On the topic of competitive Aggro decks, my friend Caitlin has been tuning an Aurelia, the Warleader list for several years now that runs lots of early game ramp and disruption targeted at combo decks (Stranglehold, Blood Moon, etc.) and then proceeds to beat face with her commander and a myriad other efficient creatures. While it's hindered by its colors, it does often take games in the early turns against decks like Sharuum, Scion, Tasigur, Zur, and other decks that fit the "competitive" mold. I'll see if I can get her to post her list here, because it's honestly the closest thing to "aggro" I've ever seen at a competitive table short of Krenko or Rafiq.
Yeah I've been running something similar, and this is a deck, I'm convinced. I'm inclined to believe at times that White is more essential than Blue even for interacting with combo's. Counterspell something, and it just sits in the graveyard threatening to win the game at the next reanimation spell drawn. But if you Containment Priest or Nevermore something, stick something like Ethersworn CanonistRest in Peace, etc, then you put Combo on having answers for it, which they don't.
Ideally, it would be White and Blue. But straight Boros allows Blood Moon's, which are generally superb against everything competitive, and a very aggressive general. Also, the right Sunforger package stops a table from combo'ing better than any countermagic suite in your deck once you equip it. In the end, if you both stop combo and have the ability to win before Turn 7-8, then you've got a pretty solid shot.
Yeah, there is the Commander damage "hidden multiplier" that gets multiplied by all other multipliers. That makes it easier to put each opponent on a 1 turn clock. But there is also the redundancy of having a general, which redundancy is a key metric for the aggro game plan. Especially with the no-tuck rule now, you can't stop aggro's ability to field threats as the game goes on. I think one of the reasons EDH gameplay is so engaging is that its unique rules actually favor aggro the most, where otherwise in a multiplayer double-life format, it really would just be a combo-only game.
I maintain that a "Death and Taxes" style aggro deck has a definite shot at the right competitive table.
No. The best aggro commander is likely Mayael or Krenko.
Surely you're kidding.. How can Mayael even come close to Marath? I'd much quicker say that the best aggro deck is some 5c list of best land disruption, hatebears and really high quality creatures with Horde of Notions at the helm.
I'll be honest - I have very little personal experience with Mayael and none with Marath. My comment here is mostly conjecture based on what I've seen others in the competitive community say.
What's your opinion on Grenzo, Dungeon Warden as an aggro commander? It can play almost the exact same list as Krenko but with the black tutors.
The majority of Krenko's power lies not in the red-goblins strategy but in the command zone. Krenko goes infinite with Skirk Prospector/Phyrexian Altar + a haste outlet for infinite mana and 1/1 goblins. This is more powerful than it sounds given that red has a few tutors that can find Skirk Prospector (Goblin Matron, Goblin Recruiter, Imperial Recruiter, Gamble, etc). Krenko also can produces lots of little goblins on his own which combined with one or two lord effects can become lethal rather quickly. Grenzo is most powerful in a R/B Doomsday build - if I were really set on playing R/B Goblins I'd probably go with Wort, Boggart Auntie. Not sure though, Grenzo could easily be better.
On the topic of competitive Aggro decks, my friend Caitlin has been tuning an Aurelia, the Warleader list for several years now that runs lots of early game ramp and disruption targeted at combo decks (Stranglehold, Blood Moon, etc.) and then proceeds to beat face with her commander and a myriad other efficient creatures. While it's hindered by its colors, it does often take games in the early turns against decks like Sharuum, Scion, Tasigur, Zur, and other decks that fit the "competitive" mold. I'll see if I can get her to post her list here, because it's honestly the closest thing to "aggro" I've ever seen at a competitive table short of Krenko or Rafiq.
What advantage does Aurelia provide over Kaalia? Kaalia adds black, which is desperately needed for consistency, and adds fatties to the field more quickly. I don't see a great reason to play Aurelia in place of Kaalia.
I maintain that a "Death and Taxes" style aggro deck has a definite shot at the right competitive table.
Absolutely. Angelforge plays an Alesha list that he describes as Stax, but really plays similarly to Legacy D&T. It's a great deck to play against and really feels fun.
Surely you're kidding.. How can Mayael even come close to Marath? I'd much quicker say that the best aggro deck is some 5c list of best land disruption, hatebears and really high quality creatures with Horde of Notions at the helm.
I'll be honest - I have very little personal experience with Mayael and none with Marath. My comment here is mostly conjecture based on what I've seen others in the competitive community say.
Marath probably isn't going to be nearly aggressive enough as an aggro general. He works well in 1v1, but he's not really fast enough in a multiplayer setting. You'd be better off going stax. Even a combo build had the downside of not having blue or black to help, and you'd be better off with Ghave at that point.
That said, I can't see Mayael being much better, she's often fairly slow if you build around her, and you may as well run Marath if you don't build around her.
I could maybe see something like Xenagod, but you've still got an uphill battle.
