Card/Deck Ug... What should I do with my Blue-Green section?

[Grillo_Parlante]

I think maybe this part is the trick. Generic and unsexy is fine as long as you'll almost always want it if you're those colors. The biggest issue I can think of with this approach is you run into the Everything Is Vindicate problem in your multicolored section. Maybe then, the thing to do is to try as hard as you can to avoid falling back on Vindicate, Maelstrom Pulse, Detention Sphere, for your generic stuff and filling in with those when you feel you need it. I could see that being something that changes depending on what certain colors are doing in any given iteration of your cube. My Orzhov section at the moment has a bunch of fairly generically good cards that also say "something something gain life" which is an effect that both white and black really want in my environment, almost regardless of archetype*. Net result, I don't run Vindicate even though it's the best, most skill testing version of vindicate that exists (AND I have a sick foil proxy of it that is just rotting!). If my cube ever changes to where my current set of orzhov cards no longer what I wanted, I might have to fall back on the sorta plain feeling vindi.


*We overload the word archetype to mean too many things. It gets used, at the very least, to refer to Aggro/Control/Midrange as well as Tokens/Graveyard recursion/Lifegain/Counterburn/etc. Is there a better term for one or the other of these usages? Archetype vs Theme? Strategy vs Archetype?

I wasn't quite sure how to express this, and you didn't a pretty good job. I know what you mean by the term archetype, but there is a whole host of mtg terms that get thrown around loosely, or whose meaning changes depending on context.

I do feel that theme encompases something distinct from an archetype, though they are closely related. A theme is more like a loose topic that we expect drafters to interact around, while an archetype has more stratified and recurring structure to it.

I don't know, the problem with any semantic discussion like this is that its hard to avoid it becoming localized terminology.

 

[Eric Chan]

The only word more confusing than 'archetype' at this point is 'tempo'. Good thing I support the tempo archetype, which can out-tempo any no-theme midrangy archetype in my tempo-based format!

 

[Diakonov]

Though I agree with the general philosophy that's been suggested, I disagree on a few points.

A. Gold cards shouldn't always be color-pair incentives. Sometimes it should be rewards. I would try to plan on having half or more than half be more open-ended incentives like Kiora, but you also sometimes want to reward the UG drafter (who is likely building a tempo deck) with more specific cards like Simic Charm. As someone previously mentioned, some gold cards should be exciting in pack 3. As a general rule that I adhere to: two-thirds highly interactive and open, one-third specific and satisfying.

B. I like Disenchant more than most, but generally in Riptide cubes the effect is slightly underpowered. For this reason I would recommend the inclusion of cards like Vindicate and Maelstrom Pulse. It can naturally correct some power issues with unexpectedly strong artifacts and enchantments that could otherwise be difficult to interact with.

C. You guys are cray, Simic Charm rocks.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Is supreme verdict a color-pair incentive card, a color-pair reward card, a generic utility card, or an overly specific archetype enabler?

I feel like I could make arguments thats it any of those in a vacuum.

Tempo is confusing only because people write stuff like this about it:

Spoiler

I think I have come across a good simple phrase to describe the effect of tempo. The effect of Tempo is to create a situation where the opponent's tactical options, and eventually strategic options, continually dwindle until the game ends. Generally speaking, this is what Flores means when he says you dictate the terms of the game. Explaining this definition of tempo is the task of this article. Let me break this down into its component parts, and then flesh it out through illustration.

Magic is constructed in a way that makes Tempo important. Each deck in Magic has a game plan - a strategy for achieving victory. Tempo is dictating the terms of the game by first taking away tactical options. The tactical maneuvers are the various plays that compose the broader strategy. For example, a Tog player wins by swinging with a lethal Tog. They are able to do this by drawing lots of cards. One key tactical play is to Intuition forAccumulated Knowledges. Another is to play Yawgmoth's Will, refueling all the draw that has been played up to that point. A third is to Cunning Wish forBerserk.

