[Premium Article] Fear and Loathing and Black Lotus

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/article/27211_Brewing-and-Vintage.html

Chapin on Vintage.

[Grand Inquisitor]

pure creature-based aggression is just nowhere near fast enough in a format this powerful.

[Smmenen]

Huh?

[wiley]

He is quoting the excerpt for the article.  The full sentence being "In most formats, being aggressive is also an option, but pure creature-based aggression is just nowhere near fast enough in a format this powerful."

A rather amusing statement given the results from champs.

[Smmenen]

Except that the Vintage Championship winner doesn't disprove/counter/run against Chapin's statement.  He was talking about"pure" creature-based strategies."   Reel Fish is not that.  If Chapin meant that to encompass all decks with an aggressive element, then that would obviously foreclose the deck he recommends at the end of the article.  So, that quote is a non-sequitur if that's Stephen Houdlette's intended meaning.   

I figured he was quoting from the article (although it would be nice if the author of such posts would amend the quote line to clarify that, since you can tag a person you are quoting), but it doesn't make sense as a general matter. A post composed entirely of a quote is not well calculated to signify the authors meaning in most cases, this one included.  The main exception is when the author is quoting to express agreement, but that is not obviously the case here.

[Commandant]

He was talking about"pure" creature-based strategies."   Reel Fish is not that.

Has what you are alluding to ever truly existed? From my memory all of the best performing creature based strategies have contained some sort of control elements, whether it be Mind Twist, Swords to Plowshares, or Cursed Scroll.

In regards to GI's post, the clock is indeed fast enough.

[Smmenen]

He was talking about"pure" creature-based strategies."   Reel Fish is not that.

Has what you are alluding to ever truly existed?

Yes.  Zoo decks dominated the 1996 Type I Championship (putting up all four of the top 4 decks).   (The decks are posted in my History of Vintage chapters)

Up until at least 2002 there were viable Aggro decks like Goblins and Sligh that had very little disruption.  See Dave Kaplan's decks.  In the (second) 2000 Magic Invitational, pure Aggro decks (in the sense Chapin is using that term) were among the best decks in the format at beating Keeper.  

The history of the format is replete with examples of pure aggro decks performing well.  

In regards to GI's post, the clock is indeed fast enough.

And, no, Chapin is right.  The clock for aggro decks is not fast enough.  That's why Aggro decks in a pure form don't exist in the format, but either use 1) blue countermagic, 2) mana denial or Spheres, or 3) disruptive bears like Thalia supplemented by mana denial and other disruption.

I'm not saying that decks with an beatdown role don't exist in the format.  Not at all.  I've been playing Grow recently.   I'm just saying that Chapin isn't wrong that you don't find pure aggro decks in this format. The snarky apparent attempt to "quote to demonstrate ignorance" here was off target.  

[Samoht]

Throwing a Null Rod and some Wastelands into your deck doesn't stop you from being pure aggro. Part of aggression is disruption of the opposing plan.

[Smmenen]

Throwing a Null Rod and some Wastelands into your deck doesn't stop you from being pure aggro. Part of aggression is disruption of the opposing plan.

Putting Force of Wills in a deck does stop you from being "pure aggro."  That's why the category "aggro-control" was created over 15 years ago.  

And, no, part of aggression is not disrupting the opposing plan.  Aggro is implementing your plan.  Disrupting the opponent's plan is known in Magic theory as "control."  

[Commandant]

2001 Magic Invitational Deck Lists

Check out the GR Blitz lists.

World Championship

Look at all those tempo/control cards.

I find it hard to believe Chapin’s definition of “pure aggro” ever really existed outside of 93/94. His use of the term without further definition conveys a lack of basic format knowledge.

[Smmenen]

2001 Magic Invitational Deck Lists

Check out the GR Blitz lists.

I find it hard to believe Chapin’s definition of “pure aggro” ever really existed outside of 93/94. His use of the term without further definition conveys a lack of basic format knowledge.

Actually, your comments convey a lack of basic format knowledge.  First of all, the format didn't exist in 1993, since the first B&R list was announced in January 1994.  While there were Aggro decks at that time, in the "wild era" of magic that was late 1993, Aggro decks were among the least optimal archetypes available under prevailing rules of deck construction.  So, I'm not sure why you would even cite 1993 at all as a referent point.  

