[Article] The Death of Aggro?

[rakso]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=6829

The same concept readily translates into Type I, but it can get absurd because of all the powerful mana producers available. People who exaggerate liken Type I to a coin flip because you can get so much mana just on turn 1, with Mishra's Workshop or zero-cost artifact mana. The DCI lets the hammer fall whenever a combo deck hits a Fundamental Turn of 1, but they usually let anything close to just 2 slide.

In other words, an aggro deck has to deal with combos that expect to goldfish on Turn 2 or 3.

Ironically, it can't.

[Eastman]

This isn't true.

Rakso you're really out of touch. At this point you're doing a disservice to the community.

O-Stompy anybody?

[Zherbus]

You know... I don't pipe in on stuff I know little about. You shouldn't either, Rakso. Eastman is right, at this point your giving a mis-education.

[jpmeyer]

In other words, an aggro deck has to deal with combos that expect to goldfish on Turn 2 or 3.

Food Chain Goblins?  My new U/R Stacker which kills turn 3/4 but has counters?

[Toad]

TNT has Chalice of the Void and Pyrostatic Pillar.

[Matt]

Madness, which won like four tournaments and included almost no cotrolling elements?

[Dr. Sylvan]

Thus, aggro is dead.

I have no idea where this is coming from. To make this statement correct, you would have to change it to "conventional aggro". Aggro as a whole is just fine. Conventional aggro is a lot like cavalry in the age of mechanized armies (TnT, Madness, Mask), aircraft carriers (Keeper), attack submarines (Hulk) and ICBMs (Draw7.dec, Slavery). Clearly only modern weapons will survive modern warfare, and Jackal Pup is as outclassed as the scimitar.

So what does this rough trend mean? First, a lot of gameplay changes with this shift from trying to beat the Fundamental Turn head-on to subtly cheating it by wasting each other's turns on disruption. Instead of the older and more elegant threat-answer, threat-answer, threat-answer pirouettes, you have slugfests of disruption and mana squeezes.

This is assigning moral values (especially the use of the word "cheating") to denigrate what a large population is pleased with. Disruption is a key element of counterspelling too, but the bias doesn't come through for that particular, special class of card. It's fine to say that the metagame is swinging away from your preference, but you should fully explain why a certain thing is bad (e.g., "Long is unfair because it is too frequently too fast for the opponent to forestall its strategy.").

Overall, I was not happy with this piece.

[Vegeta2711]

...and this is why I tend to stay away from Rakso pieces nowdays. Bleh, go back to your match-up pieces, at least those had appr. logs.  :lol:

[Ric_Flair]

I am afraid that I too have to voice my discontent with this piece.  First, Steve's piece, published just days before takes a more realistic and current view of the metagame.  So publishing this days later is kinda sad.  Second, Rakso's perspective is so narrow and out of touch it is almost as if he is purposely avoiding current deck tech.  That said here are some specific errors:

In other words, an aggro deck has to deal with combos that expect to goldfish on Turn 2 or 3.

Ironically, it can't.

Funny, Hyperion's Madness deck goldfished on me by turn 3 in a tournament.  I was even playing heavy disruption Sui Black.  This is just wrong.  Other aggro decks that can goldfish on Turn 3: Ian's Lackey Goblins (with a good draw), Jeff's Broodstarrunner, Stacker variants, some TnT decks.  

Picture an aggro deck bringing an opponent down to zero

Another issue is that apparently Rakso does not understand the concept of Fundamental Turn.  FT is not the turn you kill your opponent, even with an aggro deck.  It is the turn that you gain an advantage against your opponent from which he or she cannot recover.  For example, TnT v. Twister.dec.  Turn 1, drop Workshop, Lotus, Juggernaut and Pyrostatic Pillar.  That is a FT of 1 against Twister almost 90% of the time, but the opponent was not KILLED that turn.  The subtle element of the concept, and the reason why it is both elegant and hard to understand, is that FT is NOT the turn the opponent dies.  

More importantly to the topic of his article, aggro decks need not goldfish on turn 2 or 3.  In fact, the very notion of the FT was designed to show how meaningless goldfish is outside of combo decks.  The hand I described about is a perfect example of a FT of 1 with an aggro deck.  When an aggro deck can goldfish win by is irrelevant.  I thought that by mentioning FT, Rakso would have realized this and explained the difference between the two, but he did not.  That is misleading, plain and simple.  And it is wrong.

Game 1 of aggro against combo is a real goldfish since they fight on different planes. One attacks on the board; the other on the stack. Again, there's no way you can win on the board, since there are more three-mana-for-one-mana cards than five-power-for-one-mana creatures. Complaining that Sligh was too slow for 1998 Type II and the format was degenerate, Cathy Nicoloff quipped:

"Red's primary problem is obvious. It has mucho death and no disruption. Any combo deck that can kill before red deals the final hammering can twiddle itself in peace for four turns without worrying." (see "Study Extended and Grow Strong")

Thus, aggro is dead.

