So, what does mythic rarity have to do with skill in Magic? I'm just saying, don't you think that's a little off topic?
That said, I'm fine with mythic debate. I have my own views on it too, but it doesn't need to be in every thread on MTGS. (isn't there an official thread somewhere for this?)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:UWBRG MAGIC: The Gathering UWBRG
Myth: Sealed/draft is all about who has the most/best rares and mythics in their deck. If you open 6 rares of the same color you're practically guaranteed to win.
Truth: Good rares do help, but they are by no means an auto-win, and the winner of a limited event isn't 100% determined by who opened what. No matter what insane cards you have, there will be games where you never draw those ones, never cast them, or they are answered immediately (unless you're stupid lucky). Most draft games are won off the back of commons, which are the bulk of any limited pool.
Myth: Sealed/draft is all about who has the most/best rares and mythics in their deck. If you open 6 rares of the same color you're practically guaranteed to win.
Truth: Good rares do help, but they are by no means an auto-win, and the winner of a limited event isn't 100% determined by who opened what. No matter what insane cards you have, there will be games where you never draw those ones, never cast them, or they are answered immediately (unless you're stupid lucky). Most draft games are won off the back of commons, which are the bulk of any limited pool.
Example: Winning on the back of a Darksteel Myr equipped with a Darksteel Axe when all my good rares had suffered crushing blows due to that one Tower of Calamity that my opponent ran in their Draft Deck.
My 2 Cents: You can win games with a deck you just simply know is "POWERFUL" but that don't mean you are going to kick sheer ass with it just because you obtained that deck with a big fancy wad of cash. A good MTG player knows how his cards work inside and out to their full potential in any format to get the most "BANG FOR BUCK" ratio.
Also note, I never said that control was more skill-intensive then aggro. I stated that ONE particular skill, which happens to occur more in control decks, is much harder to learn/master. You may notice that I compared deck manipulation to certain aggro skills, but left others out. For instance, I don't talk about not overextending, and this is because how much you should extend your hand is insanely hard, much closer to deck manipulation in difficulty. It's just that the specific ones I mentioned are easier.
Well, I do think control is more skill-intensive for worse players. In other words, bad aggro players might win a game here or there, even when they deserve to win 0% of games, based on skill, when they get a good enough draw (because the draw is more important in aggro).
I actually think avoiding overextending is easier for legacy aggro decks than optimizing damage based on planning ahead. In fact, that's a good answer to the OP: avoiding overextending is not an important skill in legacy aggro.
First of all, legacy aggro decks are fast, so the reward for playing out all your spells is higher. More importantly, the way that control decks deal with swarms is different. They typically use some form of card advantage on targeted removal (e.g. Jace drawing into removal spells, Snapcaster flashing something back, Punishing Grove, Jitte -1/-1ing everything).
With this sort of control strategy, if they have the resources to remove a creature on one turn, they'll still have them later: they will still have removal in hand; they will get one Punishing Fire per turn; the counters should still be on Jitte, and they should keep Snapcaster Mage in hand. It's actually better to play all your creatures early, as a more even spread of creature plays by turn is easier for them to handle with this strategy. Other ways of stopping aggro include consistent life gain, tutoring protection/moat enchantments, and creating a wall of counters. All of those make it better to play spells as early as possible.
I don't necessarily disagree with your view either MGF. My point in my prior post was that saying deck manipulation is very skill intensive is not the same as saying control > aggro. I was simply trying to guard against what look dangerously close to someone putting words in my mouth.
I do tend to feel that control is more skill-intensive, for similar reasons as you: you can't get that random nut draw that just plays itself. However, I also don't feel that this is something I should be getting into an argument about, as I am naturally biased on the matter (I've ended up playing more control then aggro). That is why I was careful to examine only particular skills, as opposed to presenting a judgment of aggro or control as a whole.
Big picture, and strictly talking about tournaments that would use this rule and the top 8 to which it applies, this decreases variance? If a control player were to get an aggro matchup and their opponent has choice, that strikes me as the aggro player having quite an advantage, earned or not.
I don't necessarily disagree with your view either MGF. My point in my prior post was that saying deck manipulation is very skill intensive is not the same as saying control > aggro. I was simply trying to guard against what look dangerously close to someone putting words in my mouth.