Second, I just told you that the entire Top 4 of the 1996 Type I Championship decklists were Zoo decks.  All of those lists are in my 1996 chapter.   The Type I Championship of 1996 was a $50K purse event held at PT NY.  1996 =/ 1993/4   Those are perfect examples of Aggro decks.  

Most people reading Chapins' article who've been playing Magic for a while knows what he means.   The Pup decks on the 2000 Type I part of the Magic Invitational fit what Chapin means by this, although they may feature some disruptive elements.  https://www.wizards.com/sideboard/article.asp?x=mi00\845t1recap  

Joel's deck is pretty far from a "pure aggro" deck.  It's obviously an Aggro-Control deck, and not at all what Chapin means when he refers to "pure aggro."  

This isn't rocket surgery.  It's among the most basic ideas in Magic. 

[Commandant]

93/94 had a rather limited card pool and is the only time where I could see pure aggro decks as viable.

Zoo runs zero disruption or removal?

So no Lighting Bolt, Wasteland, or Cursed Scroll in "Pup" decks?

Dredge is a pure aggro deck, yes?

"The first Magic World Championship was held at the Gen Con in Milwaukee, USA on 19–21 August 1994. It is the only Worlds tournament which was held in the Vintage format, then known as Type I. The 1994 Worlds is also the only Worlds which was not an invite-only tournament, instead everybody could register, but the tournament was capped at 512 participants. After two days of single elimination play the final four players featured Bertrand Lestrée, who defeated Cyrille DeFoucaud 2–0 in his semi-final, and Zak Dolan, who defeated Dominic Symens 2–0 in the other semi-final. In the final Dolan defeated Lestrée 2–1."

Quoted from the Wiki article with a reference to the following.

[Smmenen]

So you think Joel's deck is a "pure aggro" deck and not better classified as "Aggro control'?  

Merfolk decks are the archetypal Aggro-Control deck.   They were among the earliest forms of that archetype, along with Slivers.  

The idea that Chapin was wrong when he said "pure aggro" is too slow because Merfolk won is absurd.  He's exactly right.

Pure Aggro decks were viable after 1993-94.  go read Oscar Tan's archive.  There were Stompy decks that made Top8s in the late 1990s that had no disruption whatsoever (or just Winter Orbs).  

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/2926-You-CAN-Play-Type-I-39-The-Control-Players-Bible-Part-XX-Head-To-Head-With-Stompy.html

I never said Zoo doesn't run removal or disruption.  But having 2 Pyroblasts and 4 Bolts doesn't make you not an Aggro deck.  

Dredge has aggro elements, but is better understood as a reanimator strategy.

"The first Magic World Championship was held at the Gen Con in Milwaukee, USA on 19–21 August 1994. It is the only Worlds tournament which was held in the Vintage format, then known as Type I. The 1994 Worlds is also the only Worlds which was not an invite-only tournament, instead everybody could register, but the tournament was capped at 512 participants. After two days of single elimination play the final four players featured Bertrand Lestrée, who defeated Cyrille DeFoucaud 2–0 in his semi-final, and Zak Dolan, who defeated Dominic Symens 2–0 in the other semi-final. In the final Dolan defeated Lestrée 2–1."

Quoted from the Wiki article with a reference to the following.

Wow, Are you just discovering this for the first time?  What's your point?

That tournament is covered in detail in my chapter: http://www.eternalcentral.com/schools-of-magic-the-history-of-vintage-chapters-1-2/

[Commandant]

Loose terminology seems to be a common pitfall of today’s Vintage authors. When discussing the ability of a deck to close the gap through the red zone all that really matters is efficiency of the clock and the relevance and positioning of the tools that reinforce the clock. If Chapin’s argument is that bear.dec is incapable of competing in modern Vintage perhaps he should have stated as much. It seems reasonable to encompass removal, stack interaction, and mana denial under the umbrella of tools available to aggro decks to help close the gap. Archetype classification can be argued ad nauseam but going back and viewing old deck lists has further strengthened my view that aggro decks past and present are really just efficient clocks coupled with control elements.

Sorry, I haven't read your novels.

[Smmenen]

Loose terminology seems to be a common pitfall of today’s Vintage authors. When discussing the ability of a deck to close the gap through the red zone all that really matters is efficiency of the clock and the relevance and positioning of the tools that reinforce the clock. If Chapin’s argument is that bear.dec is incapable of competing in modern Vintage perhaps he should have stated as much. It seems reasonable to encompass removal, stack interaction, and mana denial under the umbrella of tools available to aggro decks to help close the gap. Archetype classification can be argued ad nauseam but going back and viewing old deck lists has further strengthened my view that aggro decks past and present are really just efficient clocks coupled with control elements.

