(prefacing this by saying im not directing this at anyone in particular here. Also, TMDR)
What is this, E-fytes? Control takes All the fun out of the game. Yay, you Terrored me. Yay you vapor snagged me. Whats this a counterspell? Yippee. ZZZZZzzzzzz....
And when control players dont succeed and thought scour their important pieces away, they get pissy. Of all the types of players out there, control players in my experience get the most angry IF things dont go their way.
You say aggro or midrange is easy, and control takes skill? What can be more easy than just countering/bouncing/targeted-removaling everything a person plays?
You say aggro or midrange is easy, and control takes skill? What can be more easy than just countering/bouncing/targeted-removaling everything a person plays?
Well, a control player has to assess the threats aimed at him, try their best to predict what's going to be played next, and deal with them accordingly.
Control is easy if you can answer every threat all the time, but in most cases it isn't that easy.
You say aggro or midrange is easy, and control takes skill? What can be more easy than just countering/bouncing/targeted-removaling everything a person plays?
It would be nice if control could do that, but it can't. Bounce sucks currently (and that's more of a tempo thing anyways), all removal that's playable has a relevant downside attached, and counters are non existant. About 3/4 of the good control decks out there right now don't MB a single counter.
Control right now is all about figuring out how many turns your opponents clock is, and what you can do to disrupt that clock within those turns. That means being selective with what cards you choose to remove. Remember, aggro runs 4-6 more non land cards than control, they have innate virtual card advantage coming into the matchup, along with a faster clock. In any matchup where you don't just outright die on turn 3 (which seems to happen a lot) there's a lot of choices to make in the match.
Decisions=chances for skill to be relevant. The aggro player has very few decisions to make in a control matchup (however they have a lot to make against other aggro decks). All they have to do is figure out the balancing point between committing enough threats to have a quick clock, and not overextending into wrath so they can rebuild.
It would be nice if control could do that, but it can't. Bounce sucks currently (and that's more of a tempo thing anyways), all removal that's playable has a relevant downside attached, and counters are non existant. About 3/4 of the good control decks out there right now don't MB a single counter.
Control right now is all about figuring out how many turns your opponents clock is, and what you can do to disrupt that clock within those turns. That means being selective with what cards you choose to remove. Remember, aggro runs 4-6 more non land cards than control, they have innate virtual card advantage coming into the matchup, along with a faster clock. In any matchup where you don't just outright die on turn 3 (which seems to happen a lot) there's a lot of choices to make in the match.
Decisions=chances for skill to be relevant. The aggro player has very few decisions to make in a control matchup (however they have a lot to make against other aggro decks). All they have to do is figure out the balancing point between committing enough threats to have a quick clock, and not overextending into wrath so they can rebuild.
Thank for the polite and clear response
I admit i oversimplified it, from the pov of someone who never plays control. I see your points, and they are good ones-both of you. I stand by my point of it zapping the fun from most games, and the attitude of control players ive encountered, and concede that it does indeed take some thinking.
Aggro right now is all about figuring out how many turns your clock is, and what you can do to speed up that clock within your mana. That means being selective with what cards you choose to play. Remember, control runs 4-6 more removal cards than aggro, they have innate card advantage coming into the matchup, along with a better late game. In any matchup where you don't just outright win on turn 3 (which seems to happen a lot) there's a lot of choices to make in the match.
Decisions=chances for skill to be relevant. The control player has very few decisions to make early in an aggro matchup (however they have a lot to make against other control decks). All they have to do is figure out the balancing point between removing enough threats to slow your clock, and forcing you to overextend into wrath so they can stall.
See what happens when we generalize?
There's skill in both camps, although both sides want to ignore it. Such is (and likely always shall be) Magic.
See what happens when we generalize?
There's skill in both camps, although both sides want to ignore it. Such is (and likely always shall be) Magic.
Removal is not card advantage, unless you're counting wraths. What Aazadan stated is correct: control decks rely on virtual card advantage to make up for their early game weaknesses, and the higher number of lands in their deck. Then, later in the game, they employ actual card advantage to ensure their opponent never recovers.
