"Fair" decks?
Modern forum
Posted on Sept. 3, 2016, 1:51 a.m. by chaoswalker
I've heard people call Abzan and Jund "fair" archetypes since they are highly interactive and victory is dependent on your ability to disrupt the opponent and you actually have to kill them by combat. After playing both archetypes, I have to agree that they make for decent lengthed interesting games. Are there other archetypes in modern that achieve this effect?
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #3
Grixis Control is less popular these days, but is still a very fair deck.
Sadly, if you're looking for good interaction on a budget, Snapcaster Mage is the linchpin of any fair blue deck and any green fair deck needs 4 Tarmogoyf, so until MM2017 hopefully reprints Snapcaster Mage, it will be difficult to build a fair deck.
September 3, 2016 3:06 a.m.
verynice47 says... #4
B/W Tokens is often called a very "fair" archetype.
-VN
September 3, 2016 5:35 a.m.
Fair isn't about the length of the game or interaction it's about the fundamental rules of the game such as playing one land per turn, generating 1 mana per land, no cards causing infinite loops, winning through straightforward combat damage, and that kind of thing.
So fair decks like Tokens, like Control, like Jund don't kind of break any action or mana economy they just play the game at its most basic level. Their lands generate one mana. They play one land per turn. Their cards do what's printed on the card and no more or no less etc.
Then you have slightly unfair decks like Infect (Infect might actually be totally unfair not slightly unfair) or Merfolk that might break some aspect of the action economy or invoke some synergy that's not totally unfair but bordering on it. These decks might for example accelerate ungodly quickly with AEther Vial or essentially set your life total to 10 instead of 20. They might exploit internal synergies such as multiple lords like Lord of Atlantis to become more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts or synergies like Spreading Seas with islandwalk. Tron is also considered somewhat unfair because it follows the normal 1 land per turn restriction but it looks for a combo that allows each of its lands to generate 2/3 mana. These kinds of decks sit at the boundary being fair and unfair because they play normal, everyday games of magic for the most part but also have some axiom which they exploit for a larger advantage, be that explosiveness or mana generation etc.
Then you have totally unfair decks like Storm or Abzan Company etc that just win through loops and some kind of exploit interaction. See Anafenza, Kin-Tree Spirit + Kitchen Finks + Viscera Seer . The kinds of decks thats entire purpose is to win the game through some interaction that bypasses the normal assumptions of the game.
But you can have interactive unfair decks. And you can have noninteractive fair decks. A thopter foundry deck that was highly interactive would border on almost unfair because it's looking to win with Sword of the Meek + Thopter Foundry . It's a very slow but still infinite combo that generates an advantage thats more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts but for most of the game the deck just plays everyday 1-for-1 control deck type magic. A Zoo deck that has no interaction is probably fair, and so is Hatebears which /kind of/ interacts but in a roundabout way. These decks are just everyday, straightforward creature decks and do nothing in terms undue explosiveness, mana generation or use or weird win conditions but they also barely run any removal.
For more information see here
Note that it's not very helpful to sort decks into Fair and Unfair. No one can definitively decide what the terms even mean so it's much more useful to just talk about Interactive/Reactive and Non-Interactive/Proactive.
September 3, 2016 7:20 a.m.
In fact I'm not even convinced merfolk is slightly unfair, but whatever, this is exactly the poin on what I wrote above. Fair/Unfair is super hard to classify and thus not a very good bipartite system.
I like this system of classification:
September 3, 2016 7:26 a.m.
Sweet graphic, ChiefBell. That's probably more informative than listing the decks one by one.
September 3, 2016 10:14 a.m.
ChiefBell
I have some bitter feelings towards the classification you posted, as it has very poorly defined archetypes.
(Midrange? ...?)
I run across this once:
boardgamegeek.com/thread/370207/what-i-know-about-magic-gathering
This uses some unorthodox definitions, but for me it makes more sense in the end.