When the tactics that are important to the broader strategy are no longer available, then the strategy itself begins to falter as the deck must spend its resources on defense. They do this in an effort to stabilize. Instead of playing Intuition for AK, the Tog player may have to play Intuition for Force of Will to save its butt. Or instead of attacking with your creatures, you have to hold them back to save yourself from a Phyrexian Dreadnought. By forcing a deck to forego its tactical and strategic options, it loses its natural flow and becomes much weaker into the mid-game and late-game than it would be otherwise. Therefore, even if the defending player stabilizes, they are vulnerable. If tempo is maintained, then the winner is inevitable. No options are open and no play or amazing topdeck will pull the game out for your opponent, and you are the inevitable winner.
This generally plays out in two ways. The first is that you get tempo simply from the brokenness of your threats. Your opponent will have to go through all kinds of contortions to stop you and forego its own game plan in the process.

I really don't think tempo as a theory is that complex: its just the idea of advancing your game plan more effectively than an opponent, and the best example of it is man-o'-war: I get a 2/2 on the board, meanwhile you get to spend your next turn recasting what my squid bounced.

Really...thats all there is to it. Some strategies/decks/archetypes/themes might focus more on in, but at the end of the day, just remember the squid.

 

[Eric Chan]

Yeah, I don't disagree with that. I think the confusion may come from the fact that the word 'tempo' can be used in the sense that you explained - that is, describing the pace and tactics of a game - but it can also be stretched to describe a deck, an archetype, or a format, as well as used as a verb. Basically, it's as versatile as the f word!

Another word I love for its versatility, that isn't nearly as confusing: midrange. Ex: Goddamn, that's the midrangiest card ever to midrange a midrange.

 

[Dom Harvey]

I think there are two ways you can approach gold cards:

- Gold cards have to clear a higher bar than normal cards, both in power level and in general utility in the decks that can cast them, to justify inclusion. Therefore you want an Abrupt Decay, which goes in every BG deck, over a Lotleth Troll, which won't even fit in all of the small subset of cube decks that could cast it. This is less true of more expensive gold cards - your green midrange deck can probably cast Garruk, Apex Predator or Hornet Queen just as easily by the time you have 7 mana. This philosophy is most on display in power-max cubes, where it also applies to mono-coloured cards and therefore has to apply to gold cards because you would very rarely take a narrow WR card over a universally strong white card.

- Since gold cards are drafted less often to begin with, they may as well make up the narrow cards in the cube too so that packs aren't clogged with stuff nobody wants. Anax and Cymede, Cartel Aristocrat, whatever. You can also use your gold slots to signal to drafters what each colour pair is trying to do and lead them in a certain direction.

You can also strike a happy medium with gold cards that are generically powerful but also flexible enough to allow fun gameplay: Knight of the Reliquary and Shu Yun spring to mind.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I went in pretty much the opposite direction with my gold section, expanding it to 16 cards (not counting lands) as well as a bunch of three-color cards. Consequently a larger than average percentage of removal cards in my cube is multicolor, meaning there's an incentive beyond the incentive cards to end up in two or three colors because it simply means you have access to more answers.

 

[Aston]

With all this talk of Lorescale Coatl I want to try it just so I can curve Sylvan Library into it and follow up with Jace TMS.

Also my understanding of tempo was that it was a strategy that trades cards for time, eg a deck that wants bounce effects which, whilst they're inherent card disadvantage, allow you to win the game before being down a card or two matters.

 

[RavebornMuse]

A rogue thought, while we're all talking multicolour: I'd kinda really like to see a cube where all the mono-coloured cards are generically useful, and the key things like the best removal and the most powerful creatures and Planeswalkers were in a large multi-colour section. But as cool as that sounds in my head, it'd probably just be Rainbowmax, the Hell Cube... Alas.

As far as tempo definitions go, I consider tempo something along the lines of " maximally efficient mana/turn usage". I believe that unspent mana is generally wasted mana and every turn cycle you go without tapping out represents some number of wasted mana (special considerations apply to control, where the ability to use counterspells can make up any gap in unspent mana quickly). A good tempo card can give you solid gains in mana efficiency because the amount you pay makes them spend even more resources to accomplish something or stalls their development, potentially setting them behind a turn (or more!) while they try to catch up with you.

