Over in the banlist thread there seems to be some people that have gotten off topic by discussing what a "tempo deck" is in Modern, and I thought that it might be helpful to just start a new discussion. Now, for anyone posting you need to do a little homework and check out this excellent article by Scott Johns defining the very basic elements of tempo. I call this homework because we need to have a base from which to build our understanding and this is a great base using beats to illustrate. His examples are based on Limited, but he uses such basic elements that the idea is quite adaptable. I am not a MTG expert, by any stretch of the imagination, but I read a lot and am willing to learn when I am wrong.
I'm not going to give a long definition of tempo (like I said, read the article) but at it's most stripped down and basic tempo is the race from 20 to 0 life. The point of this thread is to talk about Modern cards and decks in relation to tempo, not just to talk about how it is defined. There are a lot of decks in Modern that people seem to have a hard time categorizing and the term tempo gets tossed around pretty loosely and I think we need to have more understanding.
So, what decks are tempo? The most often agreed on deck that is defined as Tempo is Fae from old Extended. Using that and the article I think that the most obvious Modern deck to define as Tempo are most common builds of Ux Delver. One thing to understand is that Tempo is really defined the play, rather than the deck, so even the most tempo-y of decks will not always play that way, and some decks will play the tempo game depending on the game state and opposing deck. It is very similar to the point the Mike Flores made in his classic article "Who's the Beatdown?", but when all or most of the cards in a deck are focused on gaining tempo it is functional to define it as such.
One deck that I think is very often defined incorrectly is Infect. A lot of people call it combo, or at the very best aggro, but after re-reading some of this stuff it is really a tempo deck. Infect at it's very core is a tempo strategy because they only have to go from 10 to 0 (or more accurately 0 to 10) where as your opponent has to go from 20 to 0. It also uses instant pump, which when used under the right circumstance contributes to a tempo strategy. My Sultai build of the deck (GUB) also runs cards like Remand to further contribute to the strategy. Affinity might be another that is more properly defined as Tempo, but I don't really know the deck well. It is not combo, which is really a deck that wins the turn it combos out rather than through incremental tempo advantage.
While "20 to 0 life" can help beginners visualize Tempo, some decks (i.e. Scapeshift) win via "Combo" but play Tempo to get there. Burn is also at odds with this definition; the whole deck is based on a race to 20 damage, and yet it's as far away from Tempo as you could possibly get - maybe the quintessential Aggro deck.
A better way to visualize the concept is Jones' idea of a "damage race on the board." Damage here can, in some cases, be replaced by other factors that indicate how close a player is to just winning the game (i.e. Scapeshift gradually approaching 7 lands as opposed to 20 incremental points of damage).
That said, those two articles ("Introduction to Tempo" and "Who's the Beatdown?") are MUST-READS for any serious Magic player. I hope nobody replies to this thread seeking to have an intelligent conversation about Tempo without first having attentively read both. Actually, I think the OP should specify this prerequisite more explicitly so nobody wastes (all of our) time discussing something they don't even slightly understand.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
Important distinction: Tempo has in built card advantage to the play style, this is realised at the end of the game when you have used all your cards to win and your opponent has not had time to use theirs, rather than relying on genuine card advantage spells (see vapor snag).
'Good' Tempo comes from neutralising your opponents play using less mana allowing you to efficiently do more things. Look at Canadian Tempo Thresh, it relies on keeping their opponents on the early game (with bolts, stifles and wastelands) where all their superior tempo plays (delvers/goyfs/geese and daze/pierce/force) allow them to overwhelm their opponent.
The simplest way to think of tempo is in cards played. I play two cards a turn and you play one, then I finish the game before you can finish playing all your cards. Bounce spells are essentially hard removal if your opponent can never take advantage of being up a card.
While "20 to 0 life" can help beginners visualize Tempo, some decks (i.e. Scapeshift) win via "Combo" but play Tempo to get there. Burn is also at odds with this definition; the whole deck is based on a race to 20 damage, and yet it's as far away from Tempo as you could possibly get - maybe the quintessential Aggro deck.
Agreed, it is a simplification from which to start, and the article does a good job of adding to it with it's use of "beats". Burn races to 0 well, but it is unconcerned with gaining actual tempo. This is also a good point to stress that a lot of decks styles can gain tempo at various stages, but that does not make them necessarily tempo decks.
Important distinction: Tempo has in built card advantage to the play style, this is realised at the end of the game when you have used all your cards to win and your opponent has not had time to use theirs, rather than relying on genuine card advantage spells (see vapor snag).
To a certain extent this is true, but one thing to keep in mind is that tempo may have some innate card advantage, but card advantage in tempo is utterly pointless if it cannot be put to use now or soon to shut the game down. Control, on the other hand, is much more tolerant of raw card advantage even if it yields late game plays.
The simplest way to think of tempo is in cards played. I play two cards a turn and you play one, then I finish the game before you can finish playing all your cards. Bounce spells are essentially hard removal if your opponent can never take advantage of being up a card.
Raw numbers are misleading when it comes to number of cards played. What is far more important is the quality of your cards at this stage of the game than those of your opponent. Often that quality is translated into cheaper cards, but efficiency is the real metric.
Important distinction: Tempo has in built card advantage to the play style, this is realised at the end of the game when you have used all your cards to win and your opponent has not had time to use theirs, rather than relying on genuine card advantage spells (see vapor snag).
'Good' Tempo comes from neutralising your opponents play using less mana allowing you to efficiently more things. Look at Canadian Tempo Thresh, it relies on keeping their opponents on the early game (with bolts, stifles and wastelands) where all their superior tempo plays (delvers/goyfs/geese and daze/pierce/force) allow them to overwhelm their opponent.
Very succinct. You're referring to "virtual card advantage," which isn't actually read in number of cards.