Not to mention, control decks have additional goals to fulfil other than just meeting a mana curve and putting out damage: they also need to pack efficient draw or tutoring to find their threats, they need to have some way of stabilizing the board, and they need to have a win condition. That's not even taking into account the complexity of cards like gifts ungiven, which let you tutor and draw, but add an extra layer in the decision making process by forcing your opponent to choose. Aggro decks tend to avoid that kind of complexity, because it undermines their explosiveness and speed.
Not all decks require the same amount of skill to pilot, and there's nothing wrong with that. Sure, a good pilot will get more performance out of any given deck, but there's a reason people tell newer players to pick up aggro; it's because it's cheap to build, and easy to learn. Asking that same player to pilot a counterpost deck, or anything involving library manipulation, or gifts ungiven, and that player will almost certainly make mistakes that cost them the game. Aggro decks are far more forgiving in this sense, because there are more free wins, and fewer chances to outright give the game away.
I was trying to make a point by simply manipulating the "argument." To do so, I changed as few words as possible, kept the structure intact, and tried to do a hurried job of switching the stance. Perhaps "removal cards" should have been "draw spells." The point remained. Decks have different strengths, and thus they require different skill sets to pilot well.
I'm not trying to say aggro is harder to pilot or that control is harder to pilot. They're different to pilot. Some people fit one deck better than another, and the challenge should be to improve yourself to the point where you can play both, thus strengthening your own game by knowing whatever opponent you're playing against.
I also disagree that "aggro decks are far more forgiving," but that's just because the seemingly-smaller decisions matter more to aggro, whereas in control you have more decisions each for incremental value. Again, just different. Sometimes playing an Ash Zealot Turn 2 instead of a Gore-house Chainwalker actually does cost you the game. Sometimes taking Sphinx's Revelation over Supreme Verdict off an Auger trigger won't cost you the game (but we all know you never reveal any spells off Auger, let alone two). Just different.
Yet that's far afield of the original intent of this topic.
Control isn't dead. Legion's Initiative will not bend control over barrels. The game will remain playable. We're all overreacting. Again.
Control players who think their so smart, and call all other decks brainless/stupid need to get over themselves...I could make playing a control deck sound as easy as when people say LOLOLOLPLAY A TON OF GUYS!!! TURN SIDEWAYZ!!!
Control players just do nothing until they play verdict, sphinx's revalation drawing 99999999999 cards and gaining 9999999999999 life but when they lose you see them walking around talking about how dumb/easy aggro decks are...I don't get it what's so complex about casting sphinx's revelation for tons of cards and life then casting supreme verdict when there is a ton of creatures on the opponents side?
Or how about LOL -0 jace mill 10, nephalia drownyard!!! woooo im so intelligent this is so hard to do!!!
Control players who think their so smart, and call all other decks brainless/stupid need to get over themselves...I could make playing a control deck sound as easy as when people say LOLOLOLPLAY A TON OF GUYS!!! TURN SIDEWAYZ!!!
Control players just do nothing until they play verdict, sphinx's revalation drawing 99999999999 cards and gaining 9999999999999 life but when they lose you see them walking around talking about how dumb/easy aggro decks are...I don't get it what's so complex about casting sphinx's revelation for tons of cards and life then casting supreme verdict when there is a ton of creatures on the opponents side?
Or how about LOL -0 jace mill 10, nephalia drownyard!!! woooo im so intelligent this is so hard to do!!!
sorry but i just cant take you seriously trying to insult the intelligence of others while using their instead they're
See what happens when we generalize?
There's skill in both camps, although both sides want to ignore it. Such is (and likely always shall be) Magic.
I'm sorry, but like I said pages ago, my daughter was four years old, couldn't read, had memorized the cards from watching us play and all I had to do for her to win was build her a really good aggro deck, teach her not to over extend and voila! She won.
My son, at age 9, went 7-2 at states, finishing in the top 16, with a Kithkin aggro deck.
It doesn't take a lot of skill to play aggro. There are very few decisions you have to make and the decisions are so easy, a young child can make them.
I'm sorry, but like I said pages ago, my daughter was four years old, couldn't read, had memorized the cards from watching us play and all I had to do for her to win was build her a really good aggro deck, teach her not to over extend and voila! She won.
My son, at age 9, went 7-2 at states, finishing in the top 16, with a Kithkin aggro deck.
It doesn't take a lot of skill to play aggro. There are very few decisions you have to make and the decisions are so easy, a young child can make them.