What advantage does Aurelia provide over Kaalia? Kaalia adds black, which is desperately needed for consistency, and adds fatties to the field more quickly. I don't see a great reason to play Aurelia in place of Kaalia.
Basically, deck composition, Blood Moons, kill clock, and redundancy. To clarify, you're winning on general damage when you play a general like Aurelia, not regular damage.
You have more room for disruption, such as grave hate, mana denial, hatebears, etc, the more you are leaning on your General for a win condition. It can backfire if you're kept off your general, but what Kaalia player will tell you that she never backfires like that either? On Kaalia generally, it's really just not worth it to put only the amount of big beaters in your deck that there's only an average of one or so in your hand when she hits. It's just not that much better than a reanimate in that case, becuase reanimate also gives you combo options. But a small set is all you can really put into your deck if you want to still be able to interact with combo's in off-Blue.
Blood Moon's are Blood Moons. A huge number of competitve decks are non-Green or non-Red with 3 or more colors, and those are the decks that auto-scoop to Blood Moon. It's been said in the discussion of some of these decks, like Damia, that your best option is to just lose to Blood Moon whenver you see it and move onto the next game. It's not as if you can't play Blood Moon in Maardu, but it will hurt you badly enough that you won't want to if you face any number of Mono-U or two color decks.
Kill clock is important, obviously. If you take your general and a single other random card from your deck, excluding one'of outliers like Hatred and Master of Cruelties, your quickest average kill turn by far is via general damage and not regular damage. Even if you consider multiples, a voltron deck is usually OTK'ing with 2 or more pieces. For Kaalia to keep up with that, you'd have to hit a pair of ADD's that includes very synergistic cards like Gisela, Dragon Tyrant, etc.
Most important I think though, redundancy. Sure, you can play out Kaalia any number of times to get those 1-2 ADD's onto the field, but if those ADD's themselves are killed or dealt with, you are now drawing thin. Especially with the new Vancouver mulligan rules. The command zone mechanic provides you with the ability to make winning material on board by drawing nothing more than additional mana.
Question I have is now, which is better at a competitive table now between Aurelia and Kalemne. I've always favored Aurelia for the evasion, but I'm thinking that the evasion is not as necessary against passive decks like Grixis storm. An extra discount might be better. Of course, there's always the fact that you can give Aurelia Double-Strike, but you can't give it twice to Kalemne, so I don't know.
I don't consider legacy death and taxes an aggro deck. Legacy and EDH don't really have aggro decks, it's just not a viable strategy at competitive tables. The closest I've built is Xenagos and I wouldn't even consider that an aggro deck even though it is trying for turn 4 kills (just one player at a time). Aurelia is trying to win with a 6 drop, how is that aggro??
I don't consider legacy death and taxes an aggro deck. Legacy and EDH don't really have aggro decks, it's just not a viable strategy at competitive tables. The closest I've built is Xenagos and I wouldn't even consider that an aggro deck even though it is trying for turn 4 kills (just one player at a time). Aurelia is trying to win with a 6 drop, how is that aggro??
I would put EDH aggro somewhere closer to legacy stompy, but I don't think you can make that work consistently. I've tried true curve-out aggro lists in EDH before and they're incredibly draw dependent if they work at all. EDH aggro has to be much more disruptive than in other formats and there's a much higher chance you just draw the wrong parts of the deck at the wrong time, especially with the lower density of disruption.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
I would put EDH aggro somewhere closer to legacy stompy, but I don't think you can make that work consistently. I've tried true curve-out aggro lists in EDH before and they're incredibly draw dependent if they work at all. EDH aggro has to be much more disruptive than in other formats and there's a much higher chance you just draw the wrong parts of the deck at the wrong time, especially with the lower density of disruption.
I remember that Thalia deck you built and I suppose that is a true aggro deck. My point was more that adding a lot more disruption changes an aggro deck into a midrange deck. Thalia kind of cheated the system because you have your main disruption in the command zone.
Well, the problem is that if you set up the definition of an aggro deck in a way that it can't have disruption, you've set up a "no true scotsman" fallacy. Oh, now that this creature-based deck whose only win condition is combat damage has disruption, it's not aggro anymore because aggro doesn't have disruption. Must be "midrange" because it has this card that's not a creature or a damage card.
I have no idea where this idea came from, or where this deck is in any format. Even Mono-R Goblins, every RDW deck ever, UR Delver etc, has ways to interact. It's why Chain Lightning is $15 and Lava Spike is not played. Interacting is better than not interacting. No one is out there figuring out how to limit their deck from interacting in order to adhere more closely to the aggro archetype and collect wins.
I think one of the causes of the problem is that a certain player set belives aggro == dumb, and they == smart, so no deck that they work on or deck that beats them could be aggro. If you lost to it, it must be something else, because how could an aggro deck beat you? Nevermind that aggro is probably the most historically successful of the 3 main archetypes of Magic.