So, Man-o'-War is a tempo card because you've spent an efficient 3 mana to get a bounce spell and a 2/2 body out of a single card, and probably set back an attacking creature by one turn. If you bounce a 1-drop with it, you just made that one-drop require another mana and another turn to be relevant, getting a 2/2 out of the deal, yourself. This maths out to make that 3-drop 2/2 feel more like a 1-drop 2/2 (since they're spending 2 total mana on their 1-drop), especially once you consider that that 1-drop you bounced is now delayed by a turn. Obviously, this is one of the least desirable bounce targets; bouncing a 2-mana or greater thing (or a token) puts you quite a bit more ahead in terms of efficient mana/turn usage.

Similarly, Remand is a tempo card because you get a card out of it, making it free aside from the 2-mana cost, and from there, it either
A) ends up being something similar to a Time Walk, putting your opponent behind a turn due to being unable to pay the cost for their card a second time that turn, or
B) makes them be mana inefficient, causing them to tap twice as much for a thing. As Remand is only 2 mana, it makes any 1-mana card turn into a 2-mana investment (putting you both equal in terms of mana usage, which is not the worst thing in the world, and also gives you a free card), or it makes a 2-mana card require a 4-mana investment (putting you ahead by two mana, which is great). And anything beyond that is gravy!

Obviously special considerations apply, but that's why "tempo" can be such a battered word; in different decks, it can potentially mean something slightly different due to the barest of difference in consideration for what's at stake. Thragtusk is kind of a solid tempo play against an aggro/burn deck, because you pay a fair amount of mana for the stats, get a free body out of it if it dies, and you gain 5 life. All of those things can represent a 1-turn tap-out on your part giving you an extra turn's worth of health and a body that can probably eat at least 2 different creatures/burn spells. While this might not apply all the time, I think the argument can be made that, in the right circumstances, Thragtusk is more about "tempo" than "midrange goodstuff/value". It's both of these things against aggressive decks, but when most people say "tempo", the first thing we consider is Man-o'-War, not Thragtusk, which, while correct, has led to the slow twisting of a purer meaning to be lost in overly-specific scenarios where a card can represent tempo in some cases that are potentially meta-dependent but not represent tempo well at all in others. That's my theory, anyway.

 

[Aston]

I'm not sure I can see any scenario where Thragtusk is a tempo card. It's like the definition of a midrange card: a good stabilization tool against aggro and a resilient threat against control, allowing you to take different rolls in those matchups. See also Kitchen Finks, Huntmaster of the Fells, Olivia Voldaren, Bloodbraid Elf, Spectral Procession/Lingering Souls

I think another way you can look at the archetypes is how they gain card advantage. Both Aggro and Tempo seek to end the game before the opponent has been able to utilize all their cards in hand. Midrange looks to 2-for-1 its opponents out of the game. Control uses its big effects to gain multiple cards in one fell swoop.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

I'm on my phone on the train, and this is not a discussion for the mobile, but Thragtusk can be a tempo play in the sense that it is very good at advancing your game plan while setting back the op. for example, Gaining five life and gumming up the ground puts an aggro deck back in time in terms of executing its strategy. Thats a tempo gain.

Now thraggy is going to into a midrange deck, but its purpose in that mindrange deck is to recoup the tempo lost by the midrange guy spending the first 4 turns durdling, playing elves, kodamas reach, and whatever low impact plays they like to do to setup for their midgame strategy.

A tempo deck is going to be a deck dedicated to developing and leveraging tempo gains.

 

[Aston]

Sure, if you define a tempo play as any play that advances your own game plan whilst setting back your opponent, but then I feel like the vast majority of plays fall into this category so it's not all that useful as a definition.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Sure, if you define a tempo play as any play that advances your own game plan whilst setting back your opponent, but then I feel like the vast majority of plays fall into this category so it's not all that useful as a definition.

