There's actually a thread discussing the theater paradigm ad nauseam. You guys should continue that discussion there (and I hope you do because I think it's a very interesting debate).
Using the rock-paper-scissors model of just aggro/midrange/control/combo, tempo don't fit the model. They don't have aggro's weaknesses or strengths. So does categorizing them under aggro give any really relevant information? It seems almost misleading calling it aggro, as newer players would expect the same strengths and weaknesses.
Theaters help categorize what you are going to have good and bad matchups against in a broad sense, and tempo does not have anywhere close to the same good/bad matchups as aggro.
You're focusing on a single aspect of the aggro-midrange-control classification. No single part of magic theory or classification is supposed to encapsulate all possible frontiers. There are more things to draw from the theory than a simple rock-paper-scissors model.
I think you're inverting the way you should look at things:
I don't classify a deck that loses consistently to a control deck as a mid-range deck. The deck could be a combo deck or an aggro deck or a midrange deck. It could be anything. Just because it loses to control and not aggro doesn't mean it's a midrange deck. It just means it loses to control and not aggro. Matchups are just one part of aggro-midrange-control, and it's only meant to be used as a loose guideline of magic theory at that. You're saying a Tempo deck doesn't fit into the aggro-midrange-control paradigm because of its matchups. That's like saying Caw-Blade in standard a few years ago is literally nothing (or something completely different) because it doesn't have any bad matchups. The Caw-Blade deck was a tempo deck (oddly enough), but not because of its matchups.
An aggro deck is a deck that wants to be the beatdown. The best chance of an aggro deck winning is to be put into that role as often as possible until the opponent is dead. Tempo IS that deck. Tempo does not want to play reactive cards and be on the backfoot until it stabilizes and comes back to be the beatdown. Does a tempo deck play differently than a play-3-guys-turn-sideways-bolt-opponent-to-death deck? Yes, but lots of aggro decks play differently.
I don't think Tempo is so far removed from aggro that we can't call it aggro, just like Prison isn't so far from control that we can't call it control. They're definitely on those ends of the spectrum.
Yes, blue is pretty much the only tempo color (I remember white tempo being a thing in constructed once, but that was an outlier), but how is that different then only one color having combo as an archetype?
One color having combo as an archetype? What? Every color has access to combo. Especially in constructed magic, but the same can be true in cube.
We support Storm, which is largely UGBR, but there is also some white cards that enter into the equation with Enlightened Tutor, Idyllic Tutor, and Replenish. Reanimator, which I see no reason to classify as anything other than a combo deck, largely consists of UBR cards as well, although Enlightened Tutor, Idyllic Tutor, and Replenish are also fine in that deck.
If the only combo in your cube is in blue with Tezzeret and Time Vault does that make is a deck and not a theater?
The only combo in my cube is not blue with Tezzeret and Time Vault. Yes, the Time Vault deck is a deck, and I never argued otherwise. Saying it's a deck that fits within a theater was my entire point. It's a part of combo which is a theater. Tempo is a deck that fits within a theater (aggro, although not purely since it's a little mid-rangey, sure).
And tempo isn't a single deck, you can have different tempo decks with different base cards and strategies.
Neither are any of the combo decks I just listed. Storm, Reanimator, and Time Vault all have different base cards and strategies.
I think where we differ is that I believe Tempo, Ramp, Prison, and other decks are all just strategies that fit within the Aggro-Midrange-Control-Combo paradigms/theaters. Sure, they play differently than the more common variants of those strategies, but I don't believe they're so far outside the box that they can't be referred to by bigger picture stuff.
I'd simplify my posts (at the risk of losing some meaning) by saying: Tempo is a deck, not a theater.
Interestingly enough, I'd say Tempo is more similar to aggro than anything else, Ramp is more similar to mid-range than anything else, and Prison is more similar to control than anything else, but they are all definitely distinctly different in how they approach winning more than an average or goodstuff aggro/mid-range/control deck. Kind of interesting that the examples I thought up each got split into their own likeness with an overall theater.
I don't think it honestly makes that big of a difference to refer to Tempo as so much different than "blue aggro" that it's completely different just because it plays counterspells and mana disruption (which blue aggro very well might as well). On that point, what number of counterspells do I have to be at before I stop being an aggro deck and start becoming a tempo deck? Heh.
I never said it was a new thing or that they're making up the term. I find it very surprising to put it along side aggro, mid-range, control and combo because tempo decks are almost always beaters + counterspells. I actually don't know of any other tempo deck that doesn't play dudes + counterspells and some mana disruption like Wasteland, Stifle, etc. Is there even a tempo deck that doesn't play blue? To call that an entirely separate archetype or teach it to new players that way is so bonkers to me, but I guess that's how some people refer to it.