This series of comments is utterly ridiculous.  It is complete and total nonsense.  GOOD aggro decks, do, in fact, engage combo decks.  Sui has Null Rod, TnT has Pillar, O. Stompy has Null Rod and Root Maze.  Apparently Rakso missed the fact that Turn 1 Root Maze or Pillar is all but game against decks like Twister.dec.  This ignores other combo hate elements less frequently seen but no less powerful: Chalice of the Void, Trinisphere, and Sphere of Resistance.  Citing history is helpful, as fellow law student I understand why you do it, but even in the law history is useful only insofar as it is RELEVANT.  If Sligh was the foremost aggro deck right now, the comment would be illustrative of the problem.  But it isn't so the comment is relatively useless.

For most players, aggro's last hurrah came with Tools 'n' Tubbies,'

What about Jacob's Top 8 at Waterbury?  What about the dozens of Top 8s in Europe by Madness?  I just don't understand what happened, where Rakso is getting his information from, and how he can ignore what has happened in the past year.

Now, you might argue on this point and name any of the new aggro decks out there, but my point is that many aren't really aggro decks.

Food Chain has a combo mode for faster kills in the same way Roland Bode's new Mad Dragon incorporates the Worldgorger Dragon kill (see "Deconstructing Darksteel, Part IV: Instants"). Even Vengeur Masque has a built-in combo, albeit slower, and it can double trample over Academy Rector with two Phyrexian Dreadnoughts. And contemporary Vengeur builds still have to pack Duress and Force of Will.

Perhaps the highest-profile new aggro is the mono-Green Oshawa Stompy, which replaces the classic Stompy weenies with Wild Mongrel and friends. However, taking another look, you see that Oshawa needs to run things like Root Maze and Null Rod. It took a while to get noticed, being Green and all, but you realize that Root Maze powerfully stunts a deck that opens with broken mana producers.

What universe of Magic has aggro defined as only damage spells and aggressive creatures?  Few if any I have played in.  So perhaps Ian's Sligh deck and classic Stompy fit the mode, that even they have disruption elements.  Stompy ran Null Rod (or Winter Orb or Tangle Wire during its Standard runs) and even Ian's deck had Ancestral and Time Walk.  My point is that there is no such thing as a pure aggro deck.  Every aggro deck runs disruption, but that does not make it aggro control.  There is a huge difference between O. Stompy and GAT.  

The problem here is that Oscar's theorizing has detached him from reality.  In the theory world, where he is coming up with all of these theorems and rules that are not terribly useful in the real world, people speak of pure aggro.  So any real world deck that is not pure aggro is, in Rakso's mind, "aggro control."  But this does not comport with reality.  Steve's article does a much better job of explaining the differences.  Finally, if there is ever a deck that is a hybrid (something Rakso's pure theory approach can't readily handle) it is Venguer Mask.  The first time I played against the deck I thought it was a Rec Sur deck ported to Vintage.  Then I saw the combo elements and I understood.  It is really a control-combo deck, though theory has a hard time with this.

This only shows you how weak the "efficient weenies" strategy of Zoo days has become, again since you can only be so fast with power-to-mana ratio.

Let's consult the Madness Primer to see an example of an efficient weenie deck with NO DISRUPTION and plenty of power and speed to kill people by turn 3.  Statements like this are just nonsensical.  Madness is the new heir to the Zoo throne.  The parallels are staggering in number: same colors, similar approach, speed feel, touches of card draw and burn, similar sideboards, similar good and bad matchups.  And on and on.  Just because the deck is not running Serendib Efreets does not mean that it is not in the Zoo style.  Madness is Zoo, but better and faster.

Finally, Rakso apparently has eschewed doing research.  Even a cursory glance at the morphling standings or Philip's articles or Steve's articles or Waterbury's standings or anything on this board would demonstrate how the title of the article is absurd.

I think it is time we hear from Rakso.  He has started article threads here weekly but rarely if ever responds to comments in them.  It is time that trend ends.  What is going on Oscar?  We are all your fans and love reading your stuff, but where are you getting your information?  I think if he can start this thread he should be able to respond to our comments.  

Disclaimer:  Nothing in this post should be construed as disrespect or a personal attack.  Oscar posted an argument in a public forum and I am merely responding.

[jpmeyer]

The difference between aggro and aggro-control is that aggro-control uses its disruption to protect its threats rather than to gain Time Walks.  That's why in Extended, RDW is an aggro deck and Madness is an aggro-control deck even though RDW has way, way more disruption in it.

