Skill starts to shine with aggro players when they play games that don't end with a quick zerg-rush victory.
When the game moves from dumping cards out of your hand and turning sideways into a situation where aggro-resources become more restricted and there are more things on the board and potential opponent holdings that create complicated decision trees, the good players separate themselves from the bad and the 'ok'. Understanding absolute-optimum play, taking advantage of opponent weaknesses, and fully understanding the content/function of your opponents deck make a huge difference at this point.
That said, I don't think aggro players are necessarily the most skilled as a default. There are a lot of control players who can win games that others playing the same deck with the same cards wouldn't.
It may be true that Aggro can (and most certainly does, often enough) have games that require skilled decision-making, control almost always does. This isn't out of disrespect for Aggro players; as stated, there is occasion for your skill to make the difference while playing an Aggro deck.
However, my basic point is this: Aggro plays to win, now, and if not to sneak in a last few points of damage, while Control not only plays to not lose for the time being (while aggro is trying to win) but also has to find a way to win later.
I think that there are also a few more differences between the two archetypes... for example, Aggro revolves much more around the microcosm of a turn, in that players try to maximize their return for use of cards, mana, and the like, and that combat math, tricks, and guessing the opponents next move or gauging how much pressure to apply vs. what to hold back against a Wrath effect. These are skills that seem to be more developed in Limited formats, where attacking and blocking and playing tricks and removal correctly are very important.
At the same time, Control has to focus more on a macrocosm of the game as a whole, worrying not about whether their guy will die during this block, or the difference between taking 3 and 4 damage this turn (to an extent, of course, they still have to do things like staying out of Bolt range). I feel like this is a skill honed more in Constructed formats, and specifically in the act of playing Control decks.
I guess I probably find Aggro easier to play because I play so much Limited.
P.S. Writing that and leaving out combo makes me a sad panda, bring back combo in T2!
There is a definite difference in the amount of decision making.
To be honest, myself and a lot of other players often prefer to just play some dumb aggro deck that goes "play dudes, attack" for big tournaments because it wears you down a lot less over the course of the day.
"X deck stinks because no one plays it. Only play the popular decks or you'll get stomped."
"No one at X tourney plays Y deck because Y deck is awful and gets worked by Z card."
Just copy the pros or you'll stink as a player. Got it.
I like to think certain Tribal decks will make a resurgence given the love they're getting from M11. Vamps, Elf, etc. Maybe some weird blue thing. Dual Color will make a nice come back instead of the 4 color things that are running around.
I also like to see how the big popular decks will be getting flushed soon. Bye bye Jund. See you around Mythic Bant.
I don't see how M11 has anything to do with it.
For one, M11 is not in Standard, and the topic is "Decks you should be prepared for:" (if you play in a tournament tomorrow), not "Decks you should be prepared for post-rotation:".
For another, I don't understand the aversion to doing what's been successful in the past. Pros are pros for a reason; so what's wrong with doing what they do?
On top of that, people have only been saying that these decks aren't played because they're bad, not because they're not netdecked. Nobody said your unknown rogue deck can't win, though it probably won't because in all likelihood you haven't conducted nearly enough testing to optimize the list, and even if you had, if it were good enough it would probably already exist.
Feel free to play rogue decks, but there's no problem with people doing what is proven to be successful.
I absolutely disagree with the idea that there is Always an objective best p1p1.
I think the very idea of it is disproveable on it's face since it requires knowledge of the metagame, and who is playing in the draft.
If I draft at a table of 7 other people who always prefer blue, then staggershock is clearly better than any blue card.
If I draft at a table with 6 other guys who try to draft allies, then that alters the relative value of good allies.
But if you say "we meant there's an objective best p1p1 for each booster at am 'average table' " I will call bull, because there is no 'average' playgroup in theory.
Heck, the same playgroup will draft differently week 1 than week 6, so you the best p1p1 from a booster to combat that metagame changes.
The 4th and 5th best card in the set are probably pretty close, and they will swap positions depending on the speed of the format, and te speed of the format may go up from week 1 to week 6. It will also vary depending on whether you're playing with 1600s, 1800s, or 2000s. If everybody plays token.dec, shrivel may suddenly go up in value.
So how can qualitative arguments about what a card does possibly result in an objective assessment of value?
How good is a blue-white protection knight blocks & attacks around everything red and dodges burn? Green-red one? blocks & attacks around everything blue and dodges bounce... Which is 100% objectively better? How good is perish? Depends on the set and what metadecks exist.