Aggro is already defined, you're trying to redefine it for this format. Aggro can play some disruption just not much because your primary game plan is to kill as fast as possible. Playing lots of answers and disruption hinders that. Calling midrange decks aggro decks doesn't seem very useful but if you want to redefine aggro as any deck that turns creatures sideways then I'm sure it has historically been very successful.
Aggro is already defined, you're trying to redefine it for this format. Aggro can play some disruption just not much because your primary game plan is to kill as fast as possible. Playing lots of answers and disruption hinders that. Calling midrange decks aggro decks doesn't seem very useful but if you want to redefine aggro as any deck that turns creatures sideways then I'm sure it has historically been very successful.
From Wikipedia:
Aggro (short for "aggressive") decks attempt to reduce their opponents from 20 life to 0 life as quickly as possible, rather than emphasize a long-term game plan. Aggro decks focus on converting their cards into damage; they prefer to engage in a tempo-based race rather than a card advantage-based attrition war. Aggro generally relies upon creatures as a cumulative source of damage. Aggro decks can quickly overwhelm unprepared opponents and proceed to eke out the last bit of damage they need to end the game. Aggro decks also generally have access to disruptive elements, which can inhibit the opponent's attempts to respond.
I think both points are agreed, just emphasizing a different one.
I'll just point out that it's somewhat misunderstood what that means to win as "quickly as possible", since combo decks have always been faster than aggro decks, and rely on being so in order to preserve their place in the rock-paper-scissors dynamic. Winning as fast as possible, while not interacting and avoiding interaction, is combo. Winning on efficiency as opposed to card advantage, that's aggro. And aggro had always better pack some disruption against Combo, its natural predator, or that matchup is just an auto-loss. Same thing, Control better pack answers against Aggro or auto-lose to it.
(Bear with me if the only formats you've played other than EDH are Modern and Standard. The dynamic definitely is aggro beats control, beats combo, beats aggro. You'll have to trust me on that.)
Well Wikipedia also says 0-20 and assumes a 1:1 game edh is a different animal. While I agree that disruption is important for many of the same reasons what you guys are going back and forth about is pretty semantical boiling down to "what is the operational definition of aggro in edh?" The way it currently stands it seems to me there quite a few opinions on what an aggro deck is in edh and why it's defined as such I have for a long time advocated the life total be set back to 20 if someone made a more competitive banlist to allow for a more traditional approach to aggressive strategies. As it stands the control or combo elements built into aggressive edh decks tend to be more important than the aggressive cards IE it doesn't matter if I'm playing uril drawing my best enchant is likely less important than hitting my land whipe spell. What should we consider aggro? I'm not really sure as I think the ideas that come from other formats are only mildly relevant as it stands.
Aggro is defined most importantly by trying to kill quickly, which traditionally is turn 4. Disruption is helpful to most aggro decks, and most decks in general, but you can only play so much before you lose your ability to kill quickly, which makes it a midrange deck.
Here's midrange
Quote from Wikipedia »
Midrange can be considered an archetype in its own right, but is essentially a cross between ramp and aggro. A typical midrange deck has an early game plan of mana ramp and control, but begins to play threats once it reaches four to six mana. A midrange deck will often seek to play a reactive, attrition-based game against aggro decks and a more proactive, tempo-based game against control decks. Colloquially, this is referred to as "going bigger" than aggro and "getting in under" control.
I'm not sure about EDH, but usually it largely depends on when your disruption takes effect. If you go Disruption, Disruption, Threat, Threat, you are more of a Midrange deck. If you go Threat, Threat, Disruption, Disruption, you are probably a Tempo deck. At least that is the way it's always been explained to me. A Midrange deck will try to stop you from doing your thing, and then attempt to finish the game. A Tempo deck will land an undercosted threat and then protect it until it wins or dies. Both styles fall into the Aggro Control spectrum, with Tempo falling closer to the aggro side and Midrange to the control side.
As for Aggro running disruption, I think it's important for said disruption to focus on getting damage in, or spells like Lightning Bolt, which can play double duty. This keeps the focus on damage to the dome, where as something like Counterspell, or Thoughtseize lend themselves to more of an Aggro Control shell. This is how I've been taught the archtypes, maybe I'm wrong, but to each their own.
Aggro is defined most importantly by trying to kill quickly, which traditionally is turn 4. Disruption is helpful to most aggro decks, and most decks in general, but you can only play so much before you lose your ability to kill quickly, which makes it a midrange deck.
Here's midrange
Quote from Wikipedia »
Midrange can be considered an archetype in its own right, but is essentially a cross between ramp and aggro. A typical midrange deck has an early game plan of mana ramp and control, but begins to play threats once it reaches four to six mana. A midrange deck will often seek to play a reactive, attrition-based game against aggro decks and a more proactive, tempo-based game against control decks. Colloquially, this is referred to as "going bigger" than aggro and "getting in under" control.
