In my mind, CVM's deck is an aggro deck. It's not really the cmc of spells that defines whether it's aggro, control, midrange. Take a look and INN-RTR Bant Midrange. It played for the long game but hoped to close it out before it got there, thragtusks, resto angels, angel of serenity... and then it has spells like sphinx's revelation and azorius charm, perhaps even Jace. It's not really a control deck (in the traditional sense - bant control was it's own thing back then with think twices, dissipates elixir of immortality, etc), yet it's not going to kill you any time within the first 10 turns. CVM's deck starts trying to kill you as soon as turn 3, and then it doesn't stop until you're dead, or he's dead. Going bigger than the other aggro decks doesn't mean it's not an aggro deck. Really, it seems like the deck is like a pungee pit - you stick you're hand in, and it's going to get caught and backlash, whether it's from thunderbreak regents or draconic roars, and then before you know it, you're dead.
In what world is a threat base of 9 4-drops, 4 5-drops, and 2 7-drops "aggro"? He has nothing to apply early pressure and "going bigger than aggro" is one of the primary reasons that midrange decks get built. The "aggressiveness" of his deck is from incidental damage. Does that mean every single red deck is aggro now? Does that mean every single Siege Rhino deck is aggro now? CVM's deck is one of the most obvious examples of midrange there can be, it shouldn't even be a discussion.
In my mind, CVM's deck is an aggro deck. It's not really the cmc of spells that defines whether it's aggro, control, midrange. Take a look and INN-RTR Bant Midrange. It played for the long game but hoped to close it out before it got there, thragtusks, resto angels, angel of serenity... and then it has spells like sphinx's revelation and azorius charm, perhaps even Jace. It's not really a control deck (in the traditional sense - bant control was it's own thing back then with think twices, dissipates elixir of immortality, etc), yet it's not going to kill you any time within the first 10 turns. CVM's deck starts trying to kill you as soon as turn 3, and then it doesn't stop until you're dead, or he's dead. Going bigger than the other aggro decks doesn't mean it's not an aggro deck. Really, it seems like the deck is like a pungee pit - you stick you're hand in, and it's going to get caught and backlash, whether it's from thunderbreak regents or draconic roars, and then before you know it, you're dead.
In what world is a threat base of 9 4-drops, 4 5-drops, and 2 7-drops "aggro"? He has nothing to apply early pressure and "going bigger than aggro" is one of the primary reasons that midrange decks get built. The "aggressiveness" of his deck is from incidental damage. Does that mean every single red deck is aggro now? Does that mean every single Siege Rhino deck is aggro now? CVM's deck is one of the most obvious examples of midrange there can be, it shouldn't even be a discussion.
Again, aggro has nothing to do with curve anymore. Instead, it has to do with strategy. Aggro turns them sideways until the game is over. Midrange drops efficient threats while disrupting the opponent until the game is over. Control disrupts the opponent until it can drop a finisher and win. Curve is of no factor.
In my mind, CVM's deck is an aggro deck. It's not really the cmc of spells that defines whether it's aggro, control, midrange. Take a look and INN-RTR Bant Midrange. It played for the long game but hoped to close it out before it got there, thragtusks, resto angels, angel of serenity... and then it has spells like sphinx's revelation and azorius charm, perhaps even Jace. It's not really a control deck (in the traditional sense - bant control was it's own thing back then with think twices, dissipates elixir of immortality, etc), yet it's not going to kill you any time within the first 10 turns. CVM's deck starts trying to kill you as soon as turn 3, and then it doesn't stop until you're dead, or he's dead. Going bigger than the other aggro decks doesn't mean it's not an aggro deck. Really, it seems like the deck is like a pungee pit - you stick you're hand in, and it's going to get caught and backlash, whether it's from thunderbreak regents or draconic roars, and then before you know it, you're dead.
In what world is a threat base of 9 4-drops, 4 5-drops, and 2 7-drops "aggro"? He has nothing to apply early pressure and "going bigger than aggro" is one of the primary reasons that midrange decks get built. The "aggressiveness" of his deck is from incidental damage. Does that mean every single red deck is aggro now? Does that mean every single Siege Rhino deck is aggro now? CVM's deck is one of the most obvious examples of midrange there can be, it shouldn't even be a discussion.