The simplest way to think of tempo is in cards played. I play two cards a turn and you play one, then I finish the game before you can finish playing all your cards. Bounce spells are essentially hard removal if your opponent can never take advantage of being up a card.
Raw numbers are misleading when it comes to number of cards played. What is far more important is the quality of your cards at this stage of the game than those of your opponent. Often that quality is translated into cheaper cards, but efficiency is the real metric.
Good call. I think this is what he was trying to say.
I don't know Dr. Worm, seems like people in this thread (at least so far) really do know Tempo.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
Funny how Dr Worm and Nix described tempo, even the deck I called a tempo deck, is exactly what I was trying to get across in the ban list. Yet over there I was told I was wrong, but the same person who said I was wrong over there is saying the others saying the same thing are right. I give up.
By the way I have read both of those articles and come away with how I explained it.
Funny how Dr Worm and Nix described tempo, even the deck I called a tempo deck, is exactly what I was trying to get across in the ban list. Yet over there I was told I was wrong, but the same person who said I was wrong over there is saying the others saying the same thing are right. I give up.
By the way I have read both of those articles and come away with how I explained it.
This thread was created, from what I understand, specifically to give people the correct definition of Tempo while other members (namely, bocephus) propagated the wrong one. In the interest of avoiding any bickering or confusion, here's his incorrect definition and my reply from the Banlist thread:
Tempo plays a midrange attrition game needing card advantage to win.
Midrange attrition decks does not have to have the card advantage to win.
Both decks play efficient beaters/creatures. Tempo plays spells to give them card advantage, Midrange plays spells to get damage through. For the most part.
Ah, here's the problem. Your definitions are wrong. No real room for opinions here; what you're doing is more or less equivalent to saying "your definition" of an aggro deck is one that takes its time one-for-oneing the opponent and then combos off on turn 20. (You're just wrong.) That said, Tempo and Midrange (both controlling aggro strategies) are often confused, so I'll clear it up for you:
Tempo decks want to establish board presence quickly, then disrupt opponents long enough to win with that board presence.
Midrange decks want to drag the game out to a certain stage in which they can consistently cast high-powered spells, or otherwise accelerate themselves into that stage.
Cards that generate "tempo" (time, not a "temporary advantage" as many erroneously believe) like Remand or Repeal serve both of these strategies immensely. In Tempo decks, Remand buys you a turn as your threats continue to pressure your opponent. Keep him off his own board presence long enough and Delver of Secrets will just win you the game. Midrange decks use these spells to drag the game out. Soon enough, they can cast bombs like Thrun, the Last Troll or Batterskull, totally invalidating a Kird Ape bounced earlier in the game (that might have otherwise cinched it for a speedy Zoo player against 4-drop.dec). Non-blue Midrange decks (Junk, NicFit), which miss out on bounce and Memory Lapse effects, accelerate their own mana to access their golden stage more quickly (Noble Hierarch, Sakura-Tribe Elder, etc.). A Tempo deck would never want these cards. Knowing all this, would Ancestral Vision better fit into a Tempo or a Midrange deck?
Midrange, of course! Tempo doesn't want to sit around for 4 turns, while Midrange really gets down to business around ~4 mana. Faeries is a Midrange deck that sometimes forays into a Tempo plan by planting Bitterblossom turn 2 and protecting it to victory. This deck is probably the single most mis-identified deck in the game, and has single-handedly caused an enormous amount of confusion about the definition of Tempo as an archetype. Can you see how a Midrange deck might benefit greatly from card advantage?
Your assertion about "card advantage" is equally misguided. Tempo decks will often play card disadvantage (i.e. Vapor Snag) to maximize the time their threats have on the battlefield uncontested. Snagging a Restoration Angel to get in for 3 with a Delver is a great tempo swing (especially considering the CMC of each creature), but the opponent does get his Angel back. Snag goes to the graveyard; you're down a card. That's the sort of card disadvantage inherent to Tempo in Modern.
Relevant to the bigger discussion at hand: Treasure Cruise efficiently compensates for this exact disadvantage, which is why so many people in and outside of this thread are counting on a Modern Tempo renaissance. Sure, it also boosts Combo, but Tempo decks naturally prey on The Enigma. I think giving both archetypes a boost is safe since they cancel out. For this same reason, I've advocated Preordain's unbanning for years; yeah, Twin would get stronger, but Delver would find Combust that much more effectively. (Not sure unbanning a better cantrip can work with JA in Modern, though. By the way, as is, I think that deck is fine in the format.)
Hope this helps, Boce. I'll be happy to answer other questions if you have any.
Edit: It might also help, since both Tempo and Midrange utilize Tempo elements, to look at them this way:
TEMPO is a generally REACTIVE, DISRUPTIVE AGGRO DECK that uses Tempo elements to preserve a superior board state established very early in the game.
MIDRANGE is a generally PROACTIVE, DISRUPTIVE AGGRO DECK That uses Tempo elements to drag a game out to a stage in which it can easily create and maintain a superior board state.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
Decks I have in my bag of tricks- Needless to say, someone who wants to play will probably have a deck UB/x Faeries UR Storm XURWB Affinity G Elves UW control
While those are perfectly nice links I would really prefer people extrapolate from them and offer their own understanding in posts rather than just posting links.
I can respect that. I originally felt that, when I posted those links, there was a strategy type that was being ignored.
I wasnt sure my points would reveal much, but my statements come from having played Delver Faeries Angel-fire and Geist of Saint Win in the past. I have never followed the point of blue decks being defined as midrange, simply because blue cards in these decks, and the cards chosen in other colors to compliment the blue cards, are not trying to go over the top, or dominate to finish the game.