I do tend to feel that control is more skill-intensive, for similar reasons as you: you can't get that random nut draw that just plays itself. However, I also don't feel that this is something I should be getting into an argument about, as I am naturally biased on the matter (I've ended up playing more control then aggro). That is why I was careful to examine only particular skills, as opposed to presenting a judgment of aggro or control as a whole.
I tend to agree and disagree here. I seem to have a hard time expressing well how I feel about it though. I find that there is a lower entry requirement for aggro but a higher level required for mastering it.
If we considered rating skill requirement on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is a brand new player and 10 is someone who has absolutely mastered the game and can play any deck perfectly with no mistakes (can't really be acheived) I'd say that:
Learning to play aggro acceptably requires a 2, but truly mastering aggro is probably an 8. You see very few people who actually acheive this, even at the pro-level.
Learning to play control acceptably probably takes a 4, but only requires the step to 6 to really master it, this is really common at a higher level and is kind of an entry point to pro-level magic.
Tempo control would probably fall in between the 2. The thing is, it's so rare that you see truly masterful play that it's difficult to really pin it down sometimes.
This would be absolute if all strategies had equal card support in a format, however that's not the case. This is somewhat subject to change based on the format as some strategies become stronger than others. In a format that is really geared towards strong aggro, playing control is going to have a higher demand on the player. In a format that has stronger control and combo, Aggro is going to suffer and only the very best aggro players and builders will be able to make it succeed. Right now I have to give credit to control players as we are in a format that is very unfriendly to control. The players able to still pull it off at a high level are only doing so because they have gone beyond just mastering the control archetype.
Big picture, and strictly talking about tournaments that would use this rule and the top 8 to which it applies, this decreases variance? If a control player were to get an aggro matchup and their opponent has choice, that strikes me as the aggro player having quite an advantage, earned or not.
Then u would be the prepared opponent to run an aggro deck in that tournament (unless meta didn't agree or control was that much better deck) and have side stuff against other aggro matchups; not agreeing with decision, just pointing out how one will have to adjust to gain that extra edge
I think there should be a middle ground somewhere with the prices and rarities; Sword of W/P should be $45+, thats ridiculous but I also think it shouldn't be printed out common; maybe a reprint or give better odds on Myths
However, I also don't feel that this is something I should be getting into an argument about, as I am naturally biased on the matter (I've ended up playing more control then aggro). That is why I was careful to examine only particular skills, as opposed to presenting a judgment of aggro or control as a whole.
I'm also naturally biased on this matter, in the opposite direction, but I don't think that saying "aggro can be as skill intensive as control" is based on this biased. If it is, I think it's more important to be level-headed (this is a very polite thread, for the record) than it is to denounce my own qualifications to consider a subject. I'd rather be right now than to have been right yesterday. I believe in my ability to change my opinion if there's enough sound reasoning and evidence against it.
Back to the topic, the real myth, in what we've been discussing, is that all decks or cards (game states, metas, formats, etc.) require the same skills in the same ratios. That's clearly not true, although the differences can be surprisingly large. My opinion is that aggro and control are so different that you can't easily compare their skill-intensity. Playing Chain Lightning before Lightning Bolt is a good example of a kind of play decision (obvious in this case) that occurs more often in aggro decks, and is much more important to the optimal play, as control decks run more generally useful cards (nothing like Lava Spike that you just toss away as soon as reasonable) and see fewer real clashes with what to cast on certain turns (even a large number of their 1 cmc cards are not turn 1 plays, helping them fit control and filtering plays very smoothly into their curve). Goblin Guide versus (things like) Kird Ape as a turn one play (assuming you have both) is a more complicated example: the correct answer is typically to play turn one Kird Ape, based on expected damage on each future turn with or without typical interference, but most people naturally prefer Guide as a one-drop. That's a really advanced decision, in my opinion, but situations like that arise less often and are less important for control decks. I know I'm repeating here, but I'm making a different point: control and aggro are too different (and too general) to make direct comparisons of skills required for each archetype.
the correct answer is typically to play turn one Kird Ape, based on expected damage on each future turn with or without typical interference, but most people naturally prefer Guide as a one-drop.
Uh, in what way is this true?
Unless you expect your opponent to play a 2/1 or 2/2 on turn 1, I do not see a difference between T1 Goblin Guide, T2 Kird Ape and T1 Kird Ape, T2 Goblin Guide, except that the first play draws your opponent extra cards. That's enough to make it worse in a vacuum, but why do you say there is a difference in damage?