Aggro: Playing a bunch of similar cheap threats eraly for the win (be it bolt, or goblins) -> Beats tempo
Midrange: Plays answer cards, that punish putting too many eggs in one basket, like board wipes, permanent hate cards (like Stony Silence or Leyline of the Void) -> Beats aggro
Combo: Abuses the strong interaction of few cards to win the game once they are played, this can take the form of infinite combos, or being able to ramp into karn early. It has an edge over midrange as it can afford to pack something against its answer cards. ->Beats Midrange
Control: Uses permission spells to deny the opponents key cards, this can take the form of removal, counterspells, targeted discard, or manipulation of the top of library. ->Beats Combo
Aggro-controll/Tempo: It has similar permission spells to controll (sometimes cheaper), but instead of planning to win in the long run, it aims to win by deploying threats early, before permission spells could really hinder it, and then engage in counter wars, while the threat slowly brings the opponent down. ->Beats combo
Obviously successful decks, can attack the meta clock from more than one position.
September 20, 2016 5:18 p.m.
Aggro doesn't have to play similar threats and it doesn't have to play many threats. Infect only plays 8 infect creatures, for example.
Midrange doesn't play wipes in most formats bar standard and even in standard it often won't bother. Midrange can struggle against aggro and can also easily beat combo because you're running the control cards to beat it and the aggro threats to win before they "go off". So those definitions you posted fail there.
Combo is fine but takes many forms so it doesn't always beat midrange. This archetype isn't really even worth bunching together because decks like TezzaThopter are totally different to decks like Twin so there's no point putting them all into one basket. One of those wins against midrange but loses to aggro. The other wins against aggro but loses to midrange. Combo is such a diverse set of decks I wouldn't try to group them.
Control, again, can beat or lose to combo depending on the combo we're talking about.
Tempo again is more complicated than you're giving credit for. Many combo decks ARE tempo decks and the above definitions don't make it clear aggro-control like Delver or what's hybrid control like Tarmotwin that was very much a controlling deck with a few threats thrown in.
September 20, 2016 5:47 p.m.
As i said it doesn't use the standard nomenclature.
And it doesn't clasify decks based on the turn they are favoured.
In fact most modern decks win by playing more than one of these roles.
Ps.:things like platinum angel, melira, and the like are what can make infect pay, not to mention the more frequently played things like spellskite. Tell me with a straight face that infect (or boogles) doesn't commit very hard to boost spells (or auras)!
There is no deck with heavy midrange focus in modern atm (at least according to this theory), jund just runs a hybrid of tempo, controll, and midrange for example - and its 6 (or so) controll spells are simply not enough to combat monstrosities like tron. And yes when one doesn't run midrange cards, only permission spells, then its hard to deal with aggro.
September 20, 2016 6:01 p.m.
Like i said. Thise definitions are fairy dust. Not real. Its fine if you want to use them but dont confuse others by throwing them out there.
September 20, 2016 6:15 p.m.
So am i banned from speaking?
I honestly found them quiet useful, when thinking about ways to beat given decks, but surely its different, thus not only worthless, but presenting it is evil.
September 20, 2016 6:17 p.m.
You can say what you like but im saying that the presented definitions are at best misleading and at worst just completely factually lacking. My interest is in highlighting the errors and discouraging further confusion from arising.
September 20, 2016 6:19 p.m.
One of the most notable errors is that the way the link you provided describes the matchuos between the decks is false in many cases. It also claims combo tries to be as fast as aggro..... it doesnt.
I might write more about this but that kind of information (as presented in your linked article) really makes things a lot less clear than they could be. My concern is always with making sure people are well informed about the ins and outs of the game.
Im sleeping now. I might come back tomorrow
September 20, 2016 6:23 p.m.
So the key to understanding magic is understanding how tempo, life, and cards interact.
Aggro decks aim for high tempo, in essence they want to win quickly. They do this by "spending" cards and life. They'll play out their hand very quickly and won't prioritise removing the opponents threats, even if they're doing lots of damage. Their goal is to win at any cost. You recognise these decks by their supreme commitment to the early game. Think turn 3 and 4 wins.
Control decks aim for card advantage, in essence they want to accrue long game value. They do this by spending life and tempo. They'll take hits from opponents and play slower cards like Cryptic Command or Supreme Verdict. However by the late game they get to do multiple things with each card. Supreme Verdict can kill potentially infinite creatures, Cryptic Command counters a spell and draws a card. You recognise these decks by their overall commitment to card advantage. Think Snapcaster Mage and Supreme Verdict.