Again, aggro has nothing to do with curve anymore. Instead, it has to do with strategy. Aggro turns them sideways until the game is over. Midrange drops efficient threats while disrupting the opponent until the game is over. Control disrupts the opponent until it can drop a finisher and win. Curve is of no factor.
What constitutes as "disruption"? Does every midrange deck have to play Thoughtseize? CVM plays the disruptive spells that are at his disposal in those two colours. Draconic Roar, Roast and Crater's Claws are disruption. I would describe CVM's deck as aggressive midrange.
8 Spells mb does not constitute as disruption. More of a fail safe. Claws are designed to go to the face to end the game quicker. While Roar does hit creatures, he wants it to hit the face too. Roast just clears the way for his creatures to go sideways.
It is of no factor to the current definition of aggro, midrange, control or combo. Yes, you need an aggressive curve in order to be aggressive. No one is disputing that. However, in a deck with 8 mana dorks, CMVs curve is aggressive.
8 Spells mb does not constitute as disruption. More of a fail safe. Claws are designed to go to the face to end the game quicker. While Roar does hit creatures, he wants it to hit the face too. Roast just clears the way for his creatures to go sideways.
Roast ands Claws are used as a defensive measure too. That's what midrange is, sometimes you attack and sometimes you defend.
Then get on to the commentators and all the 'pros' for calling this an aggro deck due to the speed of it's clock and not a midrange deck by it's components. Quite frankly, it's all subjective and nothing to bicker and debate about.
Aggro = lots of creatures with a beatdown plan. Regardless of curve. But of course you can have a deck formed mostly of creatures, but mostly of then with controling specs, then it will not be an aggro deck.
8 Spells mb does not constitute as disruption. More of a fail safe. Claws are designed to go to the face to end the game quicker. While Roar does hit creatures, he wants it to hit the face too. Roast just clears the way for his creatures to go sideways.
So Jund was an aggro deck? Maverick was an aggro deck? What meets your criteria for midrange? Tons of midrange decks can manage a turn 5-6 kill. 32 mana (+4 Courser), 15 threats, 9 removal spells is not an aggressive distribution of cards. The deck relies on the raw power/efficiency of its 4-7 mana threats to win, which is not what aggro decks do. No aggro deck would run 32+ mana, no aggro deck would run 2 mainboard Atarkas, no aggro deck would run 3 Haven of the Spirit Dragon. Every single fiber of this deck is midrange but you seem to think that "red = aggro".
Then get on to the commentators and all the 'pros' for calling this an aggro deck due to the speed of it's clock and not a midrange deck by it's components. Quite frankly, it's all subjective and nothing to bicker and debate about.
SCG has had some pretty bad deck labels before, it's nothing new. This deck has a midrange clock, so I don't understand why you are mentioning it. The key concept of aggro is "Play lots of cheap/weak threats". The goal is to gain virtual card advantage through having fewer mana sources/dead cards and through utilizing all of your hand/mana before your opponent can deploy their hand. Aggro tries to overwhelm with sheer number of threats, midrange tries to overwhelm with individually powerful threats. Going for sheer number of threats doesn't work in a deck that has 32+ mana sources, or in a deck that can't deploy any of them before turn 3. If your deck can have its early aggression stopped by 3x Hero's Downfall on turns 3-5, it isn't an aggro deck.
Actually, Jund was categorized as an aggro deck. So we're on the same page, I consider Jund a midrange deck. My definition of midrange? One that seeks to disrupt the opponents early game until it starts dropping it's finishers in the mid-game.
I don't think red = aggro. I think creatures = aggro. Since we're on the subject, aggro is shorthand for aggressive. Which, is exactly what that deck is designed to be.
What is the mid-game? I'd say that playing 4/5 drops on turn 3/4 is "mid-game". What qualifies as disruption? Removal spells + walls seems like disruption to me.
8 Spells mb does not constitute as disruption. More of a fail safe. Claws are designed to go to the face to end the game quicker. While Roar does hit creatures, he wants it to hit the face too. Roast just clears the way for his creatures to go sideways.