EDIT: For those of you who refer to tempo as an entirely different archetype, separate from aggro, mid-range, control and combo, what decks are out there that don't play blue?
Aggro, mid-range, control, and combo decks can be any combination of colors, but I have never seen a non-blue deck being referred to as tempo. I'm willing to learn if you guys can educate me. Extra bonus points for showing me some non-blue constructed decklists that people normally refer to as tempo.
So what's the split now? Aggro / Tempo / Mid-Range / Prison / Control / Combo / Ramp / Storm ?
I think this can start to get to be a little ridiculous. I think it's fine to say decks fit in somewhere within the spectrum of Aggro to Control unless they're Combo, and many decks can shift roles depending on what their opponent is doing.
So how many different archetypes are we calling things now? I think you could argue every deck plays differently from every other deck and Ramp doesn't fit into anything else perfectly either.
Magic has evolved from calling everything either aggro, control, or combo, for sure, but the decks were originally given those designations slightly before and solidified with (IIRC) Mike Flores' original "Who's The Beatdown" article. One deck is trying to win before the other deck gets their more powerful spells online, so one deck is the beatdown and the other is control. "Aggro-Control" or "Tempo" is almost always the aggro deck, but sometimes it's not, just like everything else.
I think when someone says "blue aggro" I think we all know exactly what they're talking about and there's not really a need to mince words when we all get their meaning.
EDIT: I just re-read everything posted above. Are we really arguing about the differences between playing Welkin Tern, Phantasmal Bear and the myriad of 1-2 other cards that could be classified as a typical blue "aggro" card vs. the normal blue suite in cube? Any blue aggressive deck is going to have counterspells at its disposal, it's not like people are running around just casting blue beaters since they're so much worse than all the other colors.
I don't think I've seen a cube deck, ever, that conforms to what you guys are calling blue aggro.
Wtwlf123, how many theatres do you think there are if you're classifying tempo as it's own thing? In your cube article and in your cube thread, you list Aggro, Mid-Range, and Control. Do you think Tempo is entirely separate? What about ramp? Prison? What combo decks get their own theatres because they play so much differently than other combo decks?
I'm just saying that generally we can put everything into aggro, mid-range, control, or combo. Tempo would be more of an aggressive strategy. Ramp is more of a mid-range strategy. Prison is more of a controlling strategy. Yes, they're different, but they're trying to win at different stages of the game and that's why they were originally classified into aggro vs. control subtypes to begin with -- one is trying to last until their spells can be valuable enough to beat the other deck, while one is trying to win before that happens. Tempo is almost always in the aggro/beatdown/win-early camp.
Is there really so much of a difference between aggro and tempo that they need distinctly different terms?
I have always figured there were four archetypes nearly every deck can fit into: Aggro, Mid-Range, Control, and Combo. Tempo is just a variant of aggro in the same way Prison is a variant of control.
Treasure Cruise is better than Dig in constructed formats in most decks for the reasons wtwlf123 outlined above (thanked), and adding onto that, there are two really important considerations when it comes to Treasure Cruise in constructed:
1) It costs a single blue, which allows it to be played in aggressive shells like modern U/R delver
2) You can play FOUR of them, which gives you incentive as the player to run as many fetchlands, low cost spells, etc as possible.
Neither of these things are comparable to cube. Aggressive decks in cube will not want Treasure Cruise because aggressive decks in cube are not the same as aggressive decks in modern or standard. I can't reliably have access to a turn 1 Delver of Secrets or Monastery Swiftspear -- but even if I do, it doesn't make Treasure Cruise insane since the bulk of my deck is not cheap cantrips. Moreover, I can't Treasure Cruise into another Treasure Cruise.
In Constructed, Dig is (ideally and also many times in practice) roughly twice the cost of Treasure Cruise because of the additional blue mana symbol. When you draw three off of Treasure Cruise, you're many times also getting more value out of it rather than taking 2 from your top 7, since you're drawing cantrips and mana that you're just going to use to dig deeper (and refill for another Cruise) anyway.
So in constructed, a lot of times not only is Treasure Cruise cheaper than Dig, but it can actually be more impactful because the extra card is actually significant.
Dig is so much better in cube because it's a more impactful spell the vast majority of the time because of deck construction limitations. Three random cube cards in almost any deck will be worse than the 2 you select out of the top 7.
Hope my line of thinking makes sense and I'm explaining myself decently. Good post wtwlf123.
Yeah, I think it's home is at 540+. A normal 450 list probably wouldn't be able to find room for it, unless that list were powered and supported storm.
Cruise turned out better than I expected at powered 540. I was expecting it to be garbage, but it's not bad. I would consider it in a 450 powered list that supports storm, but I don't think it makes any lower than 540 unless you're supporting storm hard and you're powered.