Sorry, I haven't read your novels.

Chapin said that Pure Aggro isn't viable in Vintage.   There's no real mystery to what he meant.  Pretty much everyone reading that sentence can recognize what a pure aggro deck looks like.  And, no, that doesn't mean just bear.dec.   It could mean Kird Ape.dec, as was classically the foundation of most Zoo decks in formats where Taiga was legal.  

"Reel Fish" is not a pure aggro deck under any definition of that term.  It's an Aggro Control deck.  The snarky attempt to make Chapin look ignorant backfired because what he said was true.  

You need not have read my chapters on the history of Vintage to have at least a passing familiarity with known Magic terms and historical archtypes of this format that go beyond 1994, since almost all of your suppositions were wrong.  

Your definition of pure aggro embraces, incorrectly, Aggro-Control decks.  

[Commandant]

Sounds like semantics. We've established that all aggro lists run some number of control elements. Chapin's intended point was not clear based on the language used in the article. What’s an aggro deck when they all run control elements? Is a “pure aggro” deck just an inferior aggro control deck?

As an FYI/PSA Kird Ape and most bears swing for 2.

[Smmenen]

Sounds like semantics. We've established that all aggro lists run some number of control elements. Chapin's intended point was not clear based on the language used in the article. What’s an aggro deck when they all run control elements? Is a “pure aggro” deck just an inferior aggro control deck?

Of course it's semantics; we are talking about the definition of things.

Chapin's point was based on clear language.  He said that pure aggro decks aren't viable in Vintage.

Joel Lim's deck is obviously not a pure aggro deck.  It's a classic, archtypal Aggro-Control deck.  Couldn't be simpler.  What he said was eminently true.  

As an FYI/PSA Kird Ape and most bears swing for 2.

"Bears" are 2cc creatures with 2 power.  A Kird Ape is not a bear because it doesn't cost 2.  


Since you seem generally confused, you should read this entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_deck_types

Aggro[edit]
Aggro (short for "aggressive") decks attempt to reduce their opponents from 20 life to 0 life as quickly as possible, rather than emphasize a long-term game plan. Aggro decks focus on converting their cards into damage; they prefer to engage in a tempo-based race rather than a card advantage-based attrition war. Aggro generally relies upon creatures as a cumulative source of damage. While strategically simple, aggro decks can quickly overwhelm unprepared opponents and proceed to eke out the last bit of damage they need to end the game. Aggro decks also generally have access to disruptive elements, which can inhibit the opponent's attempts to respond.[2][3][4][5]
Example cards: Savannah Lions, Bitterblossom, Lightning Bolt, Rogue Elephant,[6] Incinerate[1]
Example decks:
Goblins, which uses cards like Goblin Piledriver, Goblin Ringleader and Siege-Gang Commander.[7] It heavily employs the goblin creature type, a class of creatures that are typically cheap, fragile, and deal high damage.
White Weenie, which uses small, efficient creatures such as Savannah Lions, Icatian Javelineers, and Mother of Runes[8]
Affinity, which uses the affinity mechanic and large numbers of artifacts to quickly play spells such as Thoughtcast and Frogmite, while efficiently dealing damage using Disciple of the Vault and Arcbound Ravager.[9]
Red/Green Beatz, uses low-cost, high power creatures such as Tarmogoyf and Kird Ape to kill the opponent quickly. It also utilizes mana denial such as Magus of the Moon and Wasteland.[10]
Sligh, which utilizes its mana as efficiently as possible to kill the opponent quickly, using low-cost cards such as Jackal Pup and Lightning Bolt.[11]
Suicide Black, which uses efficient but dangerous cards that cost life such as Thoughtseize, Dark Confidant, Grim Tutor, and Bitterblossom. Suicide Black epitomizes Black's philosophy—win at all costs—and treats even its life total as an expendable resource.[12]

AND:

Aggro-Control[edit]
Aggro-control is a hybrid archetype that contains both aggressive creatures and control elements. These decks attempt to deploy quick threats while protecting them with light permission and disruption long enough to win. These are frequently referred to as "tempo" strategies, as their control elements are often more temporary; for instance, they may return opposing creatures to their owners' hands rather than remove them entirely.
Example cards: Aven Mindcensor, Ninja of the Deep Hours, Dark Confidant, Magus of the Moon, Ohran Viper
Example decks:
Blue-Green Madness, which uses cards like Wild Mongrel, Careful Study and Circular Logic.[citation needed]

Does anyone think that Joel's deck is Aggro and not Aggro-Control?   Just checking. 