The confusion of tempo was mostly surrounding faeries, I have always considered Faeries an Aggro-Control deck since long before aggro-control decks faded away and midrange decks were the go-to. As a faeries player from lorwyn standard I have made the mistake saying that the deck is a midrange deck, when it is not one at all. First and Foremost Aggro-Control is the closest understanding of the deck because midrange implies that faeries has a dominant game ending state which it does not. Most of the wins in faeries are etched in with nickel and dime damage outside of Mistbind Clique which is the Lightning Angel of the deck (lightning angel being the flagship card of the deck which almost defined aggro-control in standard, Angelfire). Faeries has a very strong control element to carry its weaker aggro element at times as opposed to geist of saint win which has a very strong aggro element to carry its control element; but both of these decks dont necessarily dominate the lategame as midrange would suggest.
Now, i believe the confusion of tempo and faeries simply comes from the fact that faeries is a very complex deck; so it has been defined and simplified for years by its time-walking effects (cryptic command, mistbind clique, remand, and in very few cases time warp) and built-in game advantage (previously identified as virtual card advantage) of the creatures it uses (usually you have your creatures and you have your spells used for disruption, this deck situationally fuses both the creature body and the disruption) so with game advantage being a concept that factors into the game's tempo the lines grow blurred when you look at a faeries deck. Faeries is a deck that is piloted battling for minor advantages in gamestate with control to promote its angles of aggression in the form of damage.
To solve the confusion though I believe it would be easier to say that delver is an aggro decktype (there is minor proof of this in the recent lists for delver) which is built to gain tempo over the opponent from the structure of its cards to almost every decision it makes. The fact that delver itself is a 1 mana threat itself is a nod to that statement. The time it takes for the opponent to re-cast the spells they want to have resolve make remand and vapor snag another point that decks can be built to gain tempo, but cannot be tempo. Other decks capitalize upon tempo, delver was built to use it as a tool. treasure cruise in delver is a point of tempo as opposed to ancestral visions because the deck has been built to access 3 more cards from treasure cruise at 1-2 mana immediately as opposed to waiting 4 turns, and delve is how it is achieved, giving each card in the graveyard of the delver deck an addition of game advantage, "i have played more spells than you, and those spells will fuel me playing more spells to advance my gameplan", making the cards play double duty, because each card delved is a nod toward casting cruise in a timely manner and still having the mana to use most of those cards.
Decks I have in my bag of tricks- Needless to say, someone who wants to play will probably have a deck UB/x Faeries UR Storm XURWB Affinity G Elves UW control
The simplest way to look at Tempo is by the number of "Time Walks" you cast.
When you go turn 1 Delver of Secrets, turn 2 Remand, you make them replay their turn 2. When you Vapor Snag their turn 3 play and swing through, you continue to keep them back a turn.
I think to view it as the race 20 is a bit confusing when you consider Aggro which is really about the race to 0. Affinity and Infect fall squarely in this category as they tend to have minimal interaction with the opponent's plan while they try push through damage. I very much doubt you could call them Tempo by standard definitions of the archetype Tempo. Both of them have combo elements and would fall squarely under Aggro-Combo, they generally race to the win but they can win the race in one turn by combining spells/artifacts (when Infect wins on turn 2 with pumps - you've been combo killed - or if your opponent dumps his team on an unblocked attacker using Ravager - that's a combo).
I think this article sums up the archetypes quite well - with Tempo being the alternative name for Aggro-Control.
I think this article sums up the archetypes quite well - with Tempo being the alternative name for Aggro-Control.
Yes, he does a great job in this article of describing Tempo the archetype. What your Time Walk analogy describes is tempo the mechanic (for lack of a better word). The subtlety between these two concepts, which share a common name, causes the most confusion surrounding the term "tempo." I'll explain below.
a deck that is built expressly to use tempo as a tool is by definition a tempo deck.
That’s not even entirely true. Midrange, and many Combo decks, are “built expressly to use tempo as a tool,” but they’re still, by definition, Midrange and Combo decks. Nobody will tell you Scapeshift is a Tempo deck. Here’s why:
For a deck to classify as "Tempo," it must be "built expressly to use tempo as a tool" in a specific way. Midrange decks like Jund use tempo to drag the game out. Combo decks like Scapeshift use tempo to hit 7 Lands and ensure protection for their win. Tempo decks win by riding cheap threats backed up by soft disruption elements, and as Nixernator put it above, by maximizing mana efficiency to effectively do more each turn than their opponents.
In terms of how a deck functions, yes, Midrange is a "tempo" deck. It's a deck built expressly to use tempo as a tool. But Tempo, the archetype, with a capital "T," follows the description I've given above.
A formal definition of each concept to make this distinction ultra-clear:
tempo - A mechanic (in the same way that "card advantage" is a mechanic, albeit a more tangible one). Time advantage utilized by a variety of decks to preserve a board state or postpone its further development. Tempo - A deck archetype. Gameplan: protect efficient threats while stacking incremental tempo advantages (often gained via soft disruption like bounce) to win before opponents can stabilize and play their decks optimally.
Cards like Remand, Repeal, and Vapor Snag give the caster "tempo," and are found in Tempo decks, Midrange decks, and Combo decks alike. Cards like Spell Pierce, Daze, and Lightning Bolt disrupt opponents for a minimal mana investment, fitting Tempo's requirement for cheap spells and therefore solidifying their status as archetype staples. You'll never find Spell Pierce in a Midrange deck.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
I think you're getting awkwardly close to defining "tempo" as "control".
While I agree with much of what you have said - I'm not sure I'd say Scapeshift uses "tempo" to hit 7 lands, rather using control to delay the game until that point. It does seem rather close though, because it can use Remand as much as it uses Cryptic Command to stall the board - the former being a tempo play the latter a control one.
With regard to my time walk analogy - I was suggesting the number of time walks defines the level of a Tempo deck one is playing. A single Lightning Bolt does not a Tempo deck make, but that could be a tempo play for that deck.
