MTG Salvation

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. 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? 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? And tempo isn't a single deck, you can have different tempo decks with different base cards and strategies.

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.

This is really offtopic to the card discussion. I'm just gonna leave off here. We all see things in a different way. I can't see categorizing tempo under aggro (or control) as being beneficial. If it works for you though, then it works for you.

Aggro-control, aka tempo, isn't a new thing. It isn't like they are making up the term. I've taught it to new players as one of the five primary archetypes for years (aggro, tempo, midrange, control, combo). I prefer the term tempo, but the name aggro-control has been around forever.