I think you are overstating Aggro simplicity here, in most cases it is less straightforward then not overextend = win.
If the store owner says that I can't trade in the premises, I'll just go outside. If he says that I can't trade within 10m of his premises, I'll go to 11 meters. If he says that he doesn't want to see me trading, I will put a basket over his head and continue trading.
Yes, he's a local legend. He's only known to take his clothes off before he goes into the Ladies' Lockerroom. Nobody knows what he does in there because he's invisible, but it's almost certainly tons of masturbating.
I think you are overstating Aggro simplicity here, in most cases it is less straightforward then not overextend = win.
whether hes overstating or not doesnt matter, the fact that young children can beat other players in a card game that supposedly involves "skill" says it all.
"skill" really needs to be replaced by a different word, there is no actual "skill" in mtg standard
But there is a misconception that one side, aggro or control, requires more "skill" to play than the other.
First, let me define what I consider to be "aggro" and "control".
Aggro: A deck that strives to win the game before an opponent can react. Time is NOT on your side, you must win before an opponent can muster an appropriate response.
Control: A deck that strives to win the game after an opponent exhausts his resources. Time is on your side; if the match goes long, the odds of you winning are better, but survival to this point is the only goal of the first 5-7 turns.
Therefore, I consider aggro to be the traditional "beatdown"-style decks with burn, but also the tempo-based decks that instead focus on slowing the game down to a turn-by-turn affair and pack spells that involve bounce and counter to accomplish this. To those who argue that tempo-based decks are not "aggro", you must realize that it hates seeing matches go long and that its chances of winning wane with every passing turn.
Control decks also have several different flavors--we have the draw-go decks of the past, the removal-based builds that seek to control the board, and even creature-based builds that try to hold a presence long enough to eventually allow a user to cast a finisher.
How does skill tie in? Simple, some forms of aggro are very skillful, whereas others play themselves. Conversely, some forms of control are very skillful, whereas others play themselves. The high-skill decks include the ones that involve a lot of DECISIONS.
Tempo-based aggro is a great example of this, as you need to regularly debate between ravnica charm modes (the tempo ones usually have 2 or 3 great modes), which spells should be Remanded (soft tempo counter) and which should be Mana Leaked (hard counter), which creatures should be bounced, when to do so, which spells are worthy Snapcaster Mage targets, and how should all of the mana in the current round be spent to maximum effect? This is very hard to pull off optimally and very hard for a new player to do.
High-level control is equally skill-intensive, and these are usually the decks that pack removal, counterspells, and card advantage in the same deck, but have finite amounts of each. Therefore, you better be saving that Dissipate for when you really need it, better pick the right time to cast that Sphinx's Revelation, use that Selesnya Charm wisely, and balance Supreme Verdict with your Loxodon Smiters and Thragtusks. Oh, and make sure you do not cast your planeswalkers in a position to get them killed after a single use.
The low-skill decks include the ones that involve FEW decisions. These decks usually have a very high variance despite their successes
Low-skill aggro usually involves the simple "mash face" strategies. Mono-white weenies, Naya Humans, Red Deck Wins, and other decks of that nature usually are worried abut one thing, beating the opponent into a bloody mess. Overextention is an issue, but even Naya Humans does not particularly care too much when they have the ability to deal 7+ damage on turn 2. A great draw from this deck is very difficult to beat, whereas a bad draw will often result in a mulliganand a severe disadvantage.
But low-skill control existed, as well. Mono-blue was so easy to play back in the day--I should know, it was my first competitive deck. I was a lousy newbie, but was able to beat much more elaborate decks on a regular basis...but why? It does not take a genius to see that Brainstorm is great card advantage. Or that Force of Will is a get out of jail free card. Or that countering a spell ignores the type of threat and acts as a catch-all...and back then, there were plenty of good ones!
Skill should not be attributed to either aggro OR control; both types of decks have their various levels of finesse required to pilot successfully.
But there is a misconception that one side, aggro or control, requires more "skill" to play than the other.
First, let me define what I consider to be "aggro" and "control".
Aggro: A deck that strives to win the game before an opponent can react. Time is NOT on your side, you must win before an opponent can muster an appropriate response.
Control: A deck that strives to win the game after an opponent exhausts his resources. Time is on your side; if the match goes long, the odds of you winning are better, but survival to this point is the only goal of the first 5-7 turns.