Yep. That is midrange and is a good example of why the wikipedia definitions are not good definitions for Magic in general and especially CEDH. My own Jarad is very much a midrange deck and plays "threats" at 4 mana (Buried Alive + Reanimate) but most of them are on the high end of the curve (reanimation targets, Tooth and Nail, etc).
I think you've drawn attention to the wrong part of the definition for mid range. The way a mid range deck plays in relation to other decks is where I think you can start to categorize a deck as aggro or mid range in a particular meta.
A midrange deck will often seek to play a reactive, attrition-based game against aggro decks and a more proactive, tempo-based game against control decks.
This would be what I consider the important part of that definition. If a deck is always playing a proactive, tempo-based game because there aren't (m)any decks for it to go bigger than then that deck is probably an aggro deck.
But it's not, there are lots of other midrange and combo decks to play against. Midrange plays out like it does in other formats it just doesn't have to worry about early beat down pressure as much. There are tempo decks and fast combo decks that it needs to take a more controlling role against, at least in the early stages.
3 of my 10 decks (xenagos, Uril & edric) are among the faster beat down decks I've seen and at least to me are clearly not aggro decks. The first 2 are midrange even though I'm pretty much always the aggressor they do have a plan for the late game and Edric is a tempo deck. These decks are ultimately trying to win the game with threats that cost 5+ mana (edric being time warps, not flying men). They fit perfectly fine under the current definitions.
How is the mana cost of the threats a deck plays more important than the play style of a deck when defining its archetype?
Midrange doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists as a middle ground on a spectrum between aggro and control that has a distinct play style which set it apart from other archetypes that exist in the same space such as aggro-control. If there isn't something for midrange to be bigger than then it isn't midrange.
Aggro is different from format to format, and in EDH especially it has had to change, but I think it always exists because it is one of the three corner stones that define archetypes in magic.
I would definitely argue that your Xenagos deck is an aggro deck in EDH. You even write:
Quote from Donald »
This version of the deck is designed to kill opponents in one hit as quickly as possible.
right before you list the deck. That seems much more in line with aggro's definition than midrange's. Either way though, it looks like a fun deck to pilot
It speaks about the curve of the deck and the speed it’s trying to play at. I see where you’re coming from but I just don’t feel midrange plays out much differently in EDH than it does in other formats even with the lack of aggro decks. You still need to have a flexible game plan and with all the fast mana running around even control decks can get the jump on you. To take an extreme example if you’re in a meta with only control decks does the fastest control deck become an aggro deck? It doesn’t because it’s still a control deck, it’s simply being forced to take a more aggressive approach in games.
Xenagos also fits the midrange description almost perfectly. It’s a cross between ramp and aggro, is playing 4-6 mana threats and while I don’t play much removal because I’m at the aggressive end of the midrange spectrum there is some and I can tutor for it aggressively if needed (maybe, I am playing R/G). I do also have the ability to “go bigger” than aggro should there be one in the game or there’s a particularly aggressive start from another deck. It plays like a midrange deck and feels like a midrange deck to me (though admittedly a pretty aggressive one). It is fun to play!
The more academic this conversation gets, the less useful it is.
It comes down to the balance of Aggro beats Control beats Combo beats Aggro. So, say let's agree on what a combo deck in this format is. Now, say you expect a table full of combo decks. What type of deck would you bring? That deck is a Control deck. Let's say that you expect mostly Control decks, or at least enough Control decks to stop Combo from winning. What kind of deck would you bring then? That deck is an Aggro deck.
It doesn't matter whether the deck wins on speed, or on creature damage, or even by a combo. The deck that you use to beat Control decks is an Aggro deck. To me though, it's no coincidence that the best equipped deck against Control make a lot of use of the redundancy offered by the Command Zone, and that the aggro theorists have been saying for a long time that redundancy is the essential, defining element of the strategy.
Tempo, Midrange, etc, to me they have always meant something different than what archetype you are. The fact that a "tempo" deck with cheap threats and counterspells is the very worst matchup for a classic Control deck is not a coincidence, it's just an Aggro deck with different card selections. Probably to appease the crowd that believes that Aggro == creatures + burn spells. Midrange, if it exists, is a deck that takes on the Control or Aggro role, depending on different matchups in the metagame. I say "if it exists", because if you truly are Aggro against the Control decks of the meta (favored), and truly are Control against the Combo decks (favored), then you're really just favored in every match you play, except maybe Aggro where you are even. No such deck is that flexible.
Otherwise, it might just be an aggro deck in some sort of Mark Rosewater, combo'less format, where you're favored as Aggro agaisnt Control, even against other Aggro, and never have to take the Control role because there's no Combo. To me then, you're just aggro.
The more academic this conversation gets, the less useful it is.