The whole concept is very grey though, I'm not going to say that Midrange has no tempo element to it - but again I would say cards like Thoughtseize or Inquisition of Kozilek are control plays that a Midrange deck utilises to delay the game. Removal in and of itself is not a tempo play, but can be in the context of the match-up and boardstate. When a Control deck removes a creature it is for a completely different purpose than a Tempo deck does.
I think it would be best if we start by agreeing on the definition of Aggro, Control, and Combo at their simplest level. You may disagree with these.
Aggro.
A deck designed to play repeated threats, so as to deal lethal damage as quickly as possible. Sometimes an aggro deck will avoid over-extending into wrath effects, but this is a play consideration rather than a deck consideration.
Control.
A deck designed to answer opponents threats till their store of threats is depleted. Once this occurs, the control deck can deploy a threat to actually win the game.
Combo.
A deck designed to assemble a combination of cards that are not singularly threats, but become a threat when combined.
Carsten Kotter's article, mentioned by llamaza a few posts ago, does a great job of describing each of these archetypes in clearer, better-researched detail.
Aggro-Control
Aggro-Control is sometimes confusingly referred to as tempo, which is a game concept, rather than a deck philosophy.
"Tempo," the word, has two meanings (both detailed here). It only becomes "confusing" when people fall into the same trap you just did of categorically defining tempo as one or the other. I'm not addressing your analysis of other archetypes here because 1) this thread was made to discuss the Tempo archetype, and 2) Carsten Kotter did a better job.
While I agree with much of what you have said - I'm not sure I'd say Scapeshift uses "tempo" to hit 7 lands, rather using control to delay the game until that point. It does seem rather close though, because it can use Remand as much as it uses Cryptic Command to stall the board - the former being a tempo play the latter a control one.
It seems like you're stuck on one of the two definitions of "tempo." Scapeshiftalmost always uses Cryptic Command for tempo. The counter/bounce mode is a huge tempo swing for the deck. Regardless, if it counters your spell, it's not in the Control-related interest of grinding you out; it's in the Tempo-related interest of buying time. Here's a quote from later in your post:
A Jeskai Delver deck that runs Path to Exile over Vapor Snag and Mana Leak over Remand would peobably still be called a Tempo deck even without running any actual Tempo cards, while Blue Tron runs lots of Tempo cards and employs a Tempo strategy but is still widely regarded as a Midrange-y Control deck because it deploys no early threats.
Cards like Mana Leak can be played for tempo if their goal is to buy time, but generally Remand is better for this purpose, and since Mana Leak is better at eliminating a card, it often gets associated with Control. Obviously, the card can prove successful in a Tempo strategy regardless (take a look at the infamous UR Delver deck from Snapcaster Standard). Herein lies the problem of dogmatically associating certain cards with certain archetypes.
With regard to my time walk analogy - I was suggesting the number of time walks defines the level of a Tempo deck one is playing. A single Lightning Bolt does not a Tempo deck make, but that could be a tempo play for that deck.
The whole concept is very grey though, I'm not going to say that Midrange has no tempo element to it - but again I would say cards like Thoughtseize or Inquisition of Kozilek are control plays that a Midrange deck utilises to delay the game. Removal in and of itself is not a tempo play, but can be in the context of the match-up and boardstate. When a Control deck removes a creature it is for a completely different purpose than a Tempo deck does.
Again, you're getting stuck on one definition of the term. Doing this makes a discussion of Tempo (or of tempo) impossible. Tempo and tempo are two different things; black-and-white terms that, when confused, obviously form a "grey concept." I'll restate my definition of each to help you understand:
A formal definition of each concept to make this distinction ultra-clear:
tempo - A mechanic (in the same way that "card advantage" is a mechanic, albeit a more tangible one). Time advantage utilized by a variety of decks to preserve a board state or postpone its further development. Tempo - A deck archetype. Gameplan: protect efficient threats while stacking incremental tempo advantages (often gained via soft disruption like bounce) to win before opponents can stabilize and play their decks optimally.
A Tempo strategy is one that is specifically designed to easily switch back and forth between being the beatdown or the control part during a match, depending on the game state. It usually sacrifices raw power in either department for that extra flexibility.
Nah. There's no constant "switching back-and-forth." You follow an "Aggro" gameplan in the first turn or two by aggressively playing threats, and then follow a "Control" gampeplan for the rest of the game while your dudes clock. The only reason you would "switch back to Aggro" is if your threats somehow get removed, in which case you simply restart your gameplan: play a threat, then play Control. In reality, this small burp in your gameplan of increasing your board pressure strays pretty far from the Aggro aesthetic (slam dudes and, for the most part, ignore your opponent).
Tempo as a type of card/play means that you "steal" a type of ressource from your opponent that he/she usually only gets a certain amount of each turn. Bouncing a land or tapping your opponent's creatures are typical plays in that regard, hindering your opponent from efficiently using his/her mana with cards like Remand is another one. Most people - myself included - also count cards and plays that stall threats instead of permanently dealing with them towards that category. Cards like Vapor Snag, Repeal and the already mentioned Remand come to mind.
This vague resource you're talking about has a name. Time.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
I prefer to think of Tempo as "play threats, then disrupt" and Midrange as "disrupt, then play threats". Thus, UR Delver is definitely Tempo in my eyes, while Jund is definitely Midrange. I also think of Geist of Saint Win as Midrange given my play style with that deck (Bolt stuff, counter stuff, then slam V. Clique). Melira Pod...ugh...I think of it more as Midrange because its early drops tend to suck (mana dorks often aren't even threats) and it's fond of playing Thoughtseize or Abrupt Decay early (ergo, it disrupts first), but it's hard to classify a deck whose threats disrupt the turn they ETB. I also tend to think of UB Faeries as Midrange because it does behave vaguely similarly to Melira Pod ("disrupt, then play threats that disrupt when they ETB, then hope to ride those disruptive threats to the finish line").
