

My theory is that omni is an underplayed deck relative to how strong it is because people would rather play more interesting / difficult decks. Miracles is maybe overplayed for the same reason, at least by a lot of people who would have higher win %s if they were just jamming Show and Tell -> Omniscience.

[Barook]

My theory is that omni is an underplayed deck relative to how strong it is because people would rather play more interesting / difficult decks. Miracles is maybe overplayed for the same reason, at least by a lot of people who would have higher win %s if they were just jamming Show and Tell -> Omniscience.

In the end, Legacy is still a hobby that should be fun. Winning can only take you that far if you hate evey second of the deck you play.

[Admiral_Arzar]

In the end, Legacy is still a hobby that should be fun. Winning can only take you that far if you hate evey second of the deck you play.

And that is why I stopped playing Omni-tell. That, and the deck just wasn't as good as it was hyped to be.

[iatee]

In the end, Legacy is still a hobby that should be fun. Winning can only take you that far if you hate evey second of the deck you play.

Yep. Also the first place prize is rarely going to be worth as much as you deck anyway. If there were higher stakes and more card availability, I think people would converge on t1 decks as fast as they do in other formats.

[SpoCk0nd0pe]

My theory is that omni is an underplayed deck relative to how strong it is because people would rather play more interesting / difficult decks. Miracles is maybe overplayed for the same reason, at least by a lot of people who would have higher win %s if they were just jamming Show and Tell -> Omniscience.

I wouldn't be surprised if that theory is right. There has been an in depth analysis on the strength Mystical Tutor Reanimator before Mystical Tutor got banned. It was really enlightening.
The kind of resilience Omnitell shows seems kind of familiar from Mystical Tutor decks. I wouldn't be surprised by a Dig Through Time ban. That would also hurt Miracles.

[Dice_Box]

Miracles was top dog before Dig, that's not going to change with a ban.

[iatee]

Yep that's a testament to how strong miracles is. It could arguably even help miracles overall as they wouldn't have to deal w/ everyone else's DTTs.

[Admiral_Arzar]

Yep that's a testament to how strong miracles is. It could arguably even help miracles overall as they wouldn't have to deal w/ everyone else's DTTs.

This. Miracles usually plays only 1-2 DTT, and has trouble with some of the other DTT-fueled decks (Grixis Control, sometimes Omni also). A DTT ban would likely strengthen Miracles simply by weakening some of its sketchier matchups (it might allow Shardless BUG back in the meta in a big way though, which wouldn't be great for Miracles).