[Matt]

Another issue is that apparently Rakso does not understand the concept of Fundamental Turn....Turn 1, drop Workshop, Lotus, Juggernaut and Pyrostatic Pillar. That is a FT of 1 against Twister

Funnily enough, this betrays the fact that you don't understand what the FT is, either. FT is not something that changes from hand to hand (though it does change depending on the matchup) - it's no wonder you don't like theory, since you always seem to get it wrong! Piecing together a god-hand has as much relevance to FT as does my brand of sneakers. But I'll come back to this example in a minute.

What universe of Magic has aggro defined as only damage spells and aggressive creatures?

Every aggro deck runs disruption, but that does not make it aggro control. There is a huge difference between O. Stompy and GAT.

The same universe that says that you can't be aggro-control without counterspells. Any cards that are played solely for their interaction with the opponent's cards are controlling cards, whether it's Duress, Wasteland, Counterspell, or Null Rod. And that's the one point Rakso made reasonably well - for aggro decks to survive, they MUST become aggro-control, because the opponent's cards are too good to ignore. Which is why all the examples people have been tossing at him are meaningless or wrong, except for Madness. TNT is not viable without its Chalices and Pillars (though Pillar sort of straddles the line between an aggro card [damage dealing] and a control card [spell-stopping]), O.Stompy will not win without its Mazes and Rods. And with the introduction of Darksteel, even Madness can't get by without having some kind of answer (read: control card!) to Trinisphere.

Once you realize just how controlling decks like O.Stompy are, you'll see that when Oscar says "aggro's last hurrah came with TNT," he's almost right: the original TNT decks were almost entirely lacking in control cards, and even most of those (Core, Trisk) were important damage sources in their own right. Only a precious few 'true' aggro decks (that devote no or almost no cards to controlling the opponent) have been any good since GAT came and left. Goblins is one, Madness is another. But that's about it.

My point is that there is no such thing as a pure aggro deck.

That much is at least true, but some decks are a lot more aggro than others. There's a lot of shades of gray; the metagame clock is analog, not digital. The only things in Madness' maindeck that honestly can be said to be controlling are the Fiery Tempers (and even those are rather aggressive - three points to the head!) Compare that with O.Stompy, running 3-4 Null Rods, 5 Strips, 3-4 Root Maze, and stuff like Naturalize and even creatures like Uktabi and Lyrist. No, O.Stompy is aggro-control through and through. It's just not the aggro-control you're used to, because you're stuck in a mindset where aggro-control implicitly means "counterspells".

The first time I played against the deck I thought it was a Rec Sur deck ported to Vintage. Then I saw the combo elements and I understood. It is really a control-combo deck, though theory has a hard time with this.

--friendly jibe alert--
Well, more the fool you! I'm surprised you didn't have to playtest against FEB for hours and hours to figure that out. ;D
Moreover, as regards your last sentence, I have to wonder what Weissman-era theory you're reading. Control-combo has been well understood for years now. Think Rack-Balance.

[Dr. Sylvan]

If anyone's going to define aggro as "pure aggro with no controlling elements" I don't buy it. A friggin' Lightning Bolt is a control element, it's just less obvious when the opponent isn't playing creatures. (Heck, one of the few things a Sligh player has nothing to worry about in a prison deck is the Welders because they have a ready answer.) Just because something is also a damage source doesn't mean it loses the capacity to control---it's just a controllish threat. I don't think I've ever seen a serious list which could be categorized accurately as pure aggro. It's all a matter of degree.

TnT is aggro because it's focused on attacking the life total as efficiently as possible with creatures and support cards, the same as Sligh. It's just a million times more powerful. The fact that more decks are blurring the lines between aggro-control, aggro, and aggro-combo is simply illustrative of Smmenen's hybrid strategy superiority theory. (Excuse me if I'm misattributing its origin to Steve.)

Only a precious few 'true' aggro decks (that devote no or almost no cards to controlling the opponent) have been any good since GAT came and left.

I'd change "since GAT came and left" to "ever". I can even characterize ancient Zoo draw-sevens as partially controlling, keeping the control player from building up preferred resources in their hand or saving the mass removal for the best time. Honestly, Magic is interactive, and the only decks that break this are the true combo goldfish machines, which are strictly inferior to something that goes to the trouble of Duress/FoW/Swarming to defend itself.

[Smmenen]

Another issue is that apparently Rakso does not understand the concept of Fundamental Turn....Turn 1, drop Workshop, Lotus, Juggernaut and Pyrostatic Pillar. That is a FT of 1 against Twister

Funnily enough, this betrays the fact that you don't understand what the FT is, either. FT is not something that changes from hand to hand (though it does change depending on the matchup) - it's no wonder you don't like theory, since you always seem to get it wrong! Piecing together a god-hand has as much relevance to FT as does my brand of sneakers. But I'll come back to this example in a minute.