Heck, Zoo starts looking more like Tempo, as a lot of its burn is aimed at blockers (i.e. it disrupts after it plays its 1-drop threats).
I guess Control looks like extra-exaggerated Midrange ("disrupt, disrupt, disrupt,...then play a threat and hold up disruption at the same time or play a threat that disrupts when it ETB").
With regard to my time walk analogy - I was suggesting the number of time walks defines the level of a Tempo deck one is playing. A single Lightning Bolt does not a Tempo deck make, but that could be a tempo play for that deck.
The whole concept is very grey though, I'm not going to say that Midrange has no tempo element to it - but again I would say cards like Thoughtseize or Inquisition of Kozilek are control plays that a Midrange deck utilises to delay the game. Removal in and of itself is not a tempo play, but can be in the context of the match-up and boardstate. When a Control deck removes a creature it is for a completely different purpose than a Tempo deck does.
Again, you're getting stuck on one definition of the term. Doing this makes a discussion of Tempo (or of tempo) impossible. Tempo and tempo are two different things; black-and-white terms that, when confused, obviously form a "grey concept." I'll restate my definition of each to help you understand:
A formal definition of each concept to make this distinction ultra-clear:
tempo - A mechanic (in the same way that "card advantage" is a mechanic, albeit a more tangible one). Time advantage utilized by a variety of decks to preserve a board state or postpone its further development. Tempo - A deck archetype. Gameplan: protect efficient threats while stacking incremental tempo advantages (often gained via soft disruption like bounce) to win before opponents can stabilize and play their decks optimally.
I'm not at all confusing the terms, I specifically capitalised when referencing the deck and used lower-case when discussing the concept to avoid such confusion.
The fact is no deck is purely anything. Mike Flores' "Whose the Beatdown" clearly identifies that in the context of the game you will take on different roles as you execute your gameplan. Thus nearly every deck will have elements of control, tempo, card advantage (card draw, virtual CA or some other form) and aggression. That's the grey area I'm talking about.
We define a deck by how much it takes an aggro stance vs. a controlling one vs. a combo one.
Every Tempo deck has an aggro element, so why are we defining it as Tempo rather than Aggro (uninterrupted Delver would play as an aggro deck)? Because we know that it's goal the majority of the time is to buy time/turns (i.e. play tempo) more often than it is to go turn 1 Delver, turn 2 Snapcaster and keep swinging. Delver vs. Scapeshift for example, Delver would almost certainly play as an aggro deck swinging to win before the Scapeshift player can cast a protected Scapeshift. That doesn't make it an Aggro deck, but in that match-up in that context it's not trying to buy time, it's trying win the race (you can argue semantics here in that buying time is a method of winning the race - let's call it Mario Cart Magic - but the point is that Delver will be turning things sideways way more often than it will be removing/bouncing threats in that match-up).
But overall Delver does more casting of tempo spells than it does casting creature spells and turning them sideways.
RUG/UR Twin (not so much the all-in version) plays as a Tempo-Control deck, often it wins purely on the back of Pestermite beats with protection. Every turn it casts Timewalk by forcing the opponent to hold up mana for removal (or to represent removal/an answer to the combo). Twin's tempo play is the threat of Splinter Twin on every turn.
I think you're trying to get a black and white definition of Tempo when none really exists. As mentioned above - does the existence of Bolt/Path in a Zoo list make it a Tempo deck? Or just an Aggro deck realising that being one dimensional in approach is suicide?
With regard to my time walk analogy - I was suggesting the number of time walks defines the level of a Tempo deck one is playing. A single Lightning Bolt does not a Tempo deck make, but that could be a tempo play for that deck.
The whole concept is very grey though, I'm not going to say that Midrange has no tempo element to it - but again I would say cards like Thoughtseize or Inquisition of Kozilek are control plays that a Midrange deck utilises to delay the game. Removal in and of itself is not a tempo play, but can be in the context of the match-up and boardstate. When a Control deck removes a creature it is for a completely different purpose than a Tempo deck does.
Again, you're getting stuck on one definition of the term. Doing this makes a discussion of Tempo (or of tempo) impossible. Tempo and tempo are two different things; black-and-white terms that, when confused, obviously form a "grey concept." I'll restate my definition of each to help you understand:
A formal definition of each concept to make this distinction ultra-clear:
tempo - A mechanic (in the same way that "card advantage" is a mechanic, albeit a more tangible one). Time advantage utilized by a variety of decks to preserve a board state or postpone its further development. Tempo - A deck archetype. Gameplan: protect efficient threats while stacking incremental tempo advantages (often gained via soft disruption like bounce) to win before opponents can stabilize and play their decks optimally.
I'm not at all confusing the terms, I specifically capitalised when referencing the deck and used lower-case when discussing the concept to avoid such confusion.
The fact is no deck is purely anything. Mike Flores' "Whose the Beatdown" clearly identifies that in the context of the game you will take on different roles as you execute your gameplan. Thus nearly every deck will have elements of control, tempo, card advantage (card draw, virtual CA or some other form) and aggression. That's the grey area I'm talking about.
Every Tempo deck has an aggro element, so why are we defining it as Tempo rather than Aggro (uninterrupted Delver would play as an aggro deck)? Because we know that it's goal the majority of the time is to buy time/turns (i.e. play tempo) more often than it is to go turn 1 Delver, turn 2 Snapcaster and keep swinging. Delver vs. Scapeshift for example, Delver would almost certainly play as an aggro deck swinging to win before the Scapeshift player can cast a protected Scapeshift. That doesn't make it an Aggro deck, but in that match-up in that context it's not trying to buy time, it's trying win the race (you can argue semantics here in that buying time is a method of winning the race - let's call it Mario Cart Magic - but the point is that Delver will be turning things sideways way more often than it will be removing/bouncing threats in that match-up).