Therefore, I consider aggro to be the traditional "beatdown"-style decks with burn, but also the tempo-based decks that instead focus on slowing the game down to a turn-by-turn affair and pack spells that involve bounce and counter to accomplish this. To those who argue that tempo-based decks are not "aggro", you must realize that it hates seeing matches go long and that its chances of winning wane with every passing turn.
Control decks also have several different flavors--we have the draw-go decks of the past, the removal-based builds that seek to control the board, and even creature-based builds that try to hold a presence long enough to eventually allow a user to cast a finisher.
How does skill tie in? Simple, some forms of aggro are very skillful, whereas others play themselves. Conversely, some forms of control are very skillful, whereas others play themselves. The high-skill decks include the ones that involve a lot of DECISIONS.
Tempo-based aggro is a great example of this, as you need to regularly debate between ravnica charm modes (the tempo ones usually have 2 or 3 great modes), which spells should be Remanded (soft tempo counter) and which should be Mana Leaked (hard counter), which creatures should be bounced, when to do so, which spells are worthy Snapcaster Mage targets, and how should all of the mana in the current round be spent to maximum effect? This is very hard to pull off optimally and very hard for a new player to do.
High-level control is equally skill-intensive, and these are usually the decks that pack removal, counterspells, and card advantage in the same deck, but have finite amounts of each. Therefore, you better be saving that Dissipate for when you really need it, better pick the right time to cast that Sphinx's Revelation, use that Selesnya Charm wisely, and balance Supreme Verdict with your Loxodon Smiters and Thragtusks. Oh, and make sure you do not cast your planeswalkers in a position to get them killed after a single use.
The low-skill decks include the ones that involve FEW decisions. These decks usually have a very high variance despite their successes
Low-skill aggro usually involves the simple "mash face" strategies. Mono-white weenies, Naya Humans, Red Deck Wins, and other decks of that nature usually are worried abut one thing, beating the opponent into a bloody mess. Overextention is an issue, but even Naya Humans does not particularly care too much when they have the ability to deal 7+ damage on turn 2. A great draw from this deck is very difficult to beat, whereas a bad draw will often result in a mulliganand a severe disadvantage.
But low-skill control existed, as well. Mono-blue was so easy to play back in the day--I should know, it was my first competitive deck. I was a lousy newbie, but was able to beat much more elaborate decks on a regular basis...but why? It does not take a genius to see that Brainstorm is great card advantage. Or that Force of Will is a get out of jail free card. Or that countering a spell ignores the type of threat and acts as a catch-all...and back then, there were plenty of good ones!
Skill should not be attributed to either aggro OR control; both types of decks have their various levels of finesse required to pilot successfully.
I'd mostly agree with this, though I'd still contend that there are a larger number of skilful control decks than skilful aggro decks. Control decks by their nature leverage the skill of the player, since they generate card advantage, and lower the impact of variance. Maybe there are control decks that essentially play themselves, but I'd contend that they're the minority rather than the rule. That's not even considering that an average player with such a control deck will still get destroyed by a good player with the same deck.
whether hes overstating or not doesnt matter, the fact that young children can beat other players in a card game that supposedly involves "skill" says it all.
"skill" really needs to be replaced by a different word, there is no actual "skill" in mtg standard
Children can be skilled, and can be very very smart. Don't underestimate them.
Teach anyone any sport or game and they can get good at it, and can discover things about the game that others can't. diversity is a good thing in all of gaming.
Wow. The sense of entitlement and superiority in this thread is astounding.
I usually don't, but here I have to agree with you. This thread does brings out the worst in magic players. Can't believe some of the stuffs I read so far.
If the store owner says that I can't trade in the premises, I'll just go outside. If he says that I can't trade within 10m of his premises, I'll go to 11 meters. If he says that he doesn't want to see me trading, I will put a basket over his head and continue trading.
Yes, he's a local legend. He's only known to take his clothes off before he goes into the Ladies' Lockerroom. Nobody knows what he does in there because he's invisible, but it's almost certainly tons of masturbating.
Honestly when it comes to skil between aggro vs control I tend to view it liek this.