No actually:

Another issue is that apparently Rakso does not understand the concept of Fundamental Turn. FT is not the turn you kill your opponent, even with an aggro deck. It is the turn that you gain an advantage against your opponent from which he or she cannot recover. For example, TnT v. Twister.dec. Turn 1, drop Workshop, Lotus, Juggernaut and Pyrostatic Pillar. That is a FT of 1 against Twister almost 90% of the time, but the opponent was not KILLED that turn. The subtle element of the concept, and the reason why it is both elegant and hard to understand, is that FT is NOT the turn the opponent dies.

Is exactly what a fundamental turn is.

Here is Used it in an article:
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=5978

And here is what I said:

The Fundamental Turn
One of the biggest effects of the innovation has been an acceleration of the format's speed. What used to be a format with a fundamental turn of 3, is now a format with a more appropriate turn 2 fundamental turn. What I mean, generally speaking, by a fundamental turn is that a) combo is designed to be in a position to "go off" by turn 2, or else it is probably going to lose, b) control either has to have a foothold on the game by turn 2, or else the game is probably lost, and c) aggro needs to have sufficient pressure on the board by turn 2 that it seems likely it can finish the job. That does not mean that that all these decks win on turn 2; in essence, you have a format where decks are actively attempting to set themselves up by turn 2. I am referring to the most important turn for defining the game and in terms of deck design.

Academy Rector decks generally would prefer to have a Rector either in play by turn 2, or on the way out via Cabal Therapy in order to get their Yawgmoth's Bargain.
Masknaught generally wants an Illusionary Mask and a Phyrexian Dreadnought in play by turn 2, with a turn or two to finish the job.
Tools 'n Tubbies prefers to play a turn 1 Juggernaut/Su-Chi and then plop Survival and find Squee, Goblin Nabob/Anger on turn 2 to accelerate out some turn 3 brokenness by which it will ensure that it has enough card advantage and pressure to finish the job.
Mishra's Workshop prison decks such as Stax or Welder Mud really need to have started to lock down the game in a significant way, although there still may be some wiggle room. If they haven't then they are probably in trouble.
Generally, Long.dec wins on this turn, only because it takes so little time to set itself up. It does most of its work on this turn, and if it doesn't win on turn 2, it is likely trying to apply sufficient pressure that a win will eventually be forthcoming.
Dragon, using Bazaar of Baghdad to drop the Worldgorger Dragon into the graveyard, and having then seen 9-10 cards by turn 1, prefers to drop Mox, Land, Animate Dead/Dance of the Dead on turn 2 using the Bazaar, which is phasing in and out of play, to dig out Ambassador Laquatus while it generates infinite mana, and then switches the Animate to the Ambassador to deck the opponent. Against control, it may be content to sit back, Intuition for Squees and use card advantage to overpower the control player - but that doesn't change the fact that it is has a fundamental turn of turn 2.
Unlike control decks of the past, Type One Tog generally uses a Mana Drain on this turn to accelerate into a massive draw via Accumulated Knowledges on turn 3, by which it sets its sights on a turn 4-5 win.
The now illegal Gro-A-Tog used its second turn to either lay a Psychatog or make its Quirion Dryad enormous with draw/search with intent of using Gushes and Berserk to seal the deal and protect its men on the following two turns.
Some people are very upset with this. They want the format to be slowed down a notch. They claim a lack of interaction and too many decks winning on turn 2. The first response to this is that a fundamental turn 2, as I have said before, is not equal to a turn 2 loss. Please remind people of this when they claim that games are over by turn 2. They are missing the point.

The second response to a recognition that much of the anger that is now fermenting has come to a head because of distaste with decks like Long.dec, which win on turn 2 rather consistently. Couple that with the massive scare over Chalice of the Void (and other Mirrodin cards), and you have overlapping events, which leads to a louder outcry. I admit that decks like Long.dec should not be around. But most of these decks don't actually win on turn 2. And even if they do, it isn't consistent - they just want to be in a position, by turn 2, where it is possible to stop the other deck, or can foresee eventually winning.

That very last point is precisely what Ric stated very consicely.

Nonetheless, on the larger issue: I actually felt that Oscar's article was correct, for the most part.  But I don't see what the problem is.  I don't think Aggro should be a real part of the Vintage metagame.  This format is so far above its contemporaries in speed and power, that Aggro as a concept, in my opinion, should not really be a part of anything except as an answer to a specific threat: like PWNing Aggro Control with TnT or Pwning Control with Mask.  

Steve

[Matt]

Well, very aggressive decks have been good in other formats on numerous occasions. Fires, Senor Stompy, Saga-era Stompy, various Sligh decks...WW, once or twice!...Hatred...