Now, if Kird Ape is replaced with Wild Nacatl, then obviously there is a difference.
Granted, if you only have a $10 budget, you will likely never win a match, but that's pretty much as bad as you get in terms of budget. Likewise, you'll never win a match if you keep getting paired against impossible matchups and ripping all lands, and you'll probably never win a game if you've never played the game before and someone just handed you a deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Due to real-life obligations, I am taking a long break from Magic which may include missing the local Legacy GP. Apologies for not being able to keep my threads updated.
The general problem with playing Goblin Guide first (in this scenario) is that your damage is more concentrated in one source. If you're on the draw and they StP (or otherwise answer) Guide before it does any damage, or even if they Force of Will it when you're on the draw, you'll be left with zero damage (from these two sources). Your damage amounts by urn, from Guide and Kird Ape, will be 0,0,2,4,etc. If you play Kird Ape first, and they play a single 1-for-1 trade at any point, your damage amounts will be 0,2,4,6,etc., since they can only stop 2 of your 4 damage in turns 1 and 2 (they come from different sources). Also, it's nice to get fewer attack triggers with Goblin Guide, with the same expected damage output. The really complicated thing about this is there are many scenarios for which it's best to play Guide first, for example, on the draw against a deck that's tapped out, but that can play a sufficiently large creature on turn 2.
The general problem with playing Goblin Guide first (in this scenario) is that your damage is more concentrated in one source. If you're on the draw and they StP (or otherwise answer) Guide before it does any damage, or even if they Force of Will it when you're on the draw, you'll be left with zero damage (from these two sources). Your damage amounts by urn, from Guide and Kird Ape, will be 0,0,2,4,etc. If you play Kird Ape first, and they play a single 1-for-1 trade at any point, your damage amounts will be 0,2,4,6,etc., since they can only stop 2 of your 4 damage in turns 1 and 2 (they come from different sources). Also, it's nice to get fewer attack triggers with Goblin Guide, with the same expected damage output. The really complicated thing about this is there are many scenarios for which it's best to play Guide first, for example, on the draw against a deck that's tapped out, but that can play a sufficiently large creature on turn 2.
OK, sure, if they Force the Goblin Guide, then you lose out on 1 point of damage, compared to if they Force the Kird Ape (I was assuming you were on the play -- on the draw it's a little different, of course.) The other option is Mental Misstep, where it makes absolutely no difference because they do the dirty work for you. But I thought we were in Modern, so they couldn't play either of those cards
If you're on the draw, then you have a bunch of information just from looking at the land they played. Leading with Kird Ape is better against a 1-mana removal spell on your turn (e.g. Path), but leading with Goblin Guide is better against, say, a Spellstutter Sprite. Although you're giving them extra cards that way.
This is turning into quite a fascinating thread. Thank you to all the contributors.
I've been reading veritoanimus' threads and if I'd had to guess, I'd say you started playing when the first pack of Alpha hit the streets. Lots of insight in your thoughts. I might start reading all your posts. Just might end up learning something if I do.
Aggro vs Control
Here's my simplistic view of the whole debate.
It's apples and oranges.
Haven't been playing since Alpha but Revised makes me kind of an old timer. I'm not very good (average at best) but I understand the game and have played every archetype over 18 years.
When I sit down to play an aggro deck it's a completely different animal from a control deck. Breaking it down into its simplest components and depending on the archetype I'm up against, I have to play a certain game.
Against combo, it's easy. Get my stuff out there as fast as I can and hope I beat his face in before he goes off. It's a non interactive game so you're essentially gold fishing. No skill here other than what you put into your deck.
Against mid range or more specifically, ramp, it's a little more complicated. Do I take out his dorks, assuming I have removal or direct damage or do I save that direct damage for the dome? Can I outrace him and do my damage before he ramps into his fatty? And if he does, do I have removal for it?
If he's playing board wipes like Slagstorm in WRR, do I worry about overextending or just go for it understanding that it's tough to beat a 6/6 titan when all you have is a few 2/2s on the board.