You could say the same thing about card advantage; and it only makes sense that would be the case, as getting ahead on time and getting ahead on cards are the two fundimental theories driving the game. Being able to recognize and capitalize on those two concepts is going to be an essential skill for any deck builder, drafter, or player.

 

[Aston]

I guess what I'm getting at is that a card being able to gain you tempo does not make it a "tempo card", being a card that would fit into a "tempo deck".

 

[vennythekid]

Thragtusk feels more like an anti-tempo card than a tempo card, but still fundementally interacts with the tempo of a game, because it interacts with all four resources of the game, in a powerful way.

The way I see it, there are four resources that decks use to win, overpowering two of these is enough to dictate the "tempo" of a game.

1. Life Total: At the end of the day, life total is the only thing that wins or loses you the game. Being ahead in life total allows you to continue your game "clock" while forceing your opponent to do something to either slow down your clock or speed up their own. Leveraging a life total advantage typically allows you to play twoards aggresivly closing out the game while forcing your opponent to make possibly less efficient plays to stop you from doing so. This goes hand-in-hand with board presesnce, but a player with a life total advantage has more flexibility/freedom to use their resources, as they aren't constrianed by the immediate pressure of losing the game.

2. Mana: having more mana allows you, assuming all esle is even, to play more threats, or bigger threats. The player who can deploy more threats often dicates the pace of the game; they are the ones "asking the quesitons" and "demanding answers." Classical "tempo" cards are typically low/efficient mana cost because they give their controler a vitual mana advantage. Likewise Delve cards are extremely powerful "tempo" cards because they are extremely mana efficient, turning your otherwise spent cards into a mana advantage.

3. Board Presence: being ahead on board allows you to control the most importaint phase in Magic: the combat phase. Each player gets the same number of combat phases (ignoring play/draw), but a player who is ahead on board is more likely to gain advantage from their combat phase. Combat is the embodiment of "time" in the game. An unchecked Savannah Lions wins the game in 10 turns. A Thundermaw Hellkite wins the game in 4. Haste provides immediate board presence, as does evasion.

4. Cards: having more cards than your opponent means you have access to more mana and board presence. Card advantage allows for more land drops (more mana), and for more threats/answers to the board. Lots more has been written on card advantage elsewhere, so I'll leave it at this.


Thragtusk is an "anti-tempo" card because he pulls these tempo advatages away from an opponent. Gaining 5 life goes a long way to mitigating a life total disadvantage. His 5/3 body provides and immediate board impact, as it can trade with most other comparable threats. Once removed, he leaves behind another 3/3 body, making his impact to the board last even longer. It's extremely difficult to trade 1-for-1 with Thragtusk, meaning he gains card advatgage by simply being in play, nor is ever mana AND card efficient to trade 1-for-1 with him. Thragtusk doesn't really provide a mana advantage outside of being an efficient creature. 5 mana might be a lot, but most decks are even on mana through turns 3-4, so 5 isn't really a strech.

 

[Eric Chan]

oh... oh god... what in... what have i

i am never going to use the word 'tempo' on this forum again. you can shoot me if i do

 

[vennythekid]

And to add to that: There isn't a single "tempo deck" or "tempo archetype", rather there are decks that care about leveraging certain tempo advatages:

Control: Card and Mana (leverageing more mana)
Aggro-Control: Board Presence and Mana (leveraging mana efficiency)
Aggro: Board Prescence and Life Total
Midrange: Board Presence and Mana (depending on how "big" the midrange deck is, this is either efficiency or more mana)

Combo: this is the weird one that I'm not sure about. Combo wins the game by condensing the game into a critical turn, develpoing advantages in cards (Storm), mana (Storm, Mindshreiker), board (Twin, Persist combo), or life (Ad Nausium, Gushbond) to enable this critical turn. The tempo they leverage is that the game is shrunk into this critical turn, and that all play has to be made before this point.

 

[Aston]

Thragtusk in particular is a pretty funny example to use as a tempo card because iirc he was printed specifically to combat Delver tempo decks and their Vapor Snags.