It comes down to the balance of Aggro beats Control beats Combo beats Aggro. So, say let's agree on what a combo deck in this format is. Now, say you expect a table full of combo decks. What type of deck would you bring? That deck is a Control deck. Let's say that you expect mostly Control decks, or at least enough Control decks to stop Combo from winning. What kind of deck would you bring then? That deck is an Aggro deck.
It doesn't matter whether the deck wins on speed, or on creature damage, or even by a combo. The deck that you use to beat Control decks is an Aggro deck. To me though, it's no coincidence that the best equipped deck against Control make a lot of use of the redundancy offered by the Command Zone, and that the aggro theorists have been saying for a long time that redundancy is the essential, defining element of the strategy.
This isn't all that useful since it's a multiplayer format. If you brought a control deck to a table full of combo decks you'd lose because you can't stop all of them. In an all control meta an aggro deck is a poor choice because you'll likely be targeted by all your opponents and get hated out. The rock paper scissors balance doesn't apply. I do agree redundancy is key for aggro and the command zone is the place to start but we still don't have some ridiculous aggro legend and even then aggro has additional hurdles to overcome.
Quote from Jusstice »
Tempo, Midrange, etc, to me they have always meant something different than what archetype you are. The fact that a "tempo" deck with cheap threats and counterspells is the very worst matchup for a classic Control deck is not a coincidence, it's just an Aggro deck with different card selections. Probably to appease the crowd that believes that Aggro == creatures + burn spells. Midrange, if it exists, is a deck that takes on the Control or Aggro role, depending on different matchups in the metagame. I say "if it exists", because if you truly are Aggro against the Control decks of the meta (favored), and truly are Control against the Combo decks (favored), then you're really just favored in every match you play, except maybe Aggro where you are even. No such deck is that flexible.
Otherwise, it might just be an aggro deck in some sort of Mark Rosewater, combo'less format, where you're favored as Aggro agaisnt Control, even against other Aggro, and never have to take the Control role because there's no Combo. To me then, you're just aggro.
Tempo isn't aggro with different cards, it has a different strategy, less threats and more disruption. If you want to lump tempo in with aggro that's fine but I think the distinction is an important one. Simply using aggro control and combo is too restrictive because there are many decks which don't fit nicely into one of those categories. I also really disagree about the bolded part. Midrange is in the best position to be flexible on taking an aggro or control route but it's worse at both than a true aggro or control deck.
+1 for "don't be the only aggro deck at the table"
Best thing you can do for a creature based, aggressive deck is convince one of your mates to run one as well.
God knows this style doesn't need any additional handicaps, and trying to do anything through three control players is suffering
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH RRGrenzo plays your deck, GGYeva's mono green control, WW9-tails trys desperately for monowhite not to suck RWBUTymna and Kraum's saboteur tribal, UWG Kestia's Enchantress Aggro, RUB Jeleva casts big dumb spells, RGB Vaevictis' big critters can kill your critters hard
I think you've drawn attention to the wrong part of the definition for mid range. The way a mid range deck plays in relation to other decks is where I think you can start to categorize a deck as aggro or mid range in a particular meta.
A midrange deck will often seek to play a reactive, attrition-based game against aggro decks and a more proactive, tempo-based game against control decks.
This would be what I consider the important part of that definition. If a deck is always playing a proactive, tempo-based game because there aren't (m)any decks for it to go bigger than then that deck is probably an aggro deck.
This is certainly an important part of Midrange in EDH. I have heard them described as "hybrid" decks because they can function as one of many roles. In my view midrange is the most reactive in its playstyle in that it doesn't have a set gameplan; it depends on your opponents. Obviously this is true for every archetype - when playing aggro vs aggro, the clock matters much more than aggro vs control - but it is most proounced for midrange.
The more academic this conversation gets, the less useful it is.
It comes down to the balance of Aggro beats Control beats Combo beats Aggro. So, say let's agree on what a combo deck in this format is. Now, say you expect a table full of combo decks. What type of deck would you bring? That deck is a Control deck. Let's say that you expect mostly Control decks, or at least enough Control decks to stop Combo from winning. What kind of deck would you bring then? That deck is an Aggro deck.
This kind of wishy-washy relativistic definition is not very useful. If we are using these definitions, then I can just rebrand every aggro deck "combo," every combo deck "control," and every control deck "aggro." It's important to have characteristics intrinsic to the archetype in the definition. I definitely agree with you that the theoretical side of this conversation is less than useful (despite me contributing to it) so on a more practical note:
+1 for "don't be the only aggro deck at the table"
Best thing you can do for a creature based, aggressive deck is convince one of your mates to run one as well.
God knows this style doesn't need any additional handicaps, and trying to do anything through three control players is suffering
The problem with this is that having multiple aggro decks in a meta opens you up to hate. When I'm playing Slivers, my buddy is playing Krenko, and there's a third guy playing Marath Aggro, the fourth player will play six boardwipes in their deck and win every game. Also, I'd still rather play combo than aggro in an aggro-filled meta. If you can convince your friend to build an aggro deck, take advantage of that not by building an aggro deck but by building a fast combo deck that the aggro deck won't interact with.