Against control it's a whole other battle. For one, if they're playing counters, you have to first hope that something sticks. Ah, but what spells do you cast first? You obviously want to draw out his counters on the spells of yours that aren't as important to you. Unfortunately, he'll be doing the same. He won't waste counters on spells that he feels aren't that important. So if you're playing UR and have the choice between dropping a Stromkirk Noble turn 1 or a Delver of Secrets turn 1, what do you play? What do you feel is more important in the long game and thus, what do you want him to waste his Mental Misstep on?
In that respect, aggro versus control is cat and mouse until you get passed the early turns and then it's a question of how far do you extend yourself in fear of Day of Judgment? You can't hold too much back because once that big win con drops of his, you're done for, especially if it's an Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite.
So playing aggro can be very easy or very difficult depending on the matchup. It can also be a very different game that you're playing depending on the matchup.
Playing control versus aggro, you have to decide what to counter and when. You have to decide when to drop DoJ. Are there enough creatures on the field to justify dropping it? Is there one creature on the field, such as a HoB that you know you must get rid of or you're dead in 2 turns?
Against combo, it's pretty easy. Just wait for their main combo piece and counter it. When I play control versus combo, I don't even worry about those matches. I rarely, if ever lose them.
If I'm playing against ramp, same thing. I don't worry about their dorks or spheres or whatever. I let them ramp all they want as long as I have hard counters. If all I'm packing are leaks, well, different game plan. I have to be a little more discriminating. Because once they get to 9 mana, that titan is coming out. Now it becomes a question of can I get my big guy out before they do?
Then there is bluffing while playing control. Yes, bluffing. I don't bluff. That's just my play style. If I have no counter in hand and have a play, even if that play makes me tap out, I take it. There's an old saying. "No matter how well you bluff, eventually you have to put your cards on the table." If I have no counter in hand, I am not going to assume that just because I've left two islands untapped that you're going to respect that and hold back your spell. You may call my bluff and then I'm left there with egg on my face.
That's just my particular play style. I don't believe in a bluffing control game.
Now, if I already have something on the field that can fend off the opposing baddie, then yes, I'll leave 2 untapped because I have little to lose. And naturally, this will all depend on whether or not I have anything in my hand to cast in the first place.
The point to all of this is that you're playing a completely different game playing aggro, control or combo for that matter. When I play storm in modern, I don't even care what the other guy is doing. My one goal is to go off as fast as possible. When I play Gitaxian Probe, I look at their hand as a courtesy so they don't think I'm minimizing their play because the truth is, what does it matter what they have in their hand when I'm packing 4 rituals in my hand plus 2 Grapeshots and a Past in Flames. The game is over that turn.
If you want to compare one players play skill against another playing a certain archetype, that's fine. But to compare the play skill required to play control versus the play skill required to play aggro, in my opinion, is pointless. You aren't playing the same game. The thought processes of both are so radically different that you'd be hard pressed to find any common ground between them other than the importance of deck construction.
Personally, I'm a better control player than an aggro player because I have problems with complex board positions where each player has umpteen creatures on the field. I never can figure out when it's safe to attack because I'm horrible with combat math. Shame on me too considering I was a math major in college.
Control is easier for me. Once I figure out what you're playing, I know what I have to counter and what I can let go, either because it's not that important or because I have another answer for it, like an O-ring or some other removal.
Sadly, in standard right now, at least up until recently, control has been a tough play. With the emergence of UB, maybe that will change.
I also like playing odd combo decks like Genesis Wave with Curse of Exhaustion and Knowledge Pool. In a ramp shell, it's surprisingly effective though risky. Sometimes stuff doesn't drop quite the way you want it to.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents on all this aggro versus control stuff.
TL; DR - Aggro versus control is apples to oranges and two different skills and thus can't really be compared.
OK, sure, if they Force the Goblin Guide, then you lose out on 1 point of damage, compared to if they Force the Kird Ape (I was assuming you were on the play -- on the draw it's a little different, of course.) The other option is Mental Misstep, where it makes absolutely no difference because they do the dirty work for you. But I thought we were in Modern, so they couldn't play either of those cards
The practice of maximizing expected damage against possible interference is very meta- and format-dependent. For some reason, I hadn't thought about the possibility that the turn 2 play gets countered, but not the turn 1 play. Maybe it's not as common in legacy, given the counterspells that people use: if they were going to Force anything, the turn 1 play is better; Daze, Spell Snare, and Spell Pierce don't stop one mana creature spells cast on turn 2. So, indeed, this sort of decision making is very complicated for aggro decks.