[Smmenen]

Well, very aggressive decks have been good in other formats on numerous occasions. Fires, Senor Stompy, Saga-era Stompy, various Sligh decks...WW, once or twice!...Hatred...

Thank you captain obvious for not reading my post.  I distinguished other formats from type one becuase type one is so far above other formats in terms of speed and power.

Steve

[Eastman]

Nonetheless, on the larger issue: I actually felt that Oscar's article was correct, for the most part.  But I don't see what the problem is.  I don't think Aggro should be a real part of the Vintage metagame.  This format is so far above its contemporaries in speed and power, that Aggro as a concept, in my opinion, should not really be a part of anything except as an answer to a specific threat: like PWNing Aggro Control with TnT or Pwning Control with Mask.  

Steve

Aggro strategies 'inherent weaknesses' were a problem until deck builders learned to take advantage of them. Root Maze and Null Rod make Wild Mongrel a much better creature.

[Ric_Flair]

Another issue is that apparently Rakso does not understand the concept of Fundamental Turn....Turn 1, drop Workshop, Lotus, Juggernaut and Pyrostatic Pillar. That is a FT of 1 against Twister  

Funnily enough, this betrays the fact that you don't understand what the FT is, either. FT is not something that changes from hand to hand (though it does change depending on the matchup) - it's no wonder you don't like theory, since you always seem to get it wrong! Piecing together a god-hand has as much relevance to FT as does my brand of sneakers. But I'll come back to this example in a minute.

First off, where else have I gotten theory wrong?  Last time I checked a disagreement over the utility of theory is not the same as getting it wrong.

Here is what Zvi said in the FT article, which can be found in the Reading the Classics Sticky:

But the most important one is the turn in which the deck's strategy begins to work and you make up for any early disadvantage.

He was speaking about FT in general and how it relates to general archetypes like aggro, combo, and control.  In the article he does say that aggro deck's FT is when it kills the opponent, but I am not sure if he would still say this having read his articles on Goblin Bidding, which has multiple roads to victory, each with a different speed.  So while in a general sense a deck's FT is standardized or averaged, for the purposes of Rakso's article I am not sure how my example is wrong.  It proves that aggro can win without killing, it proves that one turn can be the crucial turn.  So while I may not have gotten the theory precisely right as it was articulated three years ago, my point was not incorrect.  Furthermore, given the recent amount of hybridization I am not sure if Zvi would even agree with the old definition.

And yes, this again is one of the reasons I disdain Magic theory.  There are only a few people out there smart enough to make contributions that are meaningful, leaving the rest of us to play the role of talmudic scholars, reading and interpreting their work in light of vastly different circumstances.  Zvi has moved on but has yet to formally update this piece so we are left squabbling about theoretical fineries of an outdated theory.  

Any cards that are played solely for their interaction with the opponent's cards are controlling cards

My good friend Justice Brennan would be dismayed by this definition of a control card, for it is the veritable slippery slope incarnate.  What does it mean? Some cards are easy to identify as control using this definition, but others are not.  Pillar is but one of a plethora of cards that makes this definition too unclear to be workable.  What about Kjeldoran Outpost in its heyday?  What about Squirrel's Nest in its heyday?  Neither of these cards were interacting with opponents cards by design, but they were very much control elements.  Nearly every card in Magic, in some abstracted sense, causes interaction with an opponent's cards.

That is beside the point though.  My point was that since the dawn of competitive Magic, the number of pure aggro decks has been few and far between.  Almost every aggro deck has some sort of disruption, but I don't find it useful to label all of these decks as aggro control.  Does that make Sligh aggro control because it uses Bolts?  I don't think so.  If it did then what do the terms aggro and aggro control mean in light of each other?  Part of the aggro control definition is playstyle, but there is still a component that is deckbuilding.  Some of the early iterations of Stompy had 4 Orbs and 4 Bounty of the Hunt (as pump, protection, and creature kill).  Does this make them aggro control?  I don't think so.  In the same vein, O. Stompy's Null Rods and Root Mazes are disruption, but they do not make it an aggro control deck.

It's just not the aggro-control you're used to, because you're stuck in a mindset where aggro-control implicitly means "counterspells".

What specifically did I say that implied that aggro-control requires counterspells?  Nothing.  But just in case I will say it explicitly--aggro control does not require counterspells.  Actually Matt if you look at the Tangle Wire deck thread I started I said that it was aggro control and it did not contain blue at all.  Other aggro control decks without blue or counterspells:

Certain versions of TnT
Brought Sui
RDW in 1.x
Secret Force (may be a pure control deck)
Recur Survival
Tutor WW from 1.x

The first time I played against the deck I thought it was a Rec Sur deck ported to Vintage. Then I saw the combo elements and I understood. It is really a control-combo deck, though theory has a hard time with this.  