Aggro is easier... INITIALLY. It is simple to play aggro prociently. This is why alot of new people tend to immediately start with aggro/aggro-ramp. In its core it is "play dudes, turn sideways." The caveat is that, that is just to play proficiently. To be truly good at aggro actually takes skill. It requires many different decisions to be made.You have to try and not overextend, but additionally, it requires you to try and bait out counters (for control matchups) and be a wiz at combat math (for aggro matchups).
Now control is quite the opposite story. To become proficient with control takes much more skill since it requires the player to know things like priority, understand card advantage, and have a grasp on how to use your limited resources and when to use them and when to save them. Now when you start getting into being a truly skilled or good control player, things taper off. At that point, you know your deck inside and out and you have general ideas as to what is in most of the top tier decks. Therefore you know what to do before the game even starts (you more or less already have an entire game plan) and simply adjust accordingly as the game progresses.
So all in all, I believe the "skill required" for both aggro and control are about the same in the end, it just depends on where you start measuring from.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
I've played a large varity level of control, aggro, tempo, and combo decks. They all can be very braindead builds however they can also all be "smart" builds as well.
Any fool can pick up a deck and play it. However the more experienced people behind a specific build know exactly what they are doing with the deck because they understand all the innerworkings and synergies and how it fairs against other decks.
I know I regularly bring this up in threads that complain about Control getting hosed, but seriously, Faeries. That was the autopilot control/tempo deck that was very strong for its time and there wasn't much aggro decks could do a thing about that. Even WOTC admitted it was one of the most autopiloty decks of its time.
It was one of the most brainless to pilot decks, and it almost reoccured in JUND decks that were a Aggro/Tempo deck. They were almost as brainless to play however JUND actually did require thought behind it.
sorry but i just cant take you seriously trying to insult the intelligence of others while using their instead they're
lol Im not trying to insult anyones intelligence all I'm sayin is that the control players who feel 'smarter' than someone who's playing an aggro deck, or the moment they lose to an aggro deck the go to the corner of the shop crying about how you just turned your guys sideways need to shut up. For some reason CERTAIN people who use control decks think they are some genius and think everyone who plays aggro is stupid or cheap.
And don't be a grammar nazi okay, this isnt english class -_-
Wow. The sense of entitlement and superiority in this thread is astounding.
As someone who has always preferred control to aggro (specifically UW control)... it really is kinda sad.
We should all bump this thread in 6 months when Legion's Initiative remains a completely non-overpowered card, and the OP tries to pretend he didn't make this thread.
Children can be skilled, and can be very very smart. Don't underestimate them.
Teach anyone any sport or game and they can get good at it, and can discover things about the game that others can't. diversity is a good thing in all of gaming.
heres the thing though, if you translate this to something that actually use skill, it doesnt correlate.
child picks up card game, and wins against people who have been playing longer than said child probably. out of 20 games put random child against a pro mtg player, he will most likely win at least 1 game.
6'5 guy randomly picks up basketball, he isnt going to instantly be a pro baller. he has not acquired any skills for the game of basketball. put this 6'5 guy who hasnt acquired skills for basketball against lebron james 1 on 1 1st to 10 in 20 games and he will not win a single 1 of them.
people throw the word "skill" around so much in this game, when it is not a skill based game, i just dont get it.
heres the thing though, if you translate this to something that actually use skill, it doesnt correlate.
child picks up card game, and wins against people who have been playing longer than said child probably. out of 20 games put random child against a pro mtg player, he will most likely win at least 1 game.
6'5 guy randomly picks up basketball, he isnt going to instantly be a pro baller. he has not acquired any skills for the game of basketball. put this 6'5 guy who hasnt acquired skills for basketball against lebron james 1 on 1 1st to 10 in 20 games and he will not win a single 1 of them.
people throw the word "skill" around so much in this game, when it is not a skill based game, i just dont get it.
Please stop talking in absolutes.
child picks up card game, and wins against people who have been playing longer than said child probably. out of 20 games put random child against a pro mtg player, he will most likely win at least 1 game.
people throw the word "skill" around so much in this game, when it is not a skill based game
A game which is not based on skill would rely on an absurd amount of luck to win 19 out of 20 games. Such a game would likely not have any professionals, either.
There is an element of luck in this game, which causes those who are less-skilled to keep coming back for more. Without this, MTG would likely lose a lot of its popularity.