I dunno man, I don't think multiple aggro players would have a negative effect on their chances of winning.
IMO, theres already going to be six boardwipes per deck, with one aggro player rather than three you end up with three times as many you need to deal with. Two years of nothing but Krenko certainly showed me that.
If they're running a fast combo deck, then they're probably in an aggro-less meta, because far as I can tell aggro is at the bottom of the power spectrum and combo at the top in EDH.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH RRGrenzo plays your deck, GGYeva's mono green control, WW9-tails trys desperately for monowhite not to suck RWBUTymna and Kraum's saboteur tribal, UWG Kestia's Enchantress Aggro, RUB Jeleva casts big dumb spells, RGB Vaevictis' big critters can kill your critters hard
Yeah I've been running something similar, and this is a deck, I'm convinced. I'm inclined to believe at times that White is more essential than Blue even for interacting with combo's. Counterspell something, and it just sits in the graveyard threatening to win the game at the next reanimation spell drawn. But if you Containment Priest or Nevermore something, stick something like Ethersworn Canonist Rest in Peace, etc, then you put Combo on having answers for it, which they don't.
Ideally, it would be White and Blue. But straight Boros allows Blood Moon's, which are generally superb against everything competitive, and a very aggressive general. Also, the right Sunforger package stops a table from combo'ing better than any countermagic suite in your deck once you equip it. In the end, if you both stop combo and have the ability to win before Turn 7-8, then you've got a pretty solid shot.
I maintain that a "Death and Taxes" style aggro deck has a definite shot at the right competitive table.
I'll be honest - I have very little personal experience with Mayael and none with Marath. My comment here is mostly conjecture based on what I've seen others in the competitive community say.
The majority of Krenko's power lies not in the red-goblins strategy but in the command zone. Krenko goes infinite with Skirk Prospector/Phyrexian Altar + a haste outlet for infinite mana and 1/1 goblins. This is more powerful than it sounds given that red has a few tutors that can find Skirk Prospector (Goblin Matron, Goblin Recruiter, Imperial Recruiter, Gamble, etc). Krenko also can produces lots of little goblins on his own which combined with one or two lord effects can become lethal rather quickly. Grenzo is most powerful in a R/B Doomsday build - if I were really set on playing R/B Goblins I'd probably go with Wort, Boggart Auntie. Not sure though, Grenzo could easily be better.
What advantage does Aurelia provide over Kaalia? Kaalia adds black, which is desperately needed for consistency, and adds fatties to the field more quickly. I don't see a great reason to play Aurelia in place of Kaalia.
Absolutely. Angelforge plays an Alesha list that he describes as Stax, but really plays similarly to Legacy D&T. It's a great deck to play against and really feels fun.
Jarad Graveyard Combo[Primer]!
Sidisi ANT!
Playing Commander to Win - A guide on Competitive, 4-player EDH
LandDestruction.com - An EDH blog
That said, I can't see Mayael being much better, she's often fairly slow if you build around her, and you may as well run Marath if you don't build around her.
I could maybe see something like Xenagod, but you've still got an uphill battle.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
Basically, deck composition, Blood Moons, kill clock, and redundancy. To clarify, you're winning on general damage when you play a general like Aurelia, not regular damage.
You have more room for disruption, such as grave hate, mana denial, hatebears, etc, the more you are leaning on your General for a win condition. It can backfire if you're kept off your general, but what Kaalia player will tell you that she never backfires like that either? On Kaalia generally, it's really just not worth it to put only the amount of big beaters in your deck that there's only an average of one or so in your hand when she hits. It's just not that much better than a reanimate in that case, becuase reanimate also gives you combo options. But a small set is all you can really put into your deck if you want to still be able to interact with combo's in off-Blue.
Blood Moon's are Blood Moons. A huge number of competitve decks are non-Green or non-Red with 3 or more colors, and those are the decks that auto-scoop to Blood Moon. It's been said in the discussion of some of these decks, like Damia, that your best option is to just lose to Blood Moon whenver you see it and move onto the next game. It's not as if you can't play Blood Moon in Maardu, but it will hurt you badly enough that you won't want to if you face any number of Mono-U or two color decks.
Kill clock is important, obviously. If you take your general and a single other random card from your deck, excluding one'of outliers like Hatred and Master of Cruelties, your quickest average kill turn by far is via general damage and not regular damage. Even if you consider multiples, a voltron deck is usually OTK'ing with 2 or more pieces. For Kaalia to keep up with that, you'd have to hit a pair of ADD's that includes very synergistic cards like Gisela, Dragon Tyrant, etc.