--friendly jibe alert--
Well, more the fool you! I'm surprised you didn't have to playtest against FEB for hours and hours to figure that out. ;D
Moreover, as regards your last sentence, I have to wonder what Weissman-era theory you're reading. Control-combo has been well understood for years now. Think Rack-Balance.

Here I misspoke.  What I meant to say and emphasize was that Oscar's characterization of Venguer Mask as a strictly combo deck was wrong.  

Whatever little issues you have with my post you can't ignore the facts:  Oscar's premise was fundamentally flawed.  Aggro is alive and well in Vintage.

PS:  Matt and others, boy I love a good forum board debate.  There is something about this format that makes debating so natural and fun.  Plus the company all but guarantees a good debate.

[Smmenen]

@ Eastman:
Which is why I said I thought Oscar is only mostly right.

Aggro can survive on the power of hoser's to combo threats in a metagame.  Cards like Null Rod, Chalice, and Root Maze are not to be scoffed at.  However, the counterpoint is that in any proxy tournament that allows more than 5 proxies, good luck beating that Prison deck.

Steve

[Matt]

Thank you captain obvious for not reading my post.  I distinguished other formats from type one becuase type one is so far above other formats in terms of speed and power.

Your post wasn't there when I wrote mine. Get off your high horse. You should really do drugs or something, you need to chill.

So while in a general sense a deck's FT is standardized or averaged, for the purposes of Rakso's article I am not sure how my example is wrong. It proves that aggro can win without killing,

In the TNT vs Storm matchup, TNT is the control deck (it's not fast enough to be the aggro deck). When a control deck makes its game-winning play, that's it's fundamental turn. The distinction I'm making is this: when TNT drops a Pillar against Storm Combo, that's not an aggro deck hitting its fundamental turn - that's the control deck hitting its FT. That TNT can play multiple roles - that it's a hybrid deck - that it has more than one fundamental turn (depending on the matchup) - these are all equivalent statements. Moreover, should such a hybrid deck have more than one of its FTs at the same number, we might see something very interesting. I could conjecture that GAT was such a case, but I haven't thought that through entirely, so take that with a grain of salt.

this definition of a control card...is the veritable slippery slope incarnate. What does it mean? Some cards are easy to identify as control using this definition, but others are not. Pillar is but one of a plethora of cards that makes this definition too unclear to be workable. What about Kjeldoran Outpost in its heyday? What about Squirrel's Nest in its heyday?

Pillar: primarily an aggro card. It's not truly a control card until the opponent is at two life or less. Is it any wonder, then, that Long was more concerned with true control cards like Null Rod and Chalice than Pillar?
Squirrel's Nest: Certainly not a controlling card. Combo card? Yes (very much so with Opposition). Aggro card? Well it's not a very good one, but yes, it does produce threats, albeit rather slowly and weakly.
Outpost: Same as Nest, but with fewer combo applications (in its heyday, of course - Outpost-Opposition would have been quite good in the counterspell-heavy IN-OD standard that Opposition had its biggest success in).
Remember: a card doesn't have to be good in control decks to be a 'control card'. I see no slippery slope here. However, as you say, that is beside the point.

ince the dawn of competitive Magic, the number of pure aggro decks has been few and far between. Almost every aggro deck has some sort of disruption, but I don't find it useful to label all of these decks as aggro control.

You're still showing that you believe that a deck is either aggro-control, or it is not. That is false. It's a gradient, it's analog, it's shades of gray.

Does that make Sligh aggro control because it uses Bolts? I don't think so.

Of course not. But it IS more controlling than, say, Hatred, because of those Bolts. And a Sligh deck splashing for Stifles is more controlling still, and a Fish deck is more controlling than that, and a Phid deck more controlling still.

In the same vein, O. Stompy's Null Rods and Root Mazes are disruption, but they do not make it an aggro control deck.

They make it far more controlling than a Senor Stompy. They run as many controlling cards as most Fish decks (which I hope we can agree is unquestionably an aggro-control deck) - it's closer to the midpoint of the aggro vs control continuum than it is to the aggro end - I call that aggro-control. And also characteristic of aggro-control, O.Stompy has a rough time dealing with more focused aggro decks like Madness. Like Fish, it loses to combo without its control cards.

Is it aggro? Compared to more controlling decks, yes. Is it control? Compared to more aggressive decks, yes. I see no problem calling it an aggro-control deck. "If it looks like a duck..."

PS:

Which is why I said I thought Oscar is only mostly right

I think I'll go have a beer to celebrate a time when Steve and I agree!