And the whole idea of "theoretically testing against all possible metagames or players" is flawed as well, because "all possible metagames" are NOT equally likely to occur. The chances of having 7 people who LOVE blue may not be as likely as having 4 people at the table who LOVE token decks. Many "possible" metagame and card combinations don't actually exist. Almost nobody is going to draft 5 color eldrazi.dec. How much more likely is mono-red than mono-black? What's the ratio? Halimar Wavewatch was underdrafted at the beginning, and now it's snarfed up by everybody... what happened to its relative value?
-------------------
Constructed proves the point PERFECTLY.
Remember a while back, in constructed, there was this controversy over whether incinerate or lashout should be used in some red deck...
The choice between two cards was entirely metagame dependent.
If you don't like that example, I'm sure you can think of dozens of others. The "objective" power level of a card is strictly metagame dependent, both in constructed where it's proven all the time... and in limited, where the true metagame is unknowable and fluid.
The problem is, we're saying with perfect information, that there is an objective best pick. I'd say yes, if we know the entirety of the metagame, know what each player is picking, etc. then there is surely a "best card" in the pack (ignoring the fact that two cards may be equally good, foil and non-foil of a card in same pack, etc.).
I'll at least do some goldfishing and report back. A few words about specific card choices, in no particular order
Nest Invader: Not only a decent body, but also great for Unified Will count or making a 4-drop on turn 3 should you miss your Hierarch.
Noble Hierarch: There's really no reason to run Birds over this. They both make either color of mana we need, and if we happen to be attacking with one dude (happens often enough) then the exalted may come in handy.
Calcite Snapper: Very strong interaction with fetches; the only problem I have with this guy is that when you're not sure how they'll block, you have to committ early to your choice of 4/1 or 1/4. However, in this type of deck a 4/1 is rarely a bad call and with shroud to boot.
Sphinxes: For now, I'm really just planning on seeing how each plays. I'll probably end up cutting one or the other. If the games seem to be lasting longer, Jwar Jwar Sphinx gets the nod. However, Sphinx of Lost Truths seems like it could be kinda nutty with...
Lorescale Coatl: The point of the deck is to play guys that get in there quickly and protect an early advantage. This is the kind of card that can get enormous really fast even with just your draws for the turn, and protecting him shouldn't be too difficult. T2 this guy, T3 Jace and Brainstorm, swing for 6 seems pretty awesome, and a huge step up over Nulltread Gargantuan, which I've seen mentioned elsewhere in the thread. The best part about it is that even if you end up unable to protect it, you haven't put any additional resources into a creature, but you may be rewarded with something huge.
Hit me with that criticism and feedback, I'll let you guys know what's up after I've sharpied up some proxies and given the deck a few games.
Not really. If you're playing against someone that played the Soldier Lord, you could bolt the lord and then cast Ignite Disorder killing the three tokens.
Ignite Disorder is good enough because you can two-for-one yourself with it?
I mean I could understand if your example was that it could kill an Elite Vanguard and a Veteran Swordsmith.
Twincast: I believe it has left us for now. We won't see a reprint with a new name this time around.
Divination: We will see a functional reprint of this card. This is basic blue draw spell. Just like Shock and Incinerate is for red. Maybe we'll see a sleight upgrade but I doubt it. Should be three cards for UUU or something but I doubt it. This card won't be cut unless something similiar is being substituted.
Planar Cleansing: Is almost like All Is Dust. A card that was bound not stay for minutes only.
Essense Scatter: Hm I didn't expect this card to be "exiled". No comments here..
Shivan Dragon: The front picture dragon will be the red "Baneslayer" however the dragon will cost either four or six mana and be a little less powerful compared to mana cost compared to Baneslayer Angel. Shivan had to go because it only took up a rare slot that nobody really wanted any longer.
Divination is already a functional reprint of Council of the Soratami, so there won't be Divination with a different name. Divination is vanilla-enough sounding.
I guess I can phrase the question a bit more generally, but Quicksilver Dragon is a good example. Its ability says if a spell targets "Quicksilver Dragon", but if Kraj has this activated ability can I use the activated ability to change the target of a spell aimed at Kraj?
I can. Jund varies from using a lot more fetches / basics, to using Prophetic Prism to filter its mana, and is adapting to a meta filled with spreading seas. By taking Spreading Seas out of your deck, suddenly you're able to fill your deck with more relevant answers, while they still have slots dedicated to managing Spreading Seas.