We support storm, with lots of cantrips and fetches, and the card is not amazing here but passable. I would definitely play it at 630 or 720.
It's definitely a late game Sorcery speed Ancestral.
It's okay mid-game (sometimes it's just a Concentrate, which is fine but nothing super stellar), and early game it's obviously horrible.
It's much, much worse than Dig. When you're drafting it, you should look at it as a mid/late game draw spell, one that can potentially cost very little mana and cement the game for you.
But it's worse than most other card draw spells. It's worse than Frantic Search, Thirst for Knowledge, Fact or Fiction, Dig, etc. It's pretty much the worst draw spell that's cubeable in a medium sized cube.
Completely disagree. The only time you're going to be casting this for less than four mana is deep in the late game. I'd much rather play tons of other late game cards if you're adding in a blue late-game spell.
Really though, I wouldn't play Plea for Power either. I'd much rather have Thirst for Knowledge, Compulsive Research, Intuition, etc. Any of the many 2U spells that are better than both of these cards.
Ooh! I'd like to read it. Can you link to it?
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
You're focusing on a single aspect of the aggro-midrange-control classification. No single part of magic theory or classification is supposed to encapsulate all possible frontiers. There are more things to draw from the theory than a simple rock-paper-scissors model.
I think you're inverting the way you should look at things:
I don't classify a deck that loses consistently to a control deck as a mid-range deck. The deck could be a combo deck or an aggro deck or a midrange deck. It could be anything. Just because it loses to control and not aggro doesn't mean it's a midrange deck. It just means it loses to control and not aggro. Matchups are just one part of aggro-midrange-control, and it's only meant to be used as a loose guideline of magic theory at that. You're saying a Tempo deck doesn't fit into the aggro-midrange-control paradigm because of its matchups. That's like saying Caw-Blade in standard a few years ago is literally nothing (or something completely different) because it doesn't have any bad matchups. The Caw-Blade deck was a tempo deck (oddly enough), but not because of its matchups.
An aggro deck is a deck that wants to be the beatdown. The best chance of an aggro deck winning is to be put into that role as often as possible until the opponent is dead. Tempo IS that deck. Tempo does not want to play reactive cards and be on the backfoot until it stabilizes and comes back to be the beatdown. Does a tempo deck play differently than a play-3-guys-turn-sideways-bolt-opponent-to-death deck? Yes, but lots of aggro decks play differently.
I don't think Tempo is so far removed from aggro that we can't call it aggro, just like Prison isn't so far from control that we can't call it control. They're definitely on those ends of the spectrum.
One color having combo as an archetype? What? Every color has access to combo. Especially in constructed magic, but the same can be true in cube.
We support Storm, which is largely UGBR, but there is also some white cards that enter into the equation with Enlightened Tutor, Idyllic Tutor, and Replenish. Reanimator, which I see no reason to classify as anything other than a combo deck, largely consists of UBR cards as well, although Enlightened Tutor, Idyllic Tutor, and Replenish are also fine in that deck.
The only combo in my cube is not blue with Tezzeret and Time Vault. Yes, the Time Vault deck is a deck, and I never argued otherwise. Saying it's a deck that fits within a theater was my entire point. It's a part of combo which is a theater. Tempo is a deck that fits within a theater (aggro, although not purely since it's a little mid-rangey, sure).
Neither are any of the combo decks I just listed. Storm, Reanimator, and Time Vault all have different base cards and strategies.
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
I think where we differ is that I believe Tempo, Ramp, Prison, and other decks are all just strategies that fit within the Aggro-Midrange-Control-Combo paradigms/theaters. Sure, they play differently than the more common variants of those strategies, but I don't believe they're so far outside the box that they can't be referred to by bigger picture stuff.
I'd simplify my posts (at the risk of losing some meaning) by saying: Tempo is a deck, not a theater.
Interestingly enough, I'd say Tempo is more similar to aggro than anything else, Ramp is more similar to mid-range than anything else, and Prison is more similar to control than anything else, but they are all definitely distinctly different in how they approach winning more than an average or goodstuff aggro/mid-range/control deck. Kind of interesting that the examples I thought up each got split into their own likeness with an overall theater.
I don't think it honestly makes that big of a difference to refer to Tempo as so much different than "blue aggro" that it's completely different just because it plays counterspells and mana disruption (which blue aggro very well might as well). On that point, what number of counterspells do I have to be at before I stop being an aggro deck and start becoming a tempo deck? Heh.
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
EDIT: For those of you who refer to tempo as an entirely different archetype, separate from aggro, mid-range, control and combo, what decks are out there that don't play blue?