[Samoht]

Smennen:

Arguing FoW is the line to cross to leave aggro and then advocating REB doesn't cross that line is a problem logically. I'm sure you see why. Furthermore, disrupting your opponents plan can also be referenced as tempo. You are trying to lock in your definitions of words when the community doesn't agree. We as a community have created the lexicon, you don't get to edit it to suit your needs. Patrick's claim is wrong unless you warp the definition to make it fit.

Please reference this post: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=44201.0. Your spelling/grammar have been off the past few posts, mostly because you seem to be both emotional and rushing your posts. You almost never do that, and it reflects the weakness in your position here. Just because you keep editing them doesn't make it better.

Our format warps the typical definitions of magic strategies. For starters, we have real combo decks that haven't been neutered into oblivion and thus have obsoleted decks without any interactions for their opponents. Even a creature based deck like Goblins will run cards like Earwig Squad and Warren Weirding, not to mention Wasteland or Null Rod. Sure, Joel's deck features some permission while AJ's has even more - but that doesn't stop either of them for being on the Aggro side of the scale in reference to the overall format. I would contend that AJ's list is much closer to the archetypical Aggro-Control deck than Joel's. Outside of FoW and Daze, Joel's plan to victory is purely about combat speed. He is only playing those cards to hedge against the super fast aggressive decks in our format.

After Brian got to eat his words about Dredge never winning a major event, you would have thought writers would have stopped making declarations of this sort. The short is, any deck can win any tournament if the right things fall into place. Sure, there are decks more apt at doing so and players even more adept at altering the odds - but there is a element of chance/luck in this game that can and often does trump skill.

Please direct your comments to the substance of Steve's argument, not the typos/grammatical errors he may have made.  The content is what matters here - Prospero

[Smmenen]

Smennen:

Arguing FoW is the line to cross to leave aggro and then advocating REB doesn't cross that line is a problem logically. I'm sure you see why. Furthermore, disrupting your opponents plan can also be referenced as tempo. You are trying to lock in your definitions of words when the community doesn't agree. We as a community have created the lexicon, you don't get to edit it to suit your needs. Patrick's claim is wrong unless you warp the definition to make it fit.

The Vintage community is part of the magic community.  The Magic community has fairly well defined archetype definitions that are are well-established prior to the Vintage community, and used by all magic players.  
Patrick's assertion is clearly correct unless you somehow warp the definition of "pure aggro" to encompass archetypes and decks that clearly do not fit that definition.  

It's also hubris to speak on behalf of the Vintage community.  Just because Stephen Houdlette and one of his barn's thinks that Merfolk is not an Aggro-Control deck doesn't make it so.  

Please refrain from personal attacks when discussing other users - Prospero

If I were to post a poll and ask folks whether Joel Lim's deck is "Pure Aggro" or "Aggro-Control," what do you think the Vintage community would say?

Please reference this post: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=44201.0. Your spelling/grammar have been off the past few posts, mostly because you seem to be both emotional and rushing your posts. You almost never do that, and it reflects the weakness in your position here. Just because you keep editing them doesn't make it better.

Pot calling Kettle black: my handle is "Smmenen" not "Smennen."  If you want to start with accurate spelling, start with my handle here, thank you.  Very impressive attempt to troll me, but my edits have not been to correct grammar/spelling, but to expound on previously made points.  

I am very comfortable with my position because it happens to be the correct one.  No one would consider Merfolk to be a "pure Aggro" deck unless they were trying to win an argument.  

After Brian got to eat his words about Dredge never winning a major event, you would have thought writers would have stopped making declarations of this sort. The short is, any deck can win any tournament if the right things fall into place. Sure, there are decks more apt at doing so and players even more adept at altering the odds - but there is a element of chance/luck in this game that can and often does trump skill.

I don't disagree with that.  Goblins could win an event if it had the right pairings.  But that doesn't make Merfolk an Aggro deck.  It's the paradigmatic Aggro-Control deck.  

[Prospero]

Everyone currently participating in this thread is expected to adhere to the standards laid out in the site rules.  No one will refer to another user as a troll, or treat any other poster's opinions with anything less than the highest degree of respect.