Quote from LandBoySteve »
Against combo, it's easy. Get my stuff out there as fast as I can and hope I beat his face in before he goes off. It's a non interactive game so you're essentially gold fishing. No skill here other than what you put into your deck.
I wouldn't say that it's no skill. Ordering spells for damage maximization is still important, although it's simpler if you don't expect interference. There's almost a total order on which cards you cast first: creatures that stick, temporary creatures, sorceries, instants. There are only a few exceptions, and you should know them all, anyways, based on the fact that (as you say) you're basically gold fishing. Bad players don't even necessarily know the "recurring damage before one-shot damage" rule, though, and medium-skill players don't necessarily know the exceptions (e.g. Keldon Marauders is better turn 2 than Hellspark Elemental, given that you have both, even though Hellspark recurs once).
Don't the "player" and "opponent" categories technically fall under "player skill"? Even if wins are more highly related to opponent match record, it means the same thing, in gaming, to say either "I won because my opponent was worse" or "I won because I was better". Am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Paulo Vitor Damo da Rosa posted an article yesterday on Channel Fireball which in part addresses the "misconception" (his word) that "control is more skill intensive". The relevant bit starts about a third of the way into the article.
It's well worth a read. The tldr; version is that control/aggro/combo all require different sets of skills and that while generally the control vs control matchup is trickier than aggro vs aggro, it's also generally harder to be the aggro player in the aggro vs control match.
The myth concerning skill I'd like most to dispel is the one that says it's the most important aspect of the game in determining who wins. Seriously, reading these comments makes me chuckle. I keep seeing these posts that offer the same platitudinous advice about reflecting over games you've lost to see what you could have done differently to win; well, guess what, in many games there is nothing you could have done differently in order to win. Ever have an aggro deck curve out perfectly against you will you were on the draw and you were unfortunate not to have a timely piece of removal? Ever played against a combo deck and gotten goldfished on turn 2 or 3? Ever played a game of limited where you have your opponent on the ropes and all you need to win is draw a little more pressure or a removal spell? All your skill won't count for a heap of beans in those situations. I get it: we want to believe that when we win, it's because we were the more skilled player. I'm not going to deny that skill factors in, but I'm not going off the other deep end like some of you and attributing all my losses to poor play on my part. (I came across an old article by some pro player who argues that there is NO LUCK involved in Magic at all. Give me a break.) sometimes your opponents just have it, boys and girls, and there's not much you can do to win. Some of the best games of Magic I've ever played in my life were ones that I lost. All my next-level playing couldn't win me the game because the cards just didn't line up in my favor.
That said, I'm fine with mythic debate. I have my own views on it too, but it doesn't need to be in every thread on MTGS. (isn't there an official thread somewhere for this?)
If you hate the deck, I'm probably playing it!
Myth: Sealed/draft is all about who has the most/best rares and mythics in their deck. If you open 6 rares of the same color you're practically guaranteed to win.
Truth: Good rares do help, but they are by no means an auto-win, and the winner of a limited event isn't 100% determined by who opened what. No matter what insane cards you have, there will be games where you never draw those ones, never cast them, or they are answered immediately (unless you're stupid lucky). Most draft games are won off the back of commons, which are the bulk of any limited pool.
Example: Winning on the back of a Darksteel Myr equipped with a Darksteel Axe when all my good rares had suffered crushing blows due to that one Tower of Calamity that my opponent ran in their Draft Deck.
My 2 Cents: You can win games with a deck you just simply know is "POWERFUL" but that don't mean you are going to kick sheer ass with it just because you obtained that deck with a big fancy wad of cash. A good MTG player knows how his cards work inside and out to their full potential in any format to get the most "BANG FOR BUCK" ratio.
Well, I do think control is more skill-intensive for worse players. In other words, bad aggro players might win a game here or there, even when they deserve to win 0% of games, based on skill, when they get a good enough draw (because the draw is more important in aggro).
I actually think avoiding overextending is easier for legacy aggro decks than optimizing damage based on planning ahead. In fact, that's a good answer to the OP: avoiding overextending is not an important skill in legacy aggro.
First of all, legacy aggro decks are fast, so the reward for playing out all your spells is higher. More importantly, the way that control decks deal with swarms is different. They typically use some form of card advantage on targeted removal (e.g. Jace drawing into removal spells, Snapcaster flashing something back, Punishing Grove, Jitte -1/-1ing everything).