And I quite enjoy these theory discussions, although this might have taken over the thread a bit, I think it's interesting to see how different people approach the fundamentals of the game. Watch out, "midrange" is next!

 

[vennythekid]

This article might be my favorite intro discussion on Magic theory. I remeber reading the entire thing (its really long) when I first started playing Magic, and it was eye-opening. That, and Mike Flores' old articles.

 

[Aston]

Well I got as far as the point where he says Wrath of God is the archetypal mid-range card, but up to there it was alright.

 

[Jason Waddell]

How does Simic Charm fair in the typical Riptide enviornment? I'm thinking of trying it out.

I remember this being described as "three ways to counter a burn spell". Not the most exciting charm.

 

[RavebornMuse]

My entire point of bringing up Thragtusk's potential to be seen as a tempo card was to highlight the fact that even the quitessential midrange/value card, the most scorned "goodstuff" card on these forums, can arguably be seen as a tempo card. The fact that this renders the term "tempo" nearly useless is precisely the point, because it does, and yet it is also, arguably, a play that interacts with tempo. Because at the core of it, "tempo" is something all decks are trying to do well in; some can just do it skillfully in nearly all matches (Man-o'-War) whereas others are massive "tempo gains" in specific matches (Thragtusk versus aggro). It doesn't matter if it renders the definition nearly useless; at the end of the day, Thragtusk specifically meets the criteria of my definition of tempo "mana/turn efficiency", Aston's definition of tempo as "trading cards for time" and Grillo's definition of "advancing your game plan more effectively than an opponent".

This reminds me of that old story about Diogenes of Sinope; Plato had been applauded for defining man as "an animal, biped and featherless". So, Diogenes brought a plucked chicken into Plato's lecture room and exclaimed, "Behold, a man!" Definitions are only as useful as they are specific.

(I can't believe I just told a relevant Diogenes of Sinope story in relation to Magic theory...)

 

[FlowerSunRain]

Well I got as far as the point where he says Wrath of God is the archetypal mid-range card, but up to there it was alright.

What you aren't seeing is the context of circa-1998 archetype definitions. What the author is referring to as "midrange" was called in the original article "board control", which was differentiating that style of deck from "pure control" or what we might call today "draw-go". Wrath of God is certainly the the archetypal "board control" card. The definition was essential for separating stuff like Living Death decks from Mono-Blue which had completely different good and bad matchups. With changes to the quality of counterspells and efficiency of mid-sized creatures that distinction doesn't make much sense anymore, but it did at the time.

 

[James Stevenson]

In a practical sense, tempo is equivalent to speed. A normal game of magic lasts about 8 turns and takes twenty minutes. Each turn has seven phases, roughly equivalent to beats, giving us a cool 105 beats per minute. A tempo player wants to play at a higher tempo than his opponent, ideally 140 for garage/electronica players, and even higher for dnb or klezmer. If the tempo player can also force his opponent to play at 90 or 100 bpm, they'll fall completely out of sync, especially if the tempo player is on the drums. At this point, the opponent's only option is to play at half the tempo of the tempo player, or potentially at one third for some really tripped out, avant garde shit. This is the essence of counter-tempo, but only highly skilled magic players (Chris Squire, Malcolm Catto, LSV) possess this level of oomph.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Thragtusk in particular is a pretty funny example to use as a tempo card because iirc he was printed specifically to combat Delver tempo decks and their Vapor Snags.

And I quite enjoy these theory discussions, although this might have taken over the thread a bit, I think it's interesting to see how different people approach the fundamentals of the game. Watch out, "midrange" is next!

Yeah, thats the problem with the terms that eric noted: their meaning had been twisted in a lot of different directions. Tempo sometimes is used as a purely theoretical term, other times as an archetype, with the corresponding idea of "tempo" cards.

Aggro-control is another good one, as it blurs the lines between aggro, control, and tempo.

Edit: I just wanted to note that the literal meaning of tempo is time: that is to say it deals with how effectively players are using their time units, which in magic is turns.