If you believe that you are being trolled, use the 'Report to Moderator' button in order to alert the staff.  Voice your complaints there.

I will not allow this, or any other thread, to devolve into a mud-slinging contest.

[wiley]

So, first off I'd like to say that I thought it was obvious the quote was taken out of context ... but I guess I was wrong.  Especially given Chapin's penchant for solving the format through the red zone with things like grow and 4c fish.  I would like to keep thinking that everyone here knows that a quote from the excerpt of an article wil obviously miss relevant context, even without considering that the vintage format is based on absolute statements.

Second, I just told you that the entire Top 4 of the 1996 Type I Championship decklists were Zoo decks.  All of those lists are in my 1996 chapter.   The Type I Championship of 1996 was a $50K purse event held at PT NY.  1996 =/ 1993/4   Those are perfect examples of Aggro decks.  

This, however, is something I would like to address.  The zoo decks from the 96 pro tour Dallas event are just as much a far cry from "pure aggro" as you would define it as reel fish is.  For instance:
Turbo Zoo, 1996 Pro Tour Classic Tournament, 1st Place

By Scott Johns
4 Black Vise
2 Kird Ape
2 Gorilla Shaman (part of a strong mana denial element along side strip mine)
4 Savannah Lions
1 Regrowth
1 Balance (cards to wreck control decks, combo decks and faster aggro decks)
1 Swords to Plowshares
1 Disenchant (maindeck answers to necro and troublesome artifacts)
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Timetwister (all the draw 7s up to this point)
1 Diminishing Returns
2 Mystical Tutor (tutors for its answer cards)
3 Psionic Blast
1 Wheel of Fortune
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Incinerate
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
3 Plateau
2 Savannah
2 Taiga
2 Tropical Island
1 Tundra
3 Volcanic Island
3 City of Brass
4 Strip Mine
1 Library of Alexandria
Sideboard:
2 Disenchant
1 Gorilla Shaman
4 Gorilla Tactics
3 Meekstone
4 Whirling Dervish
1 Zuran Orb

Or for your force of will argument:
Zoo, 1996 Pro Tour Classic Tournament, 2nd Place
By Huei-Saint Shwe
4 Kird Ape
4 Savannah Lions
2 Gorilla Shaman
1 Dwarven Miner (oh look, more mana denial)
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Chain Lightning
2 Incinerate
2 Black Vise
1 Sylvan Library
1 Stormbind
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Timetwister
2 Counterspell (hey look, counterspells)
2 Arcane Denial
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Swords to Plowshares
2 Disenchant
1 Regrowth
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Wheel of Fortune
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
4 City of Brass
2 Mishra's Factory
2 Savannah
1 Soldevi Excavations (even card filtering in addition to all the draw)
4 Strip Mine
4 Taiga
3 Tundra
3 Volcanic Island
1 Underground Sea
Sideboard:
1 Consecrate Land
1 Disenchant
1 Energy Flux
1 Guerrilla Tactics
1 Hammer of Bogarden
1 Healing Salve
1 Hydroblast (more counterspells)
1 Psychic Purge
2 Pyroblast (and more)
1 Ray of Command
1 Sand Golem
1 Swords to Plowshares
1 Whirling Dervish
1 Zuran Orb

It seems like you say pure aggro strategies are something so dumb that it only interacts with creatures and maybe some burn.  Even old sligh decks weren't so one dimensional.  I think the only deck that I can think of that is a pure aggro strategy is something like modern affinity.  It can only win through the red zone and has little to no disruption, relying almost solely on a swarm of efficient and hard to handle creatures to end the game quickly.  Even vintage affinity has disruptive threats and pieces that are only good at disruption in addition to its efficient threats.

With that, I can sort of agree with Chapin's statement (even out of context), but it means the definition you are putting forward is off.

[Smmenen]

While I would define Scott John's Zoo deck and the Jackel Pup decks of the 2000 Invitational as Aggro decks (I view Matt Elias deck here as the same classification scheme as Scott's deck: http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=33233 ) , I never said they were "pure" aggro decks, just that they were examples of successful Aggro decks in this format.  In any case, that is not particularly important to the issue being debated here.