Cutting Seas means you can maindeck 4 Path to Exile without worrying about the fact it fixes them and wastes a Seas, which I feel is extremely important with the rise of Mythic Conscription and Vengevine Naya in the meta. Ramping Jund into something like Broodmate Dragon isn't a major threat to UW, so you can comfortable path that Thrinax knowing that you can deal with whatever else you ramp them into. Especially if you run Knight of the White Orchid, allowing you to get a free shuffle and accelerate your own mana, while putting a 2/2 first striker in the road of your opponent's creatures.
It's important that you evolve with the meta if you want to stay competitive. Spreading Seas is a fantastic card, and I have no doubt it will continue to see play, but I think that right now, you're better off cutting it to allow for maindeck spot removal/other cards, or you're going to have trouble with some matchups.
I'll say this again: the fact that Jund has to play cards like Prism is a good reason to be playing Spreading Seas. Not only is it an answer to manlands, as is Path to Exile and Tectonic Edge, but it also replaces itself, which the others simply don't do. Think about the difference between these three options:
-Path to Exile removes the land, but gives them a basic land of their choice to replace it.
-Tectonic Edge removes the land, but costs you one of your land drops too.
-Spreading Seas costs you two mana, and they get a land that basically gives
If you Spreading Seas and screw Jund on a color, then they are stuck looking for a Prism and you are in good shape. If you cut Seas for more removal that works on critters too, then when Jund is stuck on Savage Lands, Forest, Forest, you won't be able to shut them out of black and red.
Not only is Spreading Seas the best answer to manlands, but it costs you very little (2 mana, no cards) and has the potential to straight up win games. That's comparable to Wall of Roots winning games for the old Quick'n Toast deck from the joy that was Lorwyn/Alara.
Lastly, I don't know about you but the versatility of more creature removal is not a very pressing need for me. I have no trouble dealing with opposing creatures, with some combination of Paths, Day of Judgments, Martial Coups, Gideon, Jace, Oblivion Rings, etc.
yes because after you sideboard on turn 2 you are holding a Negate...
how about Flash Freeze or even Celestial Purge... there are other options.
Im undecided, during game 2 and 3 i didnt use spreading seas and it gave me a much easier time at beating jund. as oppose to game 1 when i had the seas.
Well, for starters, game one is still as important as game two, and in an ideal world you won't be playing game 3.
But still, are you really going to Flashfreeze their turn 2 Leech, or EOT Purge it, when you could have spent the turn keeping them off of a color of mana or preempting a problematic manland?
Spreading Seas and Flashfreeze/Purge don't have to be exclusive. But if you're not playing Spreading Seas, you probably need to play at least another draw spell, which limits the space in the deck a bit.
last night, between a match against jund i decided to side them all out. and it actually let me focus on the win a lot better.
IF your deck has a bunch of 2cmc cards battling together to be played its really hard. and THe jund players are getting better at playing around the 4x SPreading sea's so if you take them out it kind of makes their game plan fumble.
Eh, to be honest I'd argue that if they're playing around Spreading Seas then there's a reason you should be playing it. ESPECIALLY in the tap-out version of the deck, where tapping out turn 2 is very, very unlikely to kill you, or be very detrimental at all (as opposed to keeping 2 mana open for a Negate while they play a Putrid Leech or Thrinax), it's great to have essentially a much more consistent deck because of the cantrips, and a way to deal with those Raging Ravines preemptively.
What I've learned about Spreading Seas is that the land "destruction" part of the card is just gravy. Most importantly, it basically cycles for two. Same goes for Wall of Omens, except instead of the bonus being mana denial it's a blocker. Think of the deck as 52 cards and then those few utility cards. Obviously the analogy isn't as straightforward as playing, say, Manamorphose, but you can see where I'm coming from.
It may be true that Aggro can (and most certainly does, often enough) have games that require skilled decision-making, control almost always does. This isn't out of disrespect for Aggro players; as stated, there is occasion for your skill to make the difference while playing an Aggro deck.
However, my basic point is this: Aggro plays to win, now, and if not to sneak in a last few points of damage, while Control not only plays to not lose for the time being (while aggro is trying to win) but also has to find a way to win later.
I think that there are also a few more differences between the two archetypes... for example, Aggro revolves much more around the microcosm of a turn, in that players try to maximize their return for use of cards, mana, and the like, and that combat math, tricks, and guessing the opponents next move or gauging how much pressure to apply vs. what to hold back against a Wrath effect. These are skills that seem to be more developed in Limited formats, where attacking and blocking and playing tricks and removal correctly are very important.