I think you're trying to get a black and white definition of Tempo when none really exists. As mentioned above - does the existence of Bolt/Path in a Zoo list make it a Tempo deck? Or just an Aggro deck realising that being one dimensional in approach is suicide?
If no deck is truly everything, why even have archetypes in the first place? You could make the same argument about music genres. The fact of the matter, though, is that it just makes it easier for someone who likes Mary J. Blige to be able to walk into a record store and strut over to the R&B section, even though many musicians employ a myriad of different styles in their work. According to your logic, every deck could be construed as Tempo, or Aggro, or Control; that's just not helpful.
Keep in mind that "Tempo" the archetype is synonymous with "Aggro-Control" the archetype. I'll agree that both are crummy names; "tempo" already refers to the mechanic of time advantage, and "aggro-control" sounds like it could also apply to Midrange (which plays both Aggro and Control mechanics). But like it or not, that's just what the type of deck we're discussing here is called. When you hear someone with any Magic knowledge refer to a "Tempo deck," they're talking about Delver.
(Side note - I say "Delver" because that creature perfectly represents the Tempo gameplan. Prior to its printing, and to that of Tarmogoyf, creatures like Gaea's Skyfolk and Werebear were played in its place. Do a little research and you can find some lists.)
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
If no deck is truly everything, why even have archetypes in the first place? You could make the same argument about music genres. The fact of the matter, though, is that it just makes it easier for someone who likes Mary J. Blige to be able to walk into a record store and strut over to the R&B section, even though many musicians employ a myriad of different styles in their work. According to your logic, every deck could be construed as Tempo, or Aggro, or Control; that's just not helpful.
Keep in mind that "Tempo" the archetype is synonymous with "Aggro-Control" the archetype. I'll agree that both are crummy names; "tempo" already refers to the mechanic of time advantage, and "aggro-control" sounds like it could also apply to Midrange (which plays both Aggro and Control mechanics). But like it or not, that's just what the type of deck we're discussing here is called. When you hear someone with any Magic knowledge refer to a "Tempo deck," they're talking about Delver.
(Side note - I say "Delver" because that creature perfectly represents the Tempo gameplan. Prior to its printing, and to that of Tarmogoyf, creatures like Gaea's Skyfolk and Werebear were played in its place. Do a little research and you can find some lists.)
I'm not even sure we're disagreeing anymore - although you're very hung up on this tempo vs. Tempo thing. No-one is getting them confused. Tempo (the deck) has the grey area, tempo (the concept) is generally black and white.
Your first sentence doesn't make sense "If no deck is truly everything, why eve have archetypes in the first place?" - although given what you say afterwards I'm going to agree with you that we have various flavours of decks (music styles). I like to call my deck Aggro (Hip Hop) because it does a lot of aggro things, but I might spend time controlling the board or making a tempo play (errr, adding a kick-ass riff?) but that doesn't automatically put my deck in the Control or Tempo space (Rock section).
Tempo is a deck that sits in-between Aggro and Control, and somewhere in that space a deck is called Tempo but there isn't a defining moment when a deck moves over from Aggro to Tempo or from Tempo into Control. There isn't a clean definition, a cut-off point that tells you exactly when that transition occurs.
Tempo is a deck that sits in-between Aggro and Control, and somewhere in that space a deck is called Tempo but there isn't a defining moment when a deck moves over from Aggro to Tempo or from Tempo into Control. There isn't a clean definition, a cut-off point that tells you exactly when that transition occurs.
Here's where we disagree. If you'd like, post an example of a list that you're not sure where it sits and I'll tell you whether it's Tempo and why. It's generally not to difficult to identify Tempo decks; see my definition of them above. "Tempo" the archetype is as much a grey area as "Midrange" or "Aggro-Combo."
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
I'm not going to give a long definition of tempo (like I said, read the article) but at it's most stripped down and basic tempo is the race from 20 to 0 life. The point of this thread is to talk about Modern cards and decks in relation to tempo, not just to talk about how it is defined. There are a lot of decks in Modern that people seem to have a hard time categorizing and the term tempo gets tossed around pretty loosely and I think we need to have more understanding.
So, what decks are tempo? The most often agreed on deck that is defined as Tempo is Fae from old Extended. Using that and the article I think that the most obvious Modern deck to define as Tempo are most common builds of Ux Delver. One thing to understand is that Tempo is really defined the play, rather than the deck, so even the most tempo-y of decks will not always play that way, and some decks will play the tempo game depending on the game state and opposing deck. It is very similar to the point the Mike Flores made in his classic article "Who's the Beatdown?", but when all or most of the cards in a deck are focused on gaining tempo it is functional to define it as such.
One deck that I think is very often defined incorrectly is Infect. A lot of people call it combo, or at the very best aggro, but after re-reading some of this stuff it is really a tempo deck. Infect at it's very core is a tempo strategy because they only have to go from 10 to 0 (or more accurately 0 to 10) where as your opponent has to go from 20 to 0. It also uses instant pump, which when used under the right circumstance contributes to a tempo strategy. My Sultai build of the deck (GUB) also runs cards like Remand to further contribute to the strategy. Affinity might be another that is more properly defined as Tempo, but I don't really know the deck well. It is not combo, which is really a deck that wins the turn it combos out rather than through incremental tempo advantage.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
A better way to visualize the concept is Jones' idea of a "damage race on the board." Damage here can, in some cases, be replaced by other factors that indicate how close a player is to just winning the game (i.e. Scapeshift gradually approaching 7 lands as opposed to 20 incremental points of damage).