With this sort of control strategy, if they have the resources to remove a creature on one turn, they'll still have them later: they will still have removal in hand; they will get one Punishing Fire per turn; the counters should still be on Jitte, and they should keep Snapcaster Mage in hand. It's actually better to play all your creatures early, as a more even spread of creature plays by turn is easier for them to handle with this strategy. Other ways of stopping aggro include consistent life gain, tutoring protection/moat enchantments, and creating a wall of counters. All of those make it better to play spells as early as possible.
I do tend to feel that control is more skill-intensive, for similar reasons as you: you can't get that random nut draw that just plays itself. However, I also don't feel that this is something I should be getting into an argument about, as I am naturally biased on the matter (I've ended up playing more control then aggro). That is why I was careful to examine only particular skills, as opposed to presenting a judgment of aggro or control as a whole.
Big picture, and strictly talking about tournaments that would use this rule and the top 8 to which it applies, this decreases variance? If a control player were to get an aggro matchup and their opponent has choice, that strikes me as the aggro player having quite an advantage, earned or not.
I tend to agree and disagree here. I seem to have a hard time expressing well how I feel about it though. I find that there is a lower entry requirement for aggro but a higher level required for mastering it.
If we considered rating skill requirement on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is a brand new player and 10 is someone who has absolutely mastered the game and can play any deck perfectly with no mistakes (can't really be acheived) I'd say that:
Learning to play aggro acceptably requires a 2, but truly mastering aggro is probably an 8. You see very few people who actually acheive this, even at the pro-level.
Learning to play control acceptably probably takes a 4, but only requires the step to 6 to really master it, this is really common at a higher level and is kind of an entry point to pro-level magic.
Tempo control would probably fall in between the 2. The thing is, it's so rare that you see truly masterful play that it's difficult to really pin it down sometimes.
This would be absolute if all strategies had equal card support in a format, however that's not the case. This is somewhat subject to change based on the format as some strategies become stronger than others. In a format that is really geared towards strong aggro, playing control is going to have a higher demand on the player. In a format that has stronger control and combo, Aggro is going to suffer and only the very best aggro players and builders will be able to make it succeed. Right now I have to give credit to control players as we are in a format that is very unfriendly to control. The players able to still pull it off at a high level are only doing so because they have gone beyond just mastering the control archetype.
If you hate the deck, I'm probably playing it!
Then u would be the prepared opponent to run an aggro deck in that tournament (unless meta didn't agree or control was that much better deck) and have side stuff against other aggro matchups; not agreeing with decision, just pointing out how one will have to adjust to gain that extra edge
I think there should be a middle ground somewhere with the prices and rarities; Sword of W/P should be $45+, thats ridiculous but I also think it shouldn't be printed out common; maybe a reprint or give better odds on Myths
I'm also naturally biased on this matter, in the opposite direction, but I don't think that saying "aggro can be as skill intensive as control" is based on this biased. If it is, I think it's more important to be level-headed (this is a very polite thread, for the record) than it is to denounce my own qualifications to consider a subject. I'd rather be right now than to have been right yesterday. I believe in my ability to change my opinion if there's enough sound reasoning and evidence against it.
Back to the topic, the real myth, in what we've been discussing, is that all decks or cards (game states, metas, formats, etc.) require the same skills in the same ratios. That's clearly not true, although the differences can be surprisingly large. My opinion is that aggro and control are so different that you can't easily compare their skill-intensity. Playing Chain Lightning before Lightning Bolt is a good example of a kind of play decision (obvious in this case) that occurs more often in aggro decks, and is much more important to the optimal play, as control decks run more generally useful cards (nothing like Lava Spike that you just toss away as soon as reasonable) and see fewer real clashes with what to cast on certain turns (even a large number of their 1 cmc cards are not turn 1 plays, helping them fit control and filtering plays very smoothly into their curve). Goblin Guide versus (things like) Kird Ape as a turn one play (assuming you have both) is a more complicated example: the correct answer is typically to play turn one Kird Ape, based on expected damage on each future turn with or without typical interference, but most people naturally prefer Guide as a one-drop. That's a really advanced decision, in my opinion, but situations like that arise less often and are less important for control decks. I know I'm repeating here, but I'm making a different point: control and aggro are too different (and too general) to make direct comparisons of skills required for each archetype.