[bebe]

All this is reflected in slot counts as well. Note that the number of actual creatures is generally lower now, especially compared to the extremely high counts of past aggro decks like Stompy and Goblin Sligh

I could not agree more. This is on the money. I have revamped a number of my more aggressive decks to accomodate more disruption at the expense of a few creatures. Niotice that even deckslike Fish will use Hatchlings as they at least add to the deck's arsenal of counters.

Also, relating to O. Stompy. I have played this deck on a few occasions as Ray and i are good friends. It was not built to handle combo but to handle control. It loses to ( ironically ) a good fast aggro deck.

Madness was the last true bastion of aggro but now that it is evolving into a more control and combo versions that is no longer the case.

Overall, I think the article was pretty accurate. Oscar's point was that aggro has had to evolve ibto aggro-control in order to compete. This seems an accurate assessment.

I do not see how Oscar has done a disservice the community although I also feel that Steve covered the relevant issues and the current metagame a lot better in his article. But these articles are not meant to be in competition with each other are they?

[Matt]

Overall, I think the article was pretty accurate. Oscar's point was that aggro has had to evolve ibto aggro-control in order to compete. This seems an accurate assessment.
I do not see how Oscar has done a disservice the community

His point was a good one, but he made it terribly by pretending decks like Goblin Sligh (i.e. Ian's deck, not FCG) and Madness never existed.

[Smmenen]

PS:

Which is why I said I thought Oscar is only mostly right

I think I'll go have a beer to celebrate a time when Steve and I agree!

So what specifically did you disagree about in regards to my Five Axis Metagame Article?  

And are you Matt the Great, or another Matt?  

Steve

[Matt]

Well I didn't read it very thouroughly past the purty pictures, so I don't know if there's anything there I truly disagree with. There is something about it that seems a little odd to me though - and that's giving Prison it's own archetype.

It's not a full-blown problem per se - it's just that everything you say about it only really applies to artifact prison (and not other types, like Cooberp's old Enchantress deck, which was a different sort of prison). I just don't see the point in referring to an archetype that only has one member.

Contrast this with what you say about control decks, or aggro decks - it applies equally well to Keeper as to Tog, to Stacker or Madness. It's this lack of generality that raises my eyebrow when I see you write about the Workshop Prison deck like there's three or four different kinds of prison. Really, it's just a language thing, not a disagreement about the realities of the situation.

[kirdape3]

Wait, how is Fundamental Turn obsolete?  That's how we define the format nowadays.

[Ric_Flair]

Wait, how is Fundamental Turn obsolete? That's how we define the format nowadays.

What I meant was merely that FT is more subtle and complex than it was three years ago.  FT is certainly not obsolete.

[dicemanx]

Perhaps we're looking at aggro decks the wrong way. All pure aggro decks are in reality combo decks which tend to have slower goldfish rates; however, that does not make them automatically inferior to what we recognize as "true" combo decks. The reason is that the slower the combo deck, the more resilient it is to hate if it wants to call itself "competitive". That is the compensating factor. It explains why people run the slower "combo" decks like FCG, Madness, and Goblin Sligh - while their goldfish rates are relatively slow, they are more difficult to hate out. In contrast all fast combo, like Dragon, Belcher, and twister/neolong.dec, have a high degree of susceptibility to cheap and omnipresent hate cards like Null Rod, Chalice of the Void, Blood Moon, or graveyard removal.

In any case, I plan to submit an article to Starcity next week giving a completely different perspective on T1 the metagame. In the meantime, enjoy my sig .

[Razor]

Awright, I'll wade in.

Nonetheless, on the larger issue: I actually felt that Oscar's article was correct, for the most part. But I don't see what the problem is. I don't think Aggro should be a real part of the Vintage metagame.

Phantom_Tapeworm made a similar argument a month or so ago.  He said that Type 1 is basically evolving into a pure Combo metagame.  New and successful decks like Oshawa Stompy belie his words.  Fundamentals like swinging in the attack phase are... er... well... fun.  If you personally don't like beatdown then by all means play either Combo or Control.  But please don't dis those of us who get a kick out of smashing face.  Realistically, Aggro is here to stay, despite your wishes.

Quote:   
In the same vein, O. Stompy's Null Rods and Root Mazes are disruption, but they do not make it an aggro control deck.   

They make it far more controlling than a Senor Stompy. They run as many controlling cards as most Fish decks (which I hope we can agree is unquestionably an aggro-control deck) - it's closer to the midpoint of the aggro vs control continuum than it is to the aggro end - I call that aggro-control. And also characteristic of aggro-control, O.Stompy has a rough time dealing with more focused aggro decks like Madness. Like Fish, it loses to combo without its control cards.

Is it aggro? Compared to more controlling decks, yes. Is it control? Compared to more aggressive decks, yes. I see no problem calling it an aggro-control deck. "If it looks like a duck..."