That said, those two articles ("Introduction to Tempo" and "Who's the Beatdown?") are MUST-READS for any serious Magic player. I hope nobody replies to this thread seeking to have an intelligent conversation about Tempo without first having attentively read both. Actually, I think the OP should specify this prerequisite more explicitly so nobody wastes (all of our) time discussing something they don't even slightly understand.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
'Good' Tempo comes from neutralising your opponents play using less mana allowing you to efficiently do more things. Look at Canadian Tempo Thresh, it relies on keeping their opponents on the early game (with bolts, stifles and wastelands) where all their superior tempo plays (delvers/goyfs/geese and daze/pierce/force) allow them to overwhelm their opponent.
Agreed, it is a simplification from which to start, and the article does a good job of adding to it with it's use of "beats". Burn races to 0 well, but it is unconcerned with gaining actual tempo. This is also a good point to stress that a lot of decks styles can gain tempo at various stages, but that does not make them necessarily tempo decks.
To a certain extent this is true, but one thing to keep in mind is that tempo may have some innate card advantage, but card advantage in tempo is utterly pointless if it cannot be put to use now or soon to shut the game down. Control, on the other hand, is much more tolerant of raw card advantage even if it yields late game plays.
Raw numbers are misleading when it comes to number of cards played. What is far more important is the quality of your cards at this stage of the game than those of your opponent. Often that quality is translated into cheaper cards, but efficiency is the real metric.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
I don't know Dr. Worm, seems like people in this thread (at least so far) really do know Tempo.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
By the way I have read both of those articles and come away with how I explained it.
TEMPO is a generally REACTIVE, DISRUPTIVE AGGRO DECK that uses Tempo elements to preserve a superior board state established very early in the game.
MIDRANGE is a generally PROACTIVE, DISRUPTIVE AGGRO DECK That uses Tempo elements to drag a game out to a stage in which it can easily create and maintain a superior board state.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Midrange_deck
http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Tempo
UB/x Faeries
UR Storm
XURWB Affinity
G Elves
UW control
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
I wasnt sure my points would reveal much, but my statements come from having played Delver Faeries Angel-fire and Geist of Saint Win in the past. I have never followed the point of blue decks being defined as midrange, simply because blue cards in these decks, and the cards chosen in other colors to compliment the blue cards, are not trying to go over the top, or dominate to finish the game.
The confusion of tempo was mostly surrounding faeries, I have always considered Faeries an Aggro-Control deck since long before aggro-control decks faded away and midrange decks were the go-to. As a faeries player from lorwyn standard I have made the mistake saying that the deck is a midrange deck, when it is not one at all. First and Foremost Aggro-Control is the closest understanding of the deck because midrange implies that faeries has a dominant game ending state which it does not. Most of the wins in faeries are etched in with nickel and dime damage outside of Mistbind Clique which is the Lightning Angel of the deck (lightning angel being the flagship card of the deck which almost defined aggro-control in standard, Angelfire). Faeries has a very strong control element to carry its weaker aggro element at times as opposed to geist of saint win which has a very strong aggro element to carry its control element; but both of these decks dont necessarily dominate the lategame as midrange would suggest.
Now, i believe the confusion of tempo and faeries simply comes from the fact that faeries is a very complex deck; so it has been defined and simplified for years by its time-walking effects (cryptic command, mistbind clique, remand, and in very few cases time warp) and built-in game advantage (previously identified as virtual card advantage) of the creatures it uses (usually you have your creatures and you have your spells used for disruption, this deck situationally fuses both the creature body and the disruption) so with game advantage being a concept that factors into the game's tempo the lines grow blurred when you look at a faeries deck. Faeries is a deck that is piloted battling for minor advantages in gamestate with control to promote its angles of aggression in the form of damage.
To solve the confusion though I believe it would be easier to say that delver is an aggro decktype (there is minor proof of this in the recent lists for delver) which is built to gain tempo over the opponent from the structure of its cards to almost every decision it makes. The fact that delver itself is a 1 mana threat itself is a nod to that statement. The time it takes for the opponent to re-cast the spells they want to have resolve make remand and vapor snag another point that decks can be built to gain tempo, but cannot be tempo. Other decks capitalize upon tempo, delver was built to use it as a tool. treasure cruise in delver is a point of tempo as opposed to ancestral visions because the deck has been built to access 3 more cards from treasure cruise at 1-2 mana immediately as opposed to waiting 4 turns, and delve is how it is achieved, giving each card in the graveyard of the delver deck an addition of game advantage, "i have played more spells than you, and those spells will fuel me playing more spells to advance my gameplan", making the cards play double duty, because each card delved is a nod toward casting cruise in a timely manner and still having the mana to use most of those cards.
UB/x Faeries
UR Storm
XURWB Affinity
G Elves
UW control
"Other decks capitalize upon tempo, delver was built to use it as a tool."
No decks are always one thing in all games, but a deck that is built expressly to use tempo as a tool is by definition a tempo deck.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
When you go turn 1 Delver of Secrets, turn 2 Remand, you make them replay their turn 2. When you Vapor Snag their turn 3 play and swing through, you continue to keep them back a turn.
I think to view it as the race 20 is a bit confusing when you consider Aggro which is really about the race to 0. Affinity and Infect fall squarely in this category as they tend to have minimal interaction with the opponent's plan while they try push through damage. I very much doubt you could call them Tempo by standard definitions of the archetype Tempo. Both of them have combo elements and would fall squarely under Aggro-Combo, they generally race to the win but they can win the race in one turn by combining spells/artifacts (when Infect wins on turn 2 with pumps - you've been combo killed - or if your opponent dumps his team on an unblocked attacker using Ravager - that's a combo).
I think this article sums up the archetypes quite well - with Tempo being the alternative name for Aggro-Control.