Unless you expect your opponent to play a 2/1 or 2/2 on turn 1, I do not see a difference between T1 Goblin Guide, T2 Kird Ape and T1 Kird Ape, T2 Goblin Guide, except that the first play draws your opponent extra cards. That's enough to make it worse in a vacuum, but why do you say there is a difference in damage?
Now, if Kird Ape is replaced with Wild Nacatl, then obviously there is a difference.
For a tournament, skill > luck > budget.
Granted, if you only have a $10 budget, you will likely never win a match, but that's pretty much as bad as you get in terms of budget. Likewise, you'll never win a match if you keep getting paired against impossible matchups and ripping all lands, and you'll probably never win a game if you've never played the game before and someone just handed you a deck.
Legacy
UWR Miracles UWR
GWB Maverick GWB
GB Elves GB
UBR ANT UBR
RG Combo Lands RG
Vintage
BUG BUG Fish BUG
Modern
GBW
Junk PodMagic: the BuylistingThe general problem with playing Goblin Guide first (in this scenario) is that your damage is more concentrated in one source. If you're on the draw and they StP (or otherwise answer) Guide before it does any damage, or even if they Force of Will it when you're on the draw, you'll be left with zero damage (from these two sources). Your damage amounts by urn, from Guide and Kird Ape, will be 0,0,2,4,etc. If you play Kird Ape first, and they play a single 1-for-1 trade at any point, your damage amounts will be 0,2,4,6,etc., since they can only stop 2 of your 4 damage in turns 1 and 2 (they come from different sources). Also, it's nice to get fewer attack triggers with Goblin Guide, with the same expected damage output. The really complicated thing about this is there are many scenarios for which it's best to play Guide first, for example, on the draw against a deck that's tapped out, but that can play a sufficiently large creature on turn 2.
If you're on the draw, then you have a bunch of information just from looking at the land they played. Leading with Kird Ape is better against a 1-mana removal spell on your turn (e.g. Path), but leading with Goblin Guide is better against, say, a Spellstutter Sprite. Although you're giving them extra cards that way.
I've been reading veritoanimus' threads and if I'd had to guess, I'd say you started playing when the first pack of Alpha hit the streets. Lots of insight in your thoughts. I might start reading all your posts. Just might end up learning something if I do.
Aggro vs Control
Here's my simplistic view of the whole debate.
It's apples and oranges.
Haven't been playing since Alpha but Revised makes me kind of an old timer. I'm not very good (average at best) but I understand the game and have played every archetype over 18 years.
When I sit down to play an aggro deck it's a completely different animal from a control deck. Breaking it down into its simplest components and depending on the archetype I'm up against, I have to play a certain game.
Against combo, it's easy. Get my stuff out there as fast as I can and hope I beat his face in before he goes off. It's a non interactive game so you're essentially gold fishing. No skill here other than what you put into your deck.
Against mid range or more specifically, ramp, it's a little more complicated. Do I take out his dorks, assuming I have removal or direct damage or do I save that direct damage for the dome? Can I outrace him and do my damage before he ramps into his fatty? And if he does, do I have removal for it?
If he's playing board wipes like Slagstorm in WRR, do I worry about overextending or just go for it understanding that it's tough to beat a 6/6 titan when all you have is a few 2/2s on the board.
Against control it's a whole other battle. For one, if they're playing counters, you have to first hope that something sticks. Ah, but what spells do you cast first? You obviously want to draw out his counters on the spells of yours that aren't as important to you. Unfortunately, he'll be doing the same. He won't waste counters on spells that he feels aren't that important. So if you're playing UR and have the choice between dropping a Stromkirk Noble turn 1 or a Delver of Secrets turn 1, what do you play? What do you feel is more important in the long game and thus, what do you want him to waste his Mental Misstep on?
In that respect, aggro versus control is cat and mouse until you get passed the early turns and then it's a question of how far do you extend yourself in fear of Day of Judgment? You can't hold too much back because once that big win con drops of his, you're done for, especially if it's an Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite.
So playing aggro can be very easy or very difficult depending on the matchup. It can also be a very different game that you're playing depending on the matchup.