Most important I think though, redundancy. Sure, you can play out Kaalia any number of times to get those 1-2 ADD's onto the field, but if those ADD's themselves are killed or dealt with, you are now drawing thin. Especially with the new Vancouver mulligan rules. The command zone mechanic provides you with the ability to make winning material on board by drawing nothing more than additional mana.
Question I have is now, which is better at a competitive table now between Aurelia and Kalemne. I've always favored Aurelia for the evasion, but I'm thinking that the evasion is not as necessary against passive decks like Grixis storm. An extra discount might be better. Of course, there's always the fact that you can give Aurelia Double-Strike, but you can't give it twice to Kalemne, so I don't know.
I have no idea where this idea came from, or where this deck is in any format. Even Mono-R Goblins, every RDW deck ever, UR Delver etc, has ways to interact. It's why Chain Lightning is $15 and Lava Spike is not played. Interacting is better than not interacting. No one is out there figuring out how to limit their deck from interacting in order to adhere more closely to the aggro archetype and collect wins.
I think one of the causes of the problem is that a certain player set belives aggro == dumb, and they == smart, so no deck that they work on or deck that beats them could be aggro. If you lost to it, it must be something else, because how could an aggro deck beat you? Nevermind that aggro is probably the most historically successful of the 3 main archetypes of Magic.
I agree with your overall point, but Lava Spike is a Modern staple (and a $4 common). You see it in Legacy Burn decks too, at least at times.
From Wikipedia:
Aggro (short for "aggressive") decks attempt to reduce their opponents from 20 life to 0 life as quickly as possible, rather than emphasize a long-term game plan. Aggro decks focus on converting their cards into damage; they prefer to engage in a tempo-based race rather than a card advantage-based attrition war. Aggro generally relies upon creatures as a cumulative source of damage. Aggro decks can quickly overwhelm unprepared opponents and proceed to eke out the last bit of damage they need to end the game. Aggro decks also generally have access to disruptive elements, which can inhibit the opponent's attempts to respond.
I think both points are agreed, just emphasizing a different one.
I'll just point out that it's somewhat misunderstood what that means to win as "quickly as possible", since combo decks have always been faster than aggro decks, and rely on being so in order to preserve their place in the rock-paper-scissors dynamic. Winning as fast as possible, while not interacting and avoiding interaction, is combo. Winning on efficiency as opposed to card advantage, that's aggro. And aggro had always better pack some disruption against Combo, its natural predator, or that matchup is just an auto-loss. Same thing, Control better pack answers against Aggro or auto-lose to it.
(Bear with me if the only formats you've played other than EDH are Modern and Standard. The dynamic definitely is aggro beats control, beats combo, beats aggro. You'll have to trust me on that.)
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
Here's midrange
As for Aggro running disruption, I think it's important for said disruption to focus on getting damage in, or spells like Lightning Bolt, which can play double duty. This keeps the focus on damage to the dome, where as something like Counterspell, or Thoughtseize lend themselves to more of an Aggro Control shell. This is how I've been taught the archtypes, maybe I'm wrong, but to each their own.
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ
Yep. That is midrange and is a good example of why the wikipedia definitions are not good definitions for Magic in general and especially CEDH. My own Jarad is very much a midrange deck and plays "threats" at 4 mana (Buried Alive + Reanimate) but most of them are on the high end of the curve (reanimation targets, Tooth and Nail, etc).
Jarad Graveyard Combo[Primer]!
Sidisi ANT!
Playing Commander to Win - A guide on Competitive, 4-player EDH
LandDestruction.com - An EDH blog
This would be what I consider the important part of that definition. If a deck is always playing a proactive, tempo-based game because there aren't (m)any decks for it to go bigger than then that deck is probably an aggro deck.
3 of my 10 decks (xenagos, Uril & edric) are among the faster beat down decks I've seen and at least to me are clearly not aggro decks. The first 2 are midrange even though I'm pretty much always the aggressor they do have a plan for the late game and Edric is a tempo deck. These decks are ultimately trying to win the game with threats that cost 5+ mana (edric being time warps, not flying men). They fit perfectly fine under the current definitions.
Midrange doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists as a middle ground on a spectrum between aggro and control that has a distinct play style which set it apart from other archetypes that exist in the same space such as aggro-control. If there isn't something for midrange to be bigger than then it isn't midrange.
Aggro is different from format to format, and in EDH especially it has had to change, but I think it always exists because it is one of the three corner stones that define archetypes in magic.
I would definitely argue that your Xenagos deck is an aggro deck in EDH. You even write:
right before you list the deck. That seems much more in line with aggro's definition than midrange's. Either way though, it looks like a fun deck to pilot
Xenagos also fits the midrange description almost perfectly. It’s a cross between ramp and aggro, is playing 4-6 mana threats and while I don’t play much removal because I’m at the aggressive end of the midrange spectrum there is some and I can tutor for it aggressively if needed (maybe, I am playing R/G). I do also have the ability to “go bigger” than aggro should there be one in the game or there’s a particularly aggressive start from another deck. It plays like a midrange deck and feels like a midrange deck to me (though admittedly a pretty aggressive one). It is fun to play!