So Jund was an aggro deck? Maverick was an aggro deck? What meets your criteria for midrange? Tons of midrange decks can manage a turn 5-6 kill. 32 mana (+4 Courser), 15 threats, 9 removal spells is not an aggressive distribution of cards. The deck relies on the raw power/efficiency of its 4-7 mana threats to win, which is not what aggro decks do. No aggro deck would run 32+ mana, no aggro deck would run 2 mainboard Atarkas, no aggro deck would run 3 Haven of the Spirit Dragon. Every single fiber of this deck is midrange but you seem to think that "red = aggro".
Then get on to the commentators and all the 'pros' for calling this an aggro deck due to the speed of it's clock and not a midrange deck by it's components. Quite frankly, it's all subjective and nothing to bicker and debate about.
SCG has had some pretty bad deck labels before, it's nothing new. This deck has a midrange clock, so I don't understand why you are mentioning it. The key concept of aggro is "Play lots of cheap/weak threats". The goal is to gain virtual card advantage through having fewer mana sources/dead cards and through utilizing all of your hand/mana before your opponent can deploy their hand. Aggro tries to overwhelm with sheer number of threats, midrange tries to overwhelm with individually powerful threats. Going for sheer number of threats doesn't work in a deck that has 32+ mana sources, or in a deck that can't deploy any of them before turn 3. If your deck can have its early aggression stopped by 3x Hero's Downfall on turns 3-5, it isn't an aggro deck.
Again, this is all subjective and it's not just SCG,it's also Wizards, ChannelFireball, TCG Player and any number of sites with 'Pro' players using those classifications in countless articles. Besides, I didn't bring it up Spartan derailed this thread that devolved from a futer metagame discussion to it's current state of bickering about pointless preferences of classification.
You all can call it whatever you want. The deck doesn't look at its cards and try to count to 20, it seeks to close the game by having a bigger board state turn 3 and 4 onward. This deck thrives in the mid-game, which in my mind is midrange.
For the record, I'm just going to call the deck G/R Dragons so there's no confusion about what we're talking about.
8 Spells mb does not constitute as disruption. More of a fail safe. Claws are designed to go to the face to end the game quicker. While Roar does hit creatures, he wants it to hit the face too. Roast just clears the way for his creatures to go sideways.
So Jund was an aggro deck? Maverick was an aggro deck? What meets your criteria for midrange? Tons of midrange decks can manage a turn 5-6 kill. 32 mana (+4 Courser), 15 threats, 9 removal spells is not an aggressive distribution of cards. The deck relies on the raw power/efficiency of its 4-7 mana threats to win, which is not what aggro decks do. No aggro deck would run 32+ mana, no aggro deck would run 2 mainboard Atarkas, no aggro deck would run 3 Haven of the Spirit Dragon. Every single fiber of this deck is midrange but you seem to think that "red = aggro".
Then get on to the commentators and all the 'pros' for calling this an aggro deck due to the speed of it's clock and not a midrange deck by it's components. Quite frankly, it's all subjective and nothing to bicker and debate about.
SCG has had some pretty bad deck labels before, it's nothing new. This deck has a midrange clock, so I don't understand why you are mentioning it. The key concept of aggro is "Play lots of cheap/weak threats". The goal is to gain virtual card advantage through having fewer mana sources/dead cards and through utilizing all of your hand/mana before your opponent can deploy their hand. Aggro tries to overwhelm with sheer number of threats, midrange tries to overwhelm with individually powerful threats. Going for sheer number of threats doesn't work in a deck that has 32+ mana sources, or in a deck that can't deploy any of them before turn 3. If your deck can have its early aggression stopped by 3x Hero's Downfall on turns 3-5, it isn't an aggro deck.
Again, this is all subjective and it's not just SCG,it's also Wizards, ChannelFireball, TCG Player and any number of sites with 'Pro' players using those classifications in countless articles. Besides, I didn't bring it up Spartan derailed this thread that devolved from a futer metagame discussion to it's current state of bickering about pointless preferences of classification.
Where are these instances of Wizards, CFB, TCG, etc calling it aggro? Outside of the SCG coverage label, which is notorious for improperly labeling decks, where are people calling the deck aggro? Gerry disputes the aggro label in his discussion of the deck.