What is this, E-fytes? Control takes All the fun out of the game. Yay, you Terrored me. Yay you vapor snagged me. Whats this a counterspell? Yippee. ZZZZZzzzzzz....
And when control players dont succeed and thought scour their important pieces away, they get pissy. Of all the types of players out there, control players in my experience get the most angry IF things dont go their way.
You say aggro or midrange is easy, and control takes skill? What can be more easy than just countering/bouncing/targeted-removaling everything a person plays?
Well, a control player has to assess the threats aimed at him, try their best to predict what's going to be played next, and deal with them accordingly.
Control is easy if you can answer every threat all the time, but in most cases it isn't that easy.
It would be nice if control could do that, but it can't. Bounce sucks currently (and that's more of a tempo thing anyways), all removal that's playable has a relevant downside attached, and counters are non existant. About 3/4 of the good control decks out there right now don't MB a single counter.
Control right now is all about figuring out how many turns your opponents clock is, and what you can do to disrupt that clock within those turns. That means being selective with what cards you choose to remove. Remember, aggro runs 4-6 more non land cards than control, they have innate virtual card advantage coming into the matchup, along with a faster clock. In any matchup where you don't just outright die on turn 3 (which seems to happen a lot) there's a lot of choices to make in the match.
Decisions=chances for skill to be relevant. The aggro player has very few decisions to make in a control matchup (however they have a lot to make against other aggro decks). All they have to do is figure out the balancing point between committing enough threats to have a quick clock, and not overextending into wrath so they can rebuild.
Thank for the polite and clear response
I admit i oversimplified it, from the pov of someone who never plays control. I see your points, and they are good ones-both of you. I stand by my point of it zapping the fun from most games, and the attitude of control players ive encountered, and concede that it does indeed take some thinking.
Again thanks:)
See what happens when we generalize?
There's skill in both camps, although both sides want to ignore it. Such is (and likely always shall be) Magic.
Currently Working On: Jund Ramp (RTR Block)
GR My Blog RG (Std)
Removal is not card advantage, unless you're counting wraths. What Aazadan stated is correct: control decks rely on virtual card advantage to make up for their early game weaknesses, and the higher number of lands in their deck. Then, later in the game, they employ actual card advantage to ensure their opponent never recovers.
Not to mention, control decks have additional goals to fulfil other than just meeting a mana curve and putting out damage: they also need to pack efficient draw or tutoring to find their threats, they need to have some way of stabilizing the board, and they need to have a win condition. That's not even taking into account the complexity of cards like gifts ungiven, which let you tutor and draw, but add an extra layer in the decision making process by forcing your opponent to choose. Aggro decks tend to avoid that kind of complexity, because it undermines their explosiveness and speed.
Not all decks require the same amount of skill to pilot, and there's nothing wrong with that. Sure, a good pilot will get more performance out of any given deck, but there's a reason people tell newer players to pick up aggro; it's because it's cheap to build, and easy to learn. Asking that same player to pilot a counterpost deck, or anything involving library manipulation, or gifts ungiven, and that player will almost certainly make mistakes that cost them the game. Aggro decks are far more forgiving in this sense, because there are more free wins, and fewer chances to outright give the game away.
I'm not trying to say aggro is harder to pilot or that control is harder to pilot. They're different to pilot. Some people fit one deck better than another, and the challenge should be to improve yourself to the point where you can play both, thus strengthening your own game by knowing whatever opponent you're playing against.
I also disagree that "aggro decks are far more forgiving," but that's just because the seemingly-smaller decisions matter more to aggro, whereas in control you have more decisions each for incremental value. Again, just different. Sometimes playing an Ash Zealot Turn 2 instead of a Gore-house Chainwalker actually does cost you the game. Sometimes taking Sphinx's Revelation over Supreme Verdict off an Auger trigger won't cost you the game (but we all know you never reveal any spells off Auger, let alone two). Just different.
Yet that's far afield of the original intent of this topic.
Control isn't dead. Legion's Initiative will not bend control over barrels. The game will remain playable. We're all overreacting. Again.
This is Magic.
Currently Working On: Jund Ramp (RTR Block)
GR My Blog RG (Std)
??Q
Control players just do nothing until they play verdict, sphinx's revalation drawing 99999999999 cards and gaining 9999999999999 life but when they lose you see them walking around talking about how dumb/easy aggro decks are...I don't get it what's so complex about casting sphinx's revelation for tons of cards and life then casting supreme verdict when there is a ton of creatures on the opponents side?