It comes down to the balance of Aggro beats Control beats Combo beats Aggro. So, say let's agree on what a combo deck in this format is. Now, say you expect a table full of combo decks. What type of deck would you bring? That deck is a Control deck. Let's say that you expect mostly Control decks, or at least enough Control decks to stop Combo from winning. What kind of deck would you bring then? That deck is an Aggro deck.
It doesn't matter whether the deck wins on speed, or on creature damage, or even by a combo. The deck that you use to beat Control decks is an Aggro deck. To me though, it's no coincidence that the best equipped deck against Control make a lot of use of the redundancy offered by the Command Zone, and that the aggro theorists have been saying for a long time that redundancy is the essential, defining element of the strategy.
Tempo, Midrange, etc, to me they have always meant something different than what archetype you are. The fact that a "tempo" deck with cheap threats and counterspells is the very worst matchup for a classic Control deck is not a coincidence, it's just an Aggro deck with different card selections. Probably to appease the crowd that believes that Aggro == creatures + burn spells. Midrange, if it exists, is a deck that takes on the Control or Aggro role, depending on different matchups in the metagame. I say "if it exists", because if you truly are Aggro against the Control decks of the meta (favored), and truly are Control against the Combo decks (favored), then you're really just favored in every match you play, except maybe Aggro where you are even. No such deck is that flexible.
Otherwise, it might just be an aggro deck in some sort of Mark Rosewater, combo'less format, where you're favored as Aggro agaisnt Control, even against other Aggro, and never have to take the Control role because there's no Combo. To me then, you're just aggro.
Tempo isn't aggro with different cards, it has a different strategy, less threats and more disruption. If you want to lump tempo in with aggro that's fine but I think the distinction is an important one. Simply using aggro control and combo is too restrictive because there are many decks which don't fit nicely into one of those categories. I also really disagree about the bolded part. Midrange is in the best position to be flexible on taking an aggro or control route but it's worse at both than a true aggro or control deck.
Best thing you can do for a creature based, aggressive deck is convince one of your mates to run one as well.
God knows this style doesn't need any additional handicaps, and trying to do anything through three control players is suffering
RRGrenzo plays your deck, GGYeva's mono green control, WW9-tails trys desperately for monowhite not to suck
RWBUTymna and Kraum's saboteur tribal, UWG Kestia's Enchantress Aggro, RUB Jeleva casts big dumb spells, RGB Vaevictis' big critters can kill your critters hard
Arena Standard
UUUU Tempo, since before it was cool
Various Wx decks running Fountain of Renewal and Day of Glory
Anything I can cram Chaos Wand in to
This is certainly an important part of Midrange in EDH. I have heard them described as "hybrid" decks because they can function as one of many roles. In my view midrange is the most reactive in its playstyle in that it doesn't have a set gameplan; it depends on your opponents. Obviously this is true for every archetype - when playing aggro vs aggro, the clock matters much more than aggro vs control - but it is most proounced for midrange.
This kind of wishy-washy relativistic definition is not very useful. If we are using these definitions, then I can just rebrand every aggro deck "combo," every combo deck "control," and every control deck "aggro." It's important to have characteristics intrinsic to the archetype in the definition. I definitely agree with you that the theoretical side of this conversation is less than useful (despite me contributing to it) so on a more practical note:
The problem with this is that having multiple aggro decks in a meta opens you up to hate. When I'm playing Slivers, my buddy is playing Krenko, and there's a third guy playing Marath Aggro, the fourth player will play six boardwipes in their deck and win every game. Also, I'd still rather play combo than aggro in an aggro-filled meta. If you can convince your friend to build an aggro deck, take advantage of that not by building an aggro deck but by building a fast combo deck that the aggro deck won't interact with.
Jarad Graveyard Combo[Primer]!
Sidisi ANT!
Playing Commander to Win - A guide on Competitive, 4-player EDH
LandDestruction.com - An EDH blog
IMO, theres already going to be six boardwipes per deck, with one aggro player rather than three you end up with three times as many you need to deal with. Two years of nothing but Krenko certainly showed me that.
If they're running a fast combo deck, then they're probably in an aggro-less meta, because far as I can tell aggro is at the bottom of the power spectrum and combo at the top in EDH.
RRGrenzo plays your deck, GGYeva's mono green control, WW9-tails trys desperately for monowhite not to suck
RWBUTymna and Kraum's saboteur tribal, UWG Kestia's Enchantress Aggro, RUB Jeleva casts big dumb spells, RGB Vaevictis' big critters can kill your critters hard
Arena Standard
UUUU Tempo, since before it was cool
Various Wx decks running Fountain of Renewal and Day of Glory
Anything I can cram Chaos Wand in to