[Article] The Difference Between Aggro and Combo

[Tempe]

Enjoy!

--Tempe

[Rico Suave]

I always classified decks like this:

Aggro targets the opponent.
Control targets the opponent's cards.
Combo targets the other cards in it's own deck.

Sligh has Jackal Pup to beatdown, and direct damage to the dome.  That's aggro, by definition.  FCG, on the other hand, has Food Chain to target it's own goblins.  That is inherently combo, although it can resort to simple beatdown so it is aggro-combo.

Mask must use Illusionary Mask on it's Dreadnought, but it beats down so it's aggro-combo.  

Keeper is control, since it uses Wastes, StP, counters, etc.  Tog has a boatload of card-drawing and Cunning Wish-->Zerk on it's own Tog, giving it a combo aspect to go with the control cards.

Technically, you could call Tendrils aggro since it targets the opponent, but to get to that point you must have had your tutors on your own cards, Rituals on your own cards, draw-7's on an immensely large scale to draw more of your own cards, etc.  To get to the point of Tendrils working, you must be combo.

Slaver does a lot of things.  It is aggro in that it can just beatdown with large men, it is control in that it will occassionally counter/steal your opponent's cards, and it is combo in that you can target your own Mindslaver with Welders for a lock.

Prison is a bit harder to describe, but it basically attempts to target everyone's cards at the same time but somehow gets around the symmetrical nature of it.

Hopefully this makes sense.

[Tempe]

Thats a very interesting take on it, and in my follow-up, I'll definitely have to include it, somewhere. Likely, it could turn out to be another "test" to determine where the deck falls.

As a note, the follow-up article will include many more examples of exceptions and different uses of these tests, and a larger explanation of the difference between synergy and straight combo. Please chime in with more ideas if you have them. Thanks.

--Tempe

[Klep]

To be honest, this entire article seemed mostly like a re-hash of the old three-axis metagame concept, which was valid a few years ago but is now obsolete.  You would be far better served looking at things in terms of the metagame clock or smennen's five-axis metagame, which are much more accurate and elaborate descriptions of the way things are today.   While you applied the theory quite well and clearly understand it, Magic theory has since progressed past 2001 and there are now better descriptions of the way things work.

[Methuselahn]

Hey, nice read zach.

I think this article is great for it's intended audience. (starcity)  The article seems to cover the basics, which a surprising majority of vintage players in general aren't familiar with.  It doesn't go into heavy specifics which Menendian's articles do, but his articles assume the allusion that the reader is more attuned to Vintage.  So good job, I'm not sure it is necessarily prime reading material for TMD, but I guess linking it won't get you into any trouble.

[Tempe]

Thanks for the complements guys .

I think you hit the mark when you said that the target audience wasn't for advanced Type 1 Players, but more for players who are still getting a grasp of knowledge for Type 1.  

In the follow up, I will do a more advanced analysis of other Type 1 concepts, such as covering other super-archetypes like Aggro-Control and Prison.

So far, here is what else I will be covering in the follow-up.
The 3 other super-archetypes (control, aggro-control, and prison)
The Difference between Synergy and Combo.
The Target of a Deck.
Odd Examples like High Threat Density Combo.
A Rehash, Clarification, and Expansion of the previous tests.

Anything else?

--Tempe