Or how about LOL -0 jace mill 10, nephalia drownyard!!! woooo im so intelligent this is so hard to do!!!
sorry but i just cant take you seriously trying to insult the intelligence of others while using their instead they're
I'm sorry, but like I said pages ago, my daughter was four years old, couldn't read, had memorized the cards from watching us play and all I had to do for her to win was build her a really good aggro deck, teach her not to over extend and voila! She won.
My son, at age 9, went 7-2 at states, finishing in the top 16, with a Kithkin aggro deck.
It doesn't take a lot of skill to play aggro. There are very few decisions you have to make and the decisions are so easy, a young child can make them.
I think you are overstating Aggro simplicity here, in most cases it is less straightforward then not overextend = win.
whether hes overstating or not doesnt matter, the fact that young children can beat other players in a card game that supposedly involves "skill" says it all.
"skill" really needs to be replaced by a different word, there is no actual "skill" in mtg standard
But there is a misconception that one side, aggro or control, requires more "skill" to play than the other.
First, let me define what I consider to be "aggro" and "control".
Aggro: A deck that strives to win the game before an opponent can react. Time is NOT on your side, you must win before an opponent can muster an appropriate response.
Control: A deck that strives to win the game after an opponent exhausts his resources. Time is on your side; if the match goes long, the odds of you winning are better, but survival to this point is the only goal of the first 5-7 turns.
Therefore, I consider aggro to be the traditional "beatdown"-style decks with burn, but also the tempo-based decks that instead focus on slowing the game down to a turn-by-turn affair and pack spells that involve bounce and counter to accomplish this. To those who argue that tempo-based decks are not "aggro", you must realize that it hates seeing matches go long and that its chances of winning wane with every passing turn.
Control decks also have several different flavors--we have the draw-go decks of the past, the removal-based builds that seek to control the board, and even creature-based builds that try to hold a presence long enough to eventually allow a user to cast a finisher.
How does skill tie in? Simple, some forms of aggro are very skillful, whereas others play themselves. Conversely, some forms of control are very skillful, whereas others play themselves.
The high-skill decks include the ones that involve a lot of DECISIONS.
Tempo-based aggro is a great example of this, as you need to regularly debate between ravnica charm modes (the tempo ones usually have 2 or 3 great modes), which spells should be Remanded (soft tempo counter) and which should be Mana Leaked (hard counter), which creatures should be bounced, when to do so, which spells are worthy Snapcaster Mage targets, and how should all of the mana in the current round be spent to maximum effect? This is very hard to pull off optimally and very hard for a new player to do.
High-level control is equally skill-intensive, and these are usually the decks that pack removal, counterspells, and card advantage in the same deck, but have finite amounts of each. Therefore, you better be saving that Dissipate for when you really need it, better pick the right time to cast that Sphinx's Revelation, use that Selesnya Charm wisely, and balance Supreme Verdict with your Loxodon Smiters and Thragtusks. Oh, and make sure you do not cast your planeswalkers in a position to get them killed after a single use.
The low-skill decks include the ones that involve FEW decisions. These decks usually have a very high variance despite their successes
Low-skill aggro usually involves the simple "mash face" strategies. Mono-white weenies, Naya Humans, Red Deck Wins, and other decks of that nature usually are worried abut one thing, beating the opponent into a bloody mess. Overextention is an issue, but even Naya Humans does not particularly care too much when they have the ability to deal 7+ damage on turn 2. A great draw from this deck is very difficult to beat, whereas a bad draw will often result in a mulliganand a severe disadvantage.
But low-skill control existed, as well. Mono-blue was so easy to play back in the day--I should know, it was my first competitive deck. I was a lousy newbie, but was able to beat much more elaborate decks on a regular basis...but why? It does not take a genius to see that Brainstorm is great card advantage. Or that Force of Will is a get out of jail free card. Or that countering a spell ignores the type of threat and acts as a catch-all...and back then, there were plenty of good ones!
Skill should not be attributed to either aggro OR control; both types of decks have their various levels of finesse required to pilot successfully.