At the same time, Control has to focus more on a macrocosm of the game as a whole, worrying not about whether their guy will die during this block, or the difference between taking 3 and 4 damage this turn (to an extent, of course, they still have to do things like staying out of Bolt range). I feel like this is a skill honed more in Constructed formats, and specifically in the act of playing Control decks.
I guess I probably find Aggro easier to play because I play so much Limited.
P.S. Writing that and leaving out combo makes me a sad panda, bring back combo in T2!
To be honest, myself and a lot of other players often prefer to just play some dumb aggro deck that goes "play dudes, attack" for big tournaments because it wears you down a lot less over the course of the day.
I don't see how M11 has anything to do with it.
For one, M11 is not in Standard, and the topic is "Decks you should be prepared for:" (if you play in a tournament tomorrow), not "Decks you should be prepared for post-rotation:".
For another, I don't understand the aversion to doing what's been successful in the past. Pros are pros for a reason; so what's wrong with doing what they do?
On top of that, people have only been saying that these decks aren't played because they're bad, not because they're not netdecked. Nobody said your unknown rogue deck can't win, though it probably won't because in all likelihood you haven't conducted nearly enough testing to optimize the list, and even if you had, if it were good enough it would probably already exist.
Feel free to play rogue decks, but there's no problem with people doing what is proven to be successful.
The problem is, we're saying with perfect information, that there is an objective best pick. I'd say yes, if we know the entirety of the metagame, know what each player is picking, etc. then there is surely a "best card" in the pack (ignoring the fact that two cards may be equally good, foil and non-foil of a card in same pack, etc.).
4 Noble Hierarch
4 Lorescale Coatl
4 Nest Invader
4 Calcite Snapper
2 Sphinx of Lost Truths
2 Sphinx of Jwar Isle
4 Vengevine
4 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
2 Overrun
4 Unified Will
4 Vines of the Vastwood
7 Island
11 Forest
4 Misty Rainforest
I'll at least do some goldfishing and report back. A few words about specific card choices, in no particular order
Ignite Disorder is good enough because you can two-for-one yourself with it?
I mean I could understand if your example was that it could kill an Elite Vanguard and a Veteran Swordsmith.
Divination is already a functional reprint of Council of the Soratami, so there won't be Divination with a different name. Divination is vanilla-enough sounding.
It's hard to play around a one mana instant all game, and if they don't block whatsoever... Don't try to tell me you can't beat Dragon's Claw.
for reference
I'll say this again: the fact that Jund has to play cards like Prism is a good reason to be playing Spreading Seas. Not only is it an answer to manlands, as is Path to Exile and Tectonic Edge, but it also replaces itself, which the others simply don't do. Think about the difference between these three options:
-Path to Exile removes the land, but gives them a basic land of their choice to replace it.
-Tectonic Edge removes the land, but costs you one of your land drops too.
-Spreading Seas costs you two mana, and they get a land that basically gives
If you Spreading Seas and screw Jund on a color, then they are stuck looking for a Prism and you are in good shape. If you cut Seas for more removal that works on critters too, then when Jund is stuck on Savage Lands, Forest, Forest, you won't be able to shut them out of black and red.
Not only is Spreading Seas the best answer to manlands, but it costs you very little (2 mana, no cards) and has the potential to straight up win games. That's comparable to Wall of Roots winning games for the old Quick'n Toast deck from the joy that was Lorwyn/Alara.
Lastly, I don't know about you but the versatility of more creature removal is not a very pressing need for me. I have no trouble dealing with opposing creatures, with some combination of Paths, Day of Judgments, Martial Coups, Gideon, Jace, Oblivion Rings, etc.
Well, for starters, game one is still as important as game two, and in an ideal world you won't be playing game 3.
But still, are you really going to Flashfreeze their turn 2 Leech, or EOT Purge it, when you could have spent the turn keeping them off of a color of mana or preempting a problematic manland?
Spreading Seas and Flashfreeze/Purge don't have to be exclusive. But if you're not playing Spreading Seas, you probably need to play at least another draw spell, which limits the space in the deck a bit.
Eh, to be honest I'd argue that if they're playing around Spreading Seas then there's a reason you should be playing it. ESPECIALLY in the tap-out version of the deck, where tapping out turn 2 is very, very unlikely to kill you, or be very detrimental at all (as opposed to keeping 2 mana open for a Negate while they play a Putrid Leech or Thrinax), it's great to have essentially a much more consistent deck because of the cantrips, and a way to deal with those Raging Ravines preemptively.