The Dichotomy of Archetypes
General forum
Posted on March 10, 2016, 4:36 p.m. by MindAblaze
What if there was only really two styles of playing Magic? What if our rock/paper/scissors view of how the game works was wrong, and really just sat on a scale? (but not the Fear-Love scale...different reference.)
I propose that the only true distinction is aggro vs control. Ie; I play my game regardless of what you're doing, vs I stop you from doing what you're doing until I'm ready to win.
Remember, this is a spectrum, so midrange falls somewhere, obviously, in the middle. Depending on the format that looks different, but basically it's more aggro than control ("I swing my Thragtusk at you and cast my Lightning Bolt at your Planeswalker.") and more control than aggro ("My Thragtusk blocks your Goblin Guide and I kill your 3/3 Wild Nacatl with a Lightning Bolt.")
So fine, we know midrange is aggro/control keeping in mind "who's the aggro?" But what about combo?
Combo comes in two forms.
Type A) combo decks that race to the finish; for example, turn one Altar of the Brood, turn two Leonin Relic-Warder, turn three Phyrexian Metamorph...win.
type C) combo decks that choose to slow roll their opponents until they can safely combo out. They may do that by leaving up counter magic, disrupting the opponents hand, or killing their opponents threats so they don't die before their own win condition gets on board. Either way, they control the board state and combo out.
Fine, all of these things you're saying make sense Mind, but what's the point?
For newer players it may be hard to discern how they should be playing their decks. Knowing "who's the aggro" makes their decisions easier. For older players, it takes some of this frustration with certain formats that "X archetype is under represented" away because those archetypes are imaginary constructs on a sliding scale anyway. Just semantics. We define what exists.
Anyway, that's it for now. Fire away, I'm ready for it.
MindAblaze says... #3
Well that's the question always isn't it?
I recognize this probably doesn't help you GA as the more seasoned player knows the difference and can spot the hallmarks of an aggro midrange deck vs a midrange-control deck.
The goal was to draw attention to the spectrum and remind players that we build and play our decks dynamically based on each individual game rather than subscribe to the "aggro beats control who beats midrange who beats aggro" mentality.
March 10, 2016 4:57 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #4
I guess, to eliminate potential confusion in that sometimes your aggro deck is actually the control deck when you're playing a deck that is going to try to go under you.
March 10, 2016 4:58 p.m.
The spectrum is reactive or proactive to a large extent. Archetypes such as control, midrange, combo, and aggro exist on an axis of either being very proactive or reactive.
We have sets and subsets
March 10, 2016 6:34 p.m.
the.beanpole says... #6
In one sense, I agree with you. In another, I think that these additional distinctions are immensely useful. This discussion reminds me of the old riddle, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" Along those lines, I think deck classification requires a game in progress to really classify a deck as "control" or "aggro" and that both classifications are necessarily represented. Even then, the classification can shift during the course of a match or game. It is worthwhile (and necessary) to determine which one you are throughout the course of a game and match (an article on this that I enjoy - Who is the beatdown?), but that is the only classification/distinction that truly matters (apart from archetype generalities giving you insight into the contents of your opponent's deck). When looking at decks outside of play, which is essentially a vacuum, these additional descriptors are useful for determining against which decks you can plan to be "control" and against which you can plan to be "aggro". When you know that, some of your card selections are made much simpler.
March 10, 2016 8:06 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #7
There are many dichotomies in MTG. The R/P/S representation of archetypes is more of a meta balancing design philosophy than an attempt to fully describe the interaction of the decks.
A short list of dichotomies in MTG including those already listed:
Aggro : Control
Proactive : Reactive
Fair : Unfair
Interactive : Non-interactive
Linear : Flexible
Incremental : Explosive
I find it incredibly reductionist to try to say that decks can be summed up from where they fall on a single one of these scales. It is a good starting point to introduce a single scale so that lower skilled players get used to thinking on a spectrum of how their deck relates to their opponent's and pressing advantages. A player's skills will never grow beyond intermediate without thinking along multiple of the scales though.
March 10, 2016 9:48 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #8
So it sounds like people are comfortable with the idea that many things in magic exist along a spectrum, the most broad of which is aggro-control.
My question then is, during the game, how many of the other descriptors matter?
March 11, 2016 2:30 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #9
Every single one I listed matters to identify where both you and your opponent fall on the scale during the game. Relation on the scale doesn't matter as much in some cases but identifying where each deck is on the scale does.
Proactive : Reactive- Proactive decks encourage a larger dedication of forces in the early game both when being played and when playing against. When playing against reactive decks you will want to try to commit as much as possible on a single late turn so that they have a limited number of things they react to. When playing a reactive deck you will want to wait for them to try to make a large play so that you can make yours on your next turn after reacting to theirs. Many decks will shift during the game and you would need to identify what plan you and they are on to know the best strategy to employ.
Fair : Unfair- Identifying how "fair" someone plans on being is integral to combating them. This one doesn't change much during games but it has a possibility to depending on the decks in play.
Interactive : Non-interactive - Can change during the course of the game. Once you have the aggro identified the control will want to employ an opposite tactic to what the aggro is to get him off his game plan. Either by forcing interaction for non-interactive decks or by disallowing interaction from interactive decks.
Linear : Flexible- Doesn't change much during a game, but important to identify so that you can be ready for which your opponent is running and you know how best to use your own deck.
Incremental : Explosive - Depending on where a deck is being played along this scale is how aggressive you have to be about answering threats. If someone is on an incremental strategy there is less pressure to answer each threat, and a larger focus on answering the right threat. Explosive strategies require each threat to be answered or else they can run away with the game. It is important to know where your deck is on this spectrum to know how protective you need to ve of each of your own threats.
March 11, 2016 5:14 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #11
Ramp strategies are usually farther to the aggro-proactive-fair-noninteractive-linear-explosive ends of each scale.
March 13, 2016 6:13 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #12
Lol.
While I agree with Gidgetimers assessment, wouldn't a simpler set of qualifiers be easier?
Ramp is usually a non-interactive, combo style of play, which fits into the aggro portion of the scale.
March 13, 2016 7 p.m. Edited.
Gidgetimer says... #13
It would be much easier and for most cases would be fine to use a simpler set of qualifiers. However since we were speaking of a variety of scales decks could be measured on I just gave the qualification on each of them. If asked in normal conversation I would even probably say that ramp decks are non-interactive fair decks. Dropping most of the scales in favor of simple broad strokes of what defines ramp.
GlistenerAgent says... #2
In an abstract sense, the two major archetypes are aggro and control. Not sure why we should argue whether or not that should be the prevailing nomenclature.
March 10, 2016 4:43 p.m.