I'd mostly agree with this, though I'd still contend that there are a larger number of skilful control decks than skilful aggro decks. Control decks by their nature leverage the skill of the player, since they generate card advantage, and lower the impact of variance. Maybe there are control decks that essentially play themselves, but I'd contend that they're the minority rather than the rule. That's not even considering that an average player with such a control deck will still get destroyed by a good player with the same deck.
Children can be skilled, and can be very very smart. Don't underestimate them.
Teach anyone any sport or game and they can get good at it, and can discover things about the game that others can't. diversity is a good thing in all of gaming.
I simply did not touch on this, as it is a matter of personal opinion, but I actually agree (as it pertains to Standard, at least).
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
I usually don't, but here I have to agree with you. This thread does brings out the worst in magic players. Can't believe some of the stuffs I read so far.
Aggro is easier... INITIALLY. It is simple to play aggro prociently. This is why alot of new people tend to immediately start with aggro/aggro-ramp. In its core it is "play dudes, turn sideways." The caveat is that, that is just to play proficiently. To be truly good at aggro actually takes skill. It requires many different decisions to be made.You have to try and not overextend, but additionally, it requires you to try and bait out counters (for control matchups) and be a wiz at combat math (for aggro matchups).
Now control is quite the opposite story. To become proficient with control takes much more skill since it requires the player to know things like priority, understand card advantage, and have a grasp on how to use your limited resources and when to use them and when to save them. Now when you start getting into being a truly skilled or good control player, things taper off. At that point, you know your deck inside and out and you have general ideas as to what is in most of the top tier decks. Therefore you know what to do before the game even starts (you more or less already have an entire game plan) and simply adjust accordingly as the game progresses.
So all in all, I believe the "skill required" for both aggro and control are about the same in the end, it just depends on where you start measuring from.
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
Any fool can pick up a deck and play it. However the more experienced people behind a specific build know exactly what they are doing with the deck because they understand all the innerworkings and synergies and how it fairs against other decks.
I know I regularly bring this up in threads that complain about Control getting hosed, but seriously, Faeries. That was the autopilot control/tempo deck that was very strong for its time and there wasn't much aggro decks could do a thing about that. Even WOTC admitted it was one of the most autopiloty decks of its time.
It was one of the most brainless to pilot decks, and it almost reoccured in JUND decks that were a Aggro/Tempo deck. They were almost as brainless to play however JUND actually did require thought behind it.
So in short... WELCOME TO THE EVERCHANGING META!
lol Im not trying to insult anyones intelligence all I'm sayin is that the control players who feel 'smarter' than someone who's playing an aggro deck, or the moment they lose to an aggro deck the go to the corner of the shop crying about how you just turned your guys sideways need to shut up. For some reason CERTAIN people who use control decks think they are some genius and think everyone who plays aggro is stupid or cheap.
And don't be a grammar nazi okay, this isnt english class -_-
As someone who has always preferred control to aggro (specifically UW control)... it really is kinda sad.
We should all bump this thread in 6 months when Legion's Initiative remains a completely non-overpowered card, and the OP tries to pretend he didn't make this thread.
0 Karn
W Darien
U Arcanis
B Geth
R Norin
G Yeva
UW Hanna
RB Olivia
WB Obzedat
UR Melek
BG Glissa
WR Aurelia
GU Kraj
BRU Nicol Bolas
RGB Prossh
BGW Ghave
GUB Mimeoplasm
WUBRG Sliver Overlord
GWU Treva, the Renewer
EDH Spike:
U Azami, Lady of Scrolls
Trades
heres the thing though, if you translate this to something that actually use skill, it doesnt correlate.
child picks up card game, and wins against people who have been playing longer than said child probably. out of 20 games put random child against a pro mtg player, he will most likely win at least 1 game.
6'5 guy randomly picks up basketball, he isnt going to instantly be a pro baller. he has not acquired any skills for the game of basketball. put this 6'5 guy who hasnt acquired skills for basketball against lebron james 1 on 1 1st to 10 in 20 games and he will not win a single 1 of them.
people throw the word "skill" around so much in this game, when it is not a skill based game, i just dont get it.
Please stop talking in absolutes.
A game which is not based on skill would rely on an absurd amount of luck to win 19 out of 20 games. Such a game would likely not have any professionals, either.
There is an element of luck in this game, which causes those who are less-skilled to keep coming back for more. Without this, MTG would likely lose a lot of its popularity.