Aggro, mid-range, control, and combo decks can be any combination of colors, but I have never seen a non-blue deck being referred to as tempo. I'm willing to learn if you guys can educate me. Extra bonus points for showing me some non-blue constructed decklists that people normally refer to as tempo.
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
I think this can start to get to be a little ridiculous. I think it's fine to say decks fit in somewhere within the spectrum of Aggro to Control unless they're Combo, and many decks can shift roles depending on what their opponent is doing.
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
Magic has evolved from calling everything either aggro, control, or combo, for sure, but the decks were originally given those designations slightly before and solidified with (IIRC) Mike Flores' original "Who's The Beatdown" article. One deck is trying to win before the other deck gets their more powerful spells online, so one deck is the beatdown and the other is control. "Aggro-Control" or "Tempo" is almost always the aggro deck, but sometimes it's not, just like everything else.
I think when someone says "blue aggro" I think we all know exactly what they're talking about and there's not really a need to mince words when we all get their meaning.
EDIT: I just re-read everything posted above. Are we really arguing about the differences between playing Welkin Tern, Phantasmal Bear and the myriad of 1-2 other cards that could be classified as a typical blue "aggro" card vs. the normal blue suite in cube? Any blue aggressive deck is going to have counterspells at its disposal, it's not like people are running around just casting blue beaters since they're so much worse than all the other colors.
I don't think I've seen a cube deck, ever, that conforms to what you guys are calling blue aggro.
Wtwlf123, how many theatres do you think there are if you're classifying tempo as it's own thing? In your cube article and in your cube thread, you list Aggro, Mid-Range, and Control. Do you think Tempo is entirely separate? What about ramp? Prison? What combo decks get their own theatres because they play so much differently than other combo decks?
I'm just saying that generally we can put everything into aggro, mid-range, control, or combo. Tempo would be more of an aggressive strategy. Ramp is more of a mid-range strategy. Prison is more of a controlling strategy. Yes, they're different, but they're trying to win at different stages of the game and that's why they were originally classified into aggro vs. control subtypes to begin with -- one is trying to last until their spells can be valuable enough to beat the other deck, while one is trying to win before that happens. Tempo is almost always in the aggro/beatdown/win-early camp.
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
I have always figured there were four archetypes nearly every deck can fit into: Aggro, Mid-Range, Control, and Combo. Tempo is just a variant of aggro in the same way Prison is a variant of control.
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
1) It costs a single blue, which allows it to be played in aggressive shells like modern U/R delver
2) You can play FOUR of them, which gives you incentive as the player to run as many fetchlands, low cost spells, etc as possible.
Neither of these things are comparable to cube. Aggressive decks in cube will not want Treasure Cruise because aggressive decks in cube are not the same as aggressive decks in modern or standard. I can't reliably have access to a turn 1 Delver of Secrets or Monastery Swiftspear -- but even if I do, it doesn't make Treasure Cruise insane since the bulk of my deck is not cheap cantrips. Moreover, I can't Treasure Cruise into another Treasure Cruise.
In Constructed, Dig is (ideally and also many times in practice) roughly twice the cost of Treasure Cruise because of the additional blue mana symbol. When you draw three off of Treasure Cruise, you're many times also getting more value out of it rather than taking 2 from your top 7, since you're drawing cantrips and mana that you're just going to use to dig deeper (and refill for another Cruise) anyway.
So in constructed, a lot of times not only is Treasure Cruise cheaper than Dig, but it can actually be more impactful because the extra card is actually significant.
Dig is so much better in cube because it's a more impactful spell the vast majority of the time because of deck construction limitations. Three random cube cards in almost any deck will be worse than the 2 you select out of the top 7.
Hope my line of thinking makes sense and I'm explaining myself decently. Good post wtwlf123.
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
We support storm, with lots of cantrips and fetches, and the card is not amazing here but passable. I would definitely play it at 630 or 720.
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
It's okay mid-game (sometimes it's just a Concentrate, which is fine but nothing super stellar), and early game it's obviously horrible.
It's much, much worse than Dig. When you're drafting it, you should look at it as a mid/late game draw spell, one that can potentially cost very little mana and cement the game for you.
But it's worse than most other card draw spells. It's worse than Frantic Search, Thirst for Knowledge, Fact or Fiction, Dig, etc. It's pretty much the worst draw spell that's cubeable in a medium sized cube.
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
Really though, I wouldn't play Plea for Power either. I'd much rather have Thirst for Knowledge, Compulsive Research, Intuition, etc. Any of the many 2U spells that are better than both of these cards.
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube
Compare it to Plea for Power or Dig Through Time. Cards have got to do more than this in this era to be cubeable.
CUBE TOP 10 - Help us vote for the best cards in cube