Well, I generally subscribe to the 3-point, rock-paper-scissor viewpoint on the format.  Oshawa Stompy is definitely Aggro 'nuf said.  This new 5-point viewpoint is spiltting hairs imo.

In other words, an aggro deck has to deal with combos that expect to goldfish on Turn 2 or 3.
Ironically, it can't.

Check any recent tourney results - sheesh.

All pure aggro decks are in reality combo decks which tend to have slower goldfish rates.

Funny.  One of my favourite combo(s) is: Taiga, Kird Ape, go.  Another is: Swamp, Ritual, Necro, go.

[Phantom Tape Worm]

Awright, I'll wade in.

Nonetheless, on the larger issue: I actually felt that Oscar's article was correct, for the most part. But I don't see what the problem is. I don't think Aggro should be a real part of the Vintage metagame.

Phantom_Tapeworm made a similar argument a month or so ago.  He said that Type 1 is basically evolving into a pure Combo metagame.  New and successful decks like Oshawa Stompy belie his words.  Fundamentals like swinging in the attack phase are... er... well... fun.  If you personally don't like beatdown then by all means play either Combo or Control.  But please don't dis those of us who get a kick out of smashing face.  Realistically, Aggro is here to stay, despite your wishes.

How did I get dragged into this??


(Let's see how well I can mince words to appear as if i'm always right and simultaneously keep up the facad of intellect   )

Actually my comment was that type 1 is a combo _driven_ metagame.  

Some of my arguements for that can be found in this thread:http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14849&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
and in this thread: http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11898&start=15

Basically i'm saying something like this:
combo is the fastest and therefore most aggressive deck archetype
the fastest (and therefore most aggressive) deck sets the pace for what is playable
decks must keep pace with fastest deck or be weeded out
control decks can do this with fast efficient answers
aggro and aggro control decks can do this with hate cards

now that combo has set the pace, the other decks must also prepare for one another

Combo drives the metagame by setting the standard for speed; you need to be able to win in the first two turns, or prevent a win in the first two turns, or both.

O.Stompy fits into this schema just fine since it packs enough combo hate to validate the theory (null rod and root maze come to mind).  And it so happens that it can put up a good fight vs other decks that are ready for combo too.

I personally agree with Oscar, if you are playing pure speed aggro (with no disruption), ie. creature based weenie rush, you can't expect to win on turn 1 or 2 which is what you would need to do in order to have a realistic chance against pure speed combo in this format.  Pure speed aggro is a big poop because it's not as aggressive as pure speed combo.

That said...there is a time and a place for everything.  Pure speed aggro, eg. 9 land stompy, can still be good if it's against a narrow field that is not prepared for it, eg. a field full of hulk smash.

[Milton]

I think most of you read the title and didn't read the article.

Rakso is right.  PURE aggro is dead.  I think he could have mentioned that it has been dead for about eight years, but whatever.  No one plays a pure aggro deck that has no disruptive elements at all.  There are sooooo many inexpensive, efficient, utility based hosers (from Null Rod, to Pyrostatic Pillar to Scerenity to Shaman to Wasteland).  Aggro decks have been using cards like these for years.

The most compelling part of the article was the notion that aggro has to push back the fundamental turn against combo or control.  I totally agree.  Rakso mentioned a few cards and decks that do this, but here was the point he was making:

So what does this rough trend mean? First, a lot of gameplay changes with this shift from trying to beat the Fundamental Turn head-on to subtly cheating it by wasting each other's turns on disruption. Instead of the older and more elegant threat-answer, threat-answer, threat-answer pirouettes, you have slugfests of disruption and mana squeezes.

This is a very, very good point.  It's nothing really new, though.  I don't think a fundamental shift occured.  Rakso even mentioned TnT as being the last pure aggro deck, but most TnT decks had a few cards like Uktabi Orangutang or Elvish Lyrist as control or disruption elements.  The real question is, perhaps, has there ever been a "pure aggro" deck that had no disruption or control elements at all?

[dicemanx]

The real question is, perhaps, has there ever been a "pure aggro" deck that had no disruption or control elements at all?

Yes, Madness, which can perform quite well and is an upper tier deck. Also, it seems that Goblin Sligh top-8s in many metas, particularly those where people metagame heavily against powered decks. Of course, if we define the direct damage that these decks run as "control" elements, then the answer would be "no". However, I would choose to look at them in a different way: a direct damage spell is an "aggro" spell, which serves to reduce the opponent's life total when going for the speed kill, but it happens to be a flexible component of the deck because it can exert a measure of control against the opponent's creatures.  By the same token we can argue that Roar of the Wurm can function as a control spell, because it can negate the opponent's aggressive creatures - it will stop Juggernauts, Su-Chis, Piledrivers, etc.