Midrange is the tricky one because it skirts the boundary between aggro and control. Midrange decks will always contain a significant control portion and a significant aggressive portion. Jund plays about 12 creatures and about 22 control spells. Abzan plays about 17 threats (including Lingering Souls) and about 15 control spells. The key thing midrange does is trade life for tempo and cards. Think Dark Confidant, and Thoughtseize, combined with the painful manabase of 10 fetches, 4 shocks. They use their life total to get ahead. The goal of all midrange decks is to out-control aggro and out-aggro control. They're flexible. You recognise midrange decks by their reliance on a mixture of very efficiently costed removal spells and creatures, but often at the expense of their life total.
After this you get to hybrid decks like Tempo or Hybrid Control and others. But I won't go into those right now.
The general rule of thumb is that aggro beats control, control beats midrange, and midrange beats aggro.
Aggro wins before control can play it's big game ending cards. Control can accrue more value in the late game than midrange and easily begin to pull ahead. Midrange can deal with aggros threats efficiently and then play its own bigger creatures to prevent aggro from winning.
However this is not fixed in modern.
The primary problem is that actually, aggro beats everything in modern. Decks like affinity and infect can easily beat midrange and control decks if they draw well because proactivity in this format is so deadly to reactive decks. If the reactive deck draws one removal spell instead of two, and the proactive deck draws two threats instead of one then it's GG in a very simple sense.
So X beats Y and Y beats Z doesn't actually hold here.
Furthermore, I never, never, never include combo in this.
Combo doesn't have a general style of play, tempo, or overall strategy.
Ad Nauseam ramps into the combo very aggressively whilst ignoring the opponent. In essence it's like an aggro deck.
Sword of the Meek and Thopter Foundry plays lots of cards like Mana Leak and then bigger spells like board clears and Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas for card advantage. In essence it's like a control deck.
Knight of the Reliquary and Retreat to Coralhelm plays a good portion of proactive threats like Tarmogoyf and also reactive removal like Path to Exile. It mixes the role it takes depending on the opponent. In essence it's like a midrange deck.
Therefore it is untrue to say "combo does this" or "combo beats this" because there are so many different types of combo, that all resemble different deck archetypes it's impossible to classify all of them neatly.
Hopefully that's useful.
September 21, 2016 6:51 a.m.
chaoswalker says... #18
I prefer to pretend that combo decks don't exist in magic. I know that's not true, and you certainly can't think that way when playing competitively but when it comes to having a good time combo is probably the greatest extreme of "only one person is going to have a good time.
September 21, 2016 5:46 p.m.
Comboing of against decks that have a large amount of permission cards is hard, if not impossible.
(like 8rack, or lantern controll)
September 22, 2016 3:33 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #20
Xica, ...unless you're playing against 8-rack with a combo deck like dredge where their discard is between meaningless and helpful.
September 22, 2016 4:59 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #21
The other thing to note is that there's two different types of "unfair" decks. You've got decks that are straight up unfair (Ad Nauseam). However you also see decks doing fair things unfairly or vice versa. Tron just plays lands, but when it plays the right ones it gets dumb. Infect just attacks and pumps creatures, but does so in a way that's absurd.
October 2, 2016 12:06 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd
I meant combo deck as a deck that aims to win via some broken key interaction, like scapeshift, belcher decks, the melira & splinter twin decks of old.
Of course permission based control is useless against deck that play a great number of spells that do the same thing and make each other stronger. (-> but hate cards exist for this reason)
rothgar13 says... #2
Death & Taxes/Hatebears and Grixis Delver also fall in that category. They are more aggressive than Abzan/Jund, but the core concept of disrupting the opponent and then finishing them off with creature attacks is prevalent.
Jeskai Control is very interaction-dependent, but one can argue that its principal win condition these days (Nahiri, the Harbinger fetching Emrakul, the Aeons Torn) is more of a combo element. However, the deck is plenty capable of burning out a weakened opponent with Lightning Bolt, Lightning Helix, or Electrolyze (especially once Snapcaster Mage is considered), or beating them down with Celestial Colonnade or Vendilion Clique.
Merfolk is probably the next step down on the interaction scale - it's functionally an aggro deck, but it has a pretty deep toolbox of tricks (mostly attached to creatures like Cursecatcher and Harbinger of the Tides).
September 3, 2016 1:59 a.m. Edited.