Playing control versus aggro, you have to decide what to counter and when. You have to decide when to drop DoJ. Are there enough creatures on the field to justify dropping it? Is there one creature on the field, such as a HoB that you know you must get rid of or you're dead in 2 turns?
Against combo, it's pretty easy. Just wait for their main combo piece and counter it. When I play control versus combo, I don't even worry about those matches. I rarely, if ever lose them.
If I'm playing against ramp, same thing. I don't worry about their dorks or spheres or whatever. I let them ramp all they want as long as I have hard counters. If all I'm packing are leaks, well, different game plan. I have to be a little more discriminating. Because once they get to 9 mana, that titan is coming out. Now it becomes a question of can I get my big guy out before they do?
Then there is bluffing while playing control. Yes, bluffing. I don't bluff. That's just my play style. If I have no counter in hand and have a play, even if that play makes me tap out, I take it. There's an old saying. "No matter how well you bluff, eventually you have to put your cards on the table." If I have no counter in hand, I am not going to assume that just because I've left two islands untapped that you're going to respect that and hold back your spell. You may call my bluff and then I'm left there with egg on my face.
That's just my particular play style. I don't believe in a bluffing control game.
Now, if I already have something on the field that can fend off the opposing baddie, then yes, I'll leave 2 untapped because I have little to lose. And naturally, this will all depend on whether or not I have anything in my hand to cast in the first place.
The point to all of this is that you're playing a completely different game playing aggro, control or combo for that matter. When I play storm in modern, I don't even care what the other guy is doing. My one goal is to go off as fast as possible. When I play Gitaxian Probe, I look at their hand as a courtesy so they don't think I'm minimizing their play because the truth is, what does it matter what they have in their hand when I'm packing 4 rituals in my hand plus 2 Grapeshots and a Past in Flames. The game is over that turn.
If you want to compare one players play skill against another playing a certain archetype, that's fine. But to compare the play skill required to play control versus the play skill required to play aggro, in my opinion, is pointless. You aren't playing the same game. The thought processes of both are so radically different that you'd be hard pressed to find any common ground between them other than the importance of deck construction.
Personally, I'm a better control player than an aggro player because I have problems with complex board positions where each player has umpteen creatures on the field. I never can figure out when it's safe to attack because I'm horrible with combat math. Shame on me too considering I was a math major in college.
Control is easier for me. Once I figure out what you're playing, I know what I have to counter and what I can let go, either because it's not that important or because I have another answer for it, like an O-ring or some other removal.
Sadly, in standard right now, at least up until recently, control has been a tough play. With the emergence of UB, maybe that will change.
I also like playing odd combo decks like Genesis Wave with Curse of Exhaustion and Knowledge Pool. In a ramp shell, it's surprisingly effective though risky. Sometimes stuff doesn't drop quite the way you want it to.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents on all this aggro versus control stuff.
TL; DR - Aggro versus control is apples to oranges and two different skills and thus can't really be compared.
The practice of maximizing expected damage against possible interference is very meta- and format-dependent. For some reason, I hadn't thought about the possibility that the turn 2 play gets countered, but not the turn 1 play. Maybe it's not as common in legacy, given the counterspells that people use: if they were going to Force anything, the turn 1 play is better; Daze, Spell Snare, and Spell Pierce don't stop one mana creature spells cast on turn 2. So, indeed, this sort of decision making is very complicated for aggro decks.
I wouldn't say that it's no skill. Ordering spells for damage maximization is still important, although it's simpler if you don't expect interference. There's almost a total order on which cards you cast first: creatures that stick, temporary creatures, sorceries, instants. There are only a few exceptions, and you should know them all, anyways, based on the fact that (as you say) you're basically gold fishing. Bad players don't even necessarily know the "recurring damage before one-shot damage" rule, though, and medium-skill players don't necessarily know the exceptions (e.g. Keldon Marauders is better turn 2 than Hellspark Elemental, given that you have both, even though Hellspark recurs once).
The game is also highly contigent on pairings in tournaments and unknown metagames (cf. my article).
Author of "Flogging the Data"' econometric article series.
http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/paulo-vitor-damo-da-rosa/pvs-playhouse-magical-misconceptions/
It's well worth a read. The tldr; version is that control/aggro/combo all require different sets of skills and that while generally the control vs control matchup is trickier than aggro vs aggro, it's also generally harder to be the aggro player in the aggro vs control match.