CVM's deck can accelerate into early threats, like a turn 3 Thunderbreak, which may make it seems aggro-ish but I believe it falls firmly into the midrange category. Atarka is a big clue in to categorize the deck as midrange, as it is a board control card first, and attacker second. "Jeskai Aggro" is a legitimate label for the post FrF non-token Jeskai decks because they relied on 2 and 3 CMC creatures for a lot of their push, backed up by cheap burn, in a meta where tap lands made most decks slower than the norm. In the current meta, I'd label anything that goes bigger than Jim Davis's Jeskai build midrange, and for G/R the difference between Caryatid/Rattleclaw and Courser/Boon Satyr seems a good dividing line between aggro and mid-range. Rattleclaw allows for early beats, Caryatid does not, and the same can be said for Courser/Satyr.
My point? It's all subjective so long as you're not calling it Control or Combo. Yes, sometimes sites are blatantly wrong in their classification but, in the case of RG Dragons, it would be correct to identify it as either Aggro or Midrange.
In what world is a threat base of 9 4-drops, 4 5-drops, and 2 7-drops "aggro"? He has nothing to apply early pressure and "going bigger than aggro" is one of the primary reasons that midrange decks get built. The "aggressiveness" of his deck is from incidental damage. Does that mean every single red deck is aggro now? Does that mean every single Siege Rhino deck is aggro now? CVM's deck is one of the most obvious examples of midrange there can be, it shouldn't even be a discussion.
Again, aggro has nothing to do with curve anymore. Instead, it has to do with strategy. Aggro turns them sideways until the game is over. Midrange drops efficient threats while disrupting the opponent until the game is over. Control disrupts the opponent until it can drop a finisher and win. Curve is of no factor.
What constitutes as "disruption"? Does every midrange deck have to play Thoughtseize? CVM plays the disruptive spells that are at his disposal in those two colours. Draconic Roar, Roast and Crater's Claws are disruption. I would describe CVM's deck as aggressive midrange.
Youtube Channel
What utter nonsense.
Of course curve is a factor. Curve is the foundation which aggressive decks have been and will continue to be built on for years.
Paul Sligh and Jay Schneider would be having fits.
Roast ands Claws are used as a defensive measure too. That's what midrange is, sometimes you attack and sometimes you defend.
Youtube Channel
So Jund was an aggro deck? Maverick was an aggro deck? What meets your criteria for midrange? Tons of midrange decks can manage a turn 5-6 kill. 32 mana (+4 Courser), 15 threats, 9 removal spells is not an aggressive distribution of cards. The deck relies on the raw power/efficiency of its 4-7 mana threats to win, which is not what aggro decks do. No aggro deck would run 32+ mana, no aggro deck would run 2 mainboard Atarkas, no aggro deck would run 3 Haven of the Spirit Dragon. Every single fiber of this deck is midrange but you seem to think that "red = aggro".
SCG has had some pretty bad deck labels before, it's nothing new. This deck has a midrange clock, so I don't understand why you are mentioning it. The key concept of aggro is "Play lots of cheap/weak threats". The goal is to gain virtual card advantage through having fewer mana sources/dead cards and through utilizing all of your hand/mana before your opponent can deploy their hand. Aggro tries to overwhelm with sheer number of threats, midrange tries to overwhelm with individually powerful threats. Going for sheer number of threats doesn't work in a deck that has 32+ mana sources, or in a deck that can't deploy any of them before turn 3. If your deck can have its early aggression stopped by 3x Hero's Downfall on turns 3-5, it isn't an aggro deck.
I don't think red = aggro. I think creatures = aggro. Since we're on the subject, aggro is shorthand for aggressive. Which, is exactly what that deck is designed to be.
Again, this is all subjective and it's not just SCG,it's also Wizards, ChannelFireball, TCG Player and any number of sites with 'Pro' players using those classifications in countless articles. Besides, I didn't bring it up Spartan derailed this thread that devolved from a futer metagame discussion to it's current state of bickering about pointless preferences of classification.
For the record, I'm just going to call the deck G/R Dragons so there's no confusion about what we're talking about.
Where are these instances of Wizards, CFB, TCG, etc calling it aggro? Outside of the SCG coverage label, which is notorious for improperly labeling decks, where are people calling the deck aggro? Gerry disputes the aggro label in his discussion of the deck.
Hey look, the creator of the deck calls it aggro
Well isn't this interesting...
My point? It's all subjective so long as you're not calling it Control or Combo. Yes, sometimes sites are blatantly wrong in their classification but, in the case of RG Dragons, it would be correct to identify it as either Aggro or Midrange.