The question is simple: is Chapin's statement wrong?  If Joel Lim's deck is Aggro, and not Aggro-Control, as I assert, than Chapin is wrong.  I started a poll to see if people really think that Merfolk is an Aggro rather than an Aggro-Control deck: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=45825.msg634473#new

The reason Chapin is right is because the fundamental turn of the format is faster than creature decks can inflict damage, even when supplemented by burn spells.  That's why pure Aggro is not viable in Vintage, although it has been in other formats or historically in this format. 

[Samoht]

Smennen:

Arguing FoW is the line to cross to leave aggro and then advocating REB doesn't cross that line is a problem logically. I'm sure you see why. Furthermore, disrupting your opponents plan can also be referenced as tempo. You are trying to lock in your definitions of words when the community doesn't agree. We as a community have created the lexicon, you don't get to edit it to suit your needs. Patrick's claim is wrong unless you warp the definition to make it fit.

The Vintage community is part of the magic community.  The Magic community has fairly well defined archetype definitions that are are well-established prior to the Vintage community, and used by all magic players. 
Patrick's assertion is clearly correct unless you somehow warp the definition of "pure aggro" to encompass archetypes and decks that clearly do not fit that definition.  

It's also hubris to speak on behalf of the Vintage community.  Just because Stephen Houdlette and one of his barn's thinks that Merfolk is not an Aggro-Control deck doesn't make it so.  

If I were to post a poll and ask folks whether Joel Lim's deck is "Pure Aggro" or "Aggro-Control," what do you think the Vintage community would say?

I disagree that the terms in question are as clearly defined as you seem to intimate. Linking to external Wiki's doesn't validate your claim. Even the references on the Wiki site are questionable. I also highly doubt that you can't tell the difference in role assignment in other formats compared to Vintage. You can't value cards or strategies the same way in this format, and that goes true with traditional role nomenclature as well. The card pool warps so much of our choices and mindsets, you have to let that play into archetypical role classifications as well. The concepts of Aggro Control and Combo along with their hybrids has to morph into what the format presents, not to abstract and ironclad definitions from on high.

I can comment on my observations of the community, as well as from my position as a member within said community. I'm not going to delve into the hubris aspect of the post.

I don't know who Stephen Houdlette is. If he's Commandant, I need to look him up because he seems like a swell gentleman. I would also claim to be no one's barn. If anything, you can call my appreciation for the Nicks and Mr. Shay barning. Agreeing with someone who disagrees with you isn't enough to be a barn. We just call that a person who disagrees with you.

If you left just Aggro on the table instead of insisting on the dichotomy of Pure Aggro vs Aggro Control you might be surprised at the results.  I think that Joel's list is as close to Pure Aggro as this format can allow. I would thus start my spectrum there where as you are stringently holding to terms created externally of the format.

Please reference this post: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=44201.0. Your spelling/grammar have been off the past few posts, mostly because you seem to be both emotional and rushing your posts. You almost never do that, and it reflects the weakness in your position here. Just because you keep editing them doesn't make it better.

Pot calling Kettle black: my handle is "Smmenen" not "Smennen."  If you want to start with accurate spelling, start with my handle here, thank you.  Very impressive attempt to troll me, but my edits have not been to correct grammar/spelling, but to expound on previously made points.  

I am very comfortable with my position because it happens to be the correct one.  No one would consider Merfolk to be a "pure Aggro" deck unless they were trying to win an argument.  

To be honest, I've always read it as Smennen because that makes more sense based on your name. I'm sure there's a reason for having two M's in your handle that I'll never know, but I apologize for this egregious error. I will make sure that in the future I type it with two M's and one N. As far as the veracity of my claim, I had at least three spelling errors and grammar issues queued up in my last response before they were edited out. I lost them since I made the post but that's besides the point. I wasn't trying to troll you there, it was an honest assessment of your posts.

After Brian got to eat his words about Dredge never winning a major event, you would have thought writers would have stopped making declarations of this sort. The short is, any deck can win any tournament if the right things fall into place. Sure, there are decks more apt at doing so and players even more adept at altering the odds - but there is a element of chance/luck in this game that can and often does trump skill.

I don't disagree with that.  Goblins could win an event if it had the right pairings.  But that doesn't make Merfolk an Aggro deck.  It's the paradigmatic Aggro-Control deck.  

I think RUG Delver or Tempo Thresh fit the bill of paradigmatic A/C deck much better. I also think that the format the decks are in are an important cog in the machine, which you are ignoring.

[Prospero]

Enough.

Thread locked.

No warnings issued.