For a deck to classify as "Tempo," it must be "built expressly to use tempo as a tool" in a specific way. Midrange decks like Jund use tempo to drag the game out. Combo decks like Scapeshift use tempo to hit 7 Lands and ensure protection for their win. Tempo decks win by riding cheap threats backed up by soft disruption elements, and as Nixernator put it above, by maximizing mana efficiency to effectively do more each turn than their opponents.
In terms of how a deck functions, yes, Midrange is a "tempo" deck. It's a deck built expressly to use tempo as a tool. But Tempo, the archetype, with a capital "T," follows the description I've given above.
A formal definition of each concept to make this distinction ultra-clear:
tempo - A mechanic (in the same way that "card advantage" is a mechanic, albeit a more tangible one). Time advantage utilized by a variety of decks to preserve a board state or postpone its further development.
Tempo - A deck archetype. Gameplan: protect efficient threats while stacking incremental tempo advantages (often gained via soft disruption like bounce) to win before opponents can stabilize and play their decks optimally.
Cards like Remand, Repeal, and Vapor Snag give the caster "tempo," and are found in Tempo decks, Midrange decks, and Combo decks alike. Cards like Spell Pierce, Daze, and Lightning Bolt disrupt opponents for a minimal mana investment, fitting Tempo's requirement for cheap spells and therefore solidifying their status as archetype staples. You'll never find Spell Pierce in a Midrange deck.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
While I agree with much of what you have said - I'm not sure I'd say Scapeshift uses "tempo" to hit 7 lands, rather using control to delay the game until that point. It does seem rather close though, because it can use Remand as much as it uses Cryptic Command to stall the board - the former being a tempo play the latter a control one.
With regard to my time walk analogy - I was suggesting the number of time walks defines the level of a Tempo deck one is playing. A single Lightning Bolt does not a Tempo deck make, but that could be a tempo play for that deck.
The whole concept is very grey though, I'm not going to say that Midrange has no tempo element to it - but again I would say cards like Thoughtseize or Inquisition of Kozilek are control plays that a Midrange deck utilises to delay the game. Removal in and of itself is not a tempo play, but can be in the context of the match-up and boardstate. When a Control deck removes a creature it is for a completely different purpose than a Tempo deck does.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Heck, Zoo starts looking more like Tempo, as a lot of its burn is aimed at blockers (i.e. it disrupts after it plays its 1-drop threats).
I guess Control looks like extra-exaggerated Midrange ("disrupt, disrupt, disrupt,...then play a threat and hold up disruption at the same time or play a threat that disrupts when it ETB").
I'm not at all confusing the terms, I specifically capitalised when referencing the deck and used lower-case when discussing the concept to avoid such confusion.
The fact is no deck is purely anything. Mike Flores' "Whose the Beatdown" clearly identifies that in the context of the game you will take on different roles as you execute your gameplan. Thus nearly every deck will have elements of control, tempo, card advantage (card draw, virtual CA or some other form) and aggression. That's the grey area I'm talking about.
We define a deck by how much it takes an aggro stance vs. a controlling one vs. a combo one.
Every Tempo deck has an aggro element, so why are we defining it as Tempo rather than Aggro (uninterrupted Delver would play as an aggro deck)? Because we know that it's goal the majority of the time is to buy time/turns (i.e. play tempo) more often than it is to go turn 1 Delver, turn 2 Snapcaster and keep swinging. Delver vs. Scapeshift for example, Delver would almost certainly play as an aggro deck swinging to win before the Scapeshift player can cast a protected Scapeshift. That doesn't make it an Aggro deck, but in that match-up in that context it's not trying to buy time, it's trying win the race (you can argue semantics here in that buying time is a method of winning the race - let's call it Mario Cart Magic - but the point is that Delver will be turning things sideways way more often than it will be removing/bouncing threats in that match-up).
But overall Delver does more casting of tempo spells than it does casting creature spells and turning them sideways.
RUG/UR Twin (not so much the all-in version) plays as a Tempo-Control deck, often it wins purely on the back of Pestermite beats with protection. Every turn it casts Timewalk by forcing the opponent to hold up mana for removal (or to represent removal/an answer to the combo). Twin's tempo play is the threat of Splinter Twin on every turn.
I think you're trying to get a black and white definition of Tempo when none really exists. As mentioned above - does the existence of Bolt/Path in a Zoo list make it a Tempo deck? Or just an Aggro deck realising that being one dimensional in approach is suicide?
Keep in mind that "Tempo" the archetype is synonymous with "Aggro-Control" the archetype. I'll agree that both are crummy names; "tempo" already refers to the mechanic of time advantage, and "aggro-control" sounds like it could also apply to Midrange (which plays both Aggro and Control mechanics). But like it or not, that's just what the type of deck we're discussing here is called. When you hear someone with any Magic knowledge refer to a "Tempo deck," they're talking about Delver.
(Side note - I say "Delver" because that creature perfectly represents the Tempo gameplan. Prior to its printing, and to that of Tarmogoyf, creatures like Gaea's Skyfolk and Werebear were played in its place. Do a little research and you can find some lists.)
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
I'm not even sure we're disagreeing anymore - although you're very hung up on this tempo vs. Tempo thing. No-one is getting them confused. Tempo (the deck) has the grey area, tempo (the concept) is generally black and white.
Your first sentence doesn't make sense "If no deck is truly everything, why eve have archetypes in the first place?" - although given what you say afterwards I'm going to agree with you that we have various flavours of decks (music styles). I like to call my deck Aggro (Hip Hop) because it does a lot of aggro things, but I might spend time controlling the board or making a tempo play (errr, adding a kick-ass riff?) but that doesn't automatically put my deck in the Control or Tempo space (Rock section).
Tempo is a deck that sits in-between Aggro and Control, and somewhere in that space a deck is called Tempo but there isn't a defining moment when a deck moves over from Aggro to Tempo or from Tempo into Control. There isn't a clean definition, a cut-off point that tells you exactly when that transition occurs.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy