General Archetype Support

[wahoopride]

So I mentioned in another thread how I love the method of cube construction that this site is all about. Basically finding fun synergies or themes and putting cards in to support these themes. However, one issue I started having as I made my cube was that I missed an even higher level of design consideration. Namely: archetypes. I know the word archetype is thrown around a lot, and even used to refer to some of the synergies people say they want to include in their cubes on this site. So then what am I even talking about? What exactly is an archetype? Are archetypes things like "control," "aggro," "midrange"? Or are they things like "goblins," "reanimation," or "spells matter" etc. Most people tell you these are all archetypes of different kinds, and maybe they are right. But I think in cube design it is important to differentiate the two types of archetypes. To the point where I have come to using different words. Maybe the words are not the right words, but the point is there are two distinct things we are talking about here. At a high level, you have a decks general strategy. Aggro wins as fast as possible. Control wants to win later so must fight to stabalize early. Midrange does something in between. Meanwhile the other things I mentioned like "goblins" or "reanimation" really just refer to the tactics by which a deck accomplishes its higher level strategic goal(s). They represent more of a theme or specific synergy a deck tries to employ to accomplish its strategy.

The reason why I feel that it is important to separate is because any given higher level strategy (which I am going to reserve the word archetype for) can use a variety of lower level tactics (which I am going to call themes) to succeed. Meanwhile, any given theme can often (not always) be crafted to accomplish more than one archetype. By not properly making a distinction between the two, one or the other could suffer, since they are not necessarily related. From a top down standpoint, the first goal of any cube should be to support the appropriate archetypes. From there, pick themes (synergies) you want to include in your design space to allow people to build fun decks that fit in these archetypes. It is not enough to simply have a lot of cool themes. Some themes are not nearly as flexible as the example I gave with blink. Goblins, for example, are pretty exclusive to aggro (though maybe you could create a nice midrange Goblin deck). However, for the most part, I see themes being able to be constructed in a way to fit into at least 2 or more archetypes.

So at this point it may be worth discussing WHY is it important to support archetypes? This is an opinion of mine and I would appreciate feedback. My belief is that if you fail to support appropriate archetypes, you will wind up with a stale drafting/playing environment. Jason touches on the ideas of this post a bit in his article http://riptidelab.com/cube-academy/why-support-aggro/ (at least I assume Jason wrote this?). His basic point is that, implicit with the idea of a metagame clock which describes a rock-paper-scissors relationship among various deck archetypes, if you fail to support one (say, paper), another archetype (rock) will become a dominant strategy, vis a vi

So Jason makes this point with aggro, but I wanted to talk about it in a more general sense:

-What archetypes do people think exists in Magic as a whole? Obviously this is a very deep topic about which much has been written, but I’d love to hear opinions here. The common three that are first thrown around are aggro, midrange, and control. Others sometimes introduced are cggro-control, combo, possibly ramp (though maybe ramp is just another type of midrange)?

-How do these archetypes interact with each other? Which archetypes have advantages over the others? I.e. how does each archetype fit in the rock-paper-scissors relationship? Basically, the metagame clock.

-Given the existence of certain archetypes in Magic as a whole, what archetypes do you think must or should be supported in Cube? Can you eliminate 1 or more from your cube and still have a good metagame? If combo is not part in your cube will it leave another archetype unchecked, allowing it to become a dominant strategy? Or can you safely not support an archetype and allow the metagame to adjust?

-This gets into more specifics, but how do you define each archetype and how do you support it? For instance, do you consider aggro supported by only direct damage spells and powerful creatures that are 1 or 2 CMC? Or do you consider 3 CMC also within the realm of aggro? Or even 4? Do you consider mass removal control or midrange? Where does aggro start and midrange start? What the heck is midrange even? This question alone could be its own thread, but I think it’s important. It is all well and good to say you want to support aggro, midrange, control, etc. But if you don’t even know what they are or what cards fit into them, it is difficult to construct your cube in a fashion that supports them.


I have lots more to say on the matter and many more questions, but this post is already absurdly long so I’d love to just open it up and get feedback from your guys. I can say more if this discussion takes off. Thanks for any insight you guys can give!

 

[safra]

We had an exciting discussion about combo in cube not too long ago; if you missed it, the thread might be worth checking out. There was a bunch of discussion on how archetypes (using yr definitions here) can meld and supplant each other, 'pulling' the cards in your draft in different directions and introducing more competing demand.

The point you make that I really like is about 'themes' needing to fit in more than one 'archetype'. I don't know that we need to get incredibly precise defining these things but I really like to look at my cube's archetypes holistically and through the window of assembled decks over the kind of picayune CMC-to-archetype pigeonholing (and midrange decks love having a wrath somewhere). I get that without a solid idea of Cube design it'll be hard to get the ratios right but I've always tweaked iteratively so I'm not super sure either. Since the parts of your cube exist in relation to each other, it's not the worst way to do it.

Grillo likes to talk about 'spell velocity' decks and 'spell sequencing' decks, a framework I quite like too. Midrange decks trend heavily towards sequencing big spells to efficiently use their mana; aggro often casts multiple spells a turn. It's a bit less reductive of a way to think about where decks fall.

 

[Diakonov]

There's a lot I could say here but I'll just make a comment about aggro for now.

In higher-powered environments, what happens during the combat step is generally less important than in regular limited. People don't have time for combat tricks. There are fewer blockers about, and there are more powerful spells being thrown around that tend to nullify the small tactical advantages gained during the attack step.

Unfortunately, in a setting such as this, aggro becomes boring. When you take out the intricacies of combat, there are fewer important in-game decisions left for an aggro player.

Those of us on Riptide who have more powerful cubes have found other ways to make aggro more interesting by introducing lateral development game plans. First off: either get rid of or nerf the "mono red" style aggro decks that only employ fast, blunt damage as their overall strategy. It's just dull. Instead, force the aggro drafters to get more creative with maximizing early damage or require them to have a Plan B to finish the job.

 

[blacksmithy]

What Dia said about aggro is spot-on. Aggro becomes much more interesting when it has a synergy component that allows it to finish the game late, rather than just being so blistering-fast that games never go late.
In my cube, I use vertically-growing creatures like Parish Champ and level-up guys; recurring aggro creatures like Bloodsoaked Champ and Bloodghast; and combo-y aggro creatures like Grenzo, Edric, and Geist to give aggressive decks different angles of attack—thus creating themes within the aggro archetype. I don't claim to have them well-distributed, at all, but the idea is at least there.
Midrange decks are generally the most amorphous in any Cube because they can take on elements from your aggro themes and your control themes. One of the wisest things I've ever heard on MTGS is that you don't have to worry about your midrange decks because they'll just flow naturally out of the cross-section of your aggro and control decks. The thing you do sometimes have to worry about is midrange becoming too dominant, which is not a problem I claim to know how to address.
Control decks are something I've been experimenting with a lot lately, mostly in the area of decks that win by mill, but don't play like a "blue burn" deck. Stuff like Howling Mine and Everflowing Chalice mixed with strong blockers and some kind of card advantage engine. I have other controlly themes too, like graveyard-based Rock and Cloud/Glimmer Post ramp, but the mill thing is the one I'm working on right now.

 

[Goldenpineapple]

I'll try to answer your specific questions because I like big surveys. My thinking is probably dated- I don't actually think about this kinda stuff often so this is just a simpleton's post, but it's... something. Hope it helps somehow before the serious people hit you with their dissertations.

-What archetypes do people think exists in Magic as a whole? Obviously this is a very deep topic about which much has been written, but I’d love to hear opinions here.

I agree that Aggro, Control, and Midrange are the three 'basic' archetypes, and that things like Tempo or Ramp are kind of a subset of the larger archetypes. 'Midrange' is kind of an umbrella term in my eyes- I think of it as a scale between 'versatility' and 'synergy.' The versatile midrange deck is what most people know the archetype as- powerful, multi-use cards that let the pilot shift their play in a particular direction. They can pressure slower decks, stall faster decks, or grind out similar decks by simply changing their play order or choosing different modes on some spells. At the other end of the scale, Ramp, Combo, and Reanimator aren't particularly dissimilar in that in their most pure form, they largely attempt to ignore what their opponent is doing because their own interactions have a much higher power level. How a player builds these decks can push them along the 'midrange scale' towards versatility- cutting your craterhoof and a couple of your many mana dorks for some removal or early pressure etc.

-How do these archetypes interact with each other? Which archetypes have advantages over the others?

Aggro>Control>Midrange>Aggro and so forth? In cube this is kind of a blur, because every draft is different. A clearly-control deck might get run over by aggro one draft because they're primarily counterspells and card advantage, when the next draft aggro might never connect because the control player got every piece of spot removal they could want and plenty of early blockers. Cube size and power level of cards are both pretty big influences on how this works- white aggro decks will take path and even swords but pass condemn or smite again and again.

-Given the existence of certain archetypes in Magic as a whole, what archetypes do you think must or should be supported in Cube?

I think the one thing you absolutely cannot give no support to is aggro- it forces interaction, and when there is no aggro threat the wheels come off the entire environment. Slow-ish decks can never beat a counterspell, and ramp/combo/graveyard decks can freely ignore their opponents and play solitaire until islands say 'no.'

do you consider 3 CMC also within the realm of aggro? Or even 4?

Completely depends on the card- flamewake phoenix and hellrider are extremely aggressive. An aggro deck wants MORE cheap stuff, but a nice curve-topper is nothing to be sad about.

Do you consider mass removal control or midrange? Where does aggro start and midrange start?

A wrath's sheer power level makes it a fine midrange card, serving to stall even for the ramp/combo/reanimator decks (or also serve their archetype). I think aggro ends and midrange begins the more willing you are to push your average CMC and how much you worry about your opponent's threats.

What the heck is midrange even?

Well I guess I kinda took the initiative on this one.

I think a couple years ago I actually broke my cube into archetype/color piles (row of aggro with color piles, etc.) just to see how I had unconsciously proportioned the strategies. I can't really remember the exact results or what it made me change, but I do know I made some drastic changes and it let me finally let go of some narrow cards. I do remember getting stumped by a surprising number of cards and people helping had some interesting viewpoints- forgive the repeat but condemn doesn't really fit the same slot as path, etc.

 

[wahoopride]

The point you make that I really like is about 'themes' needing to fit in more than one 'archetype'.

I actually wrote up an example in my original post then took it out because the post was getting too long.


I was trying to make a fun modern deck, and really enjoyed the idea of build a deck around the blink/flicker/enters the battlefield mechanic. So I was making a “blink” themed deck. So going in my idea was to just include a lot of creatures that had useful/good ETB effects and a lot of blinking outlets. At first, I included a mix of a lot of blinks and self-bouncing (things like
Vedalken Mastermind Aether Vial Dust Elemental etc) so I could bounces creatures in between my hand and the battlefield to repeatedly trigger their ETB effects. I quickly found the bouncing too slow and even eliminated cards like Flickerwisp and stuck with just blinking by using the following three cards:

These cards formed the anchor of my deck. But the other issue was it did not have an archetype. That is, I just went around and picked a bunch of random cool ETB cards. The deck wasn’t aggro, it wasn’t midrange, it wasn’t control. It did nothing well and so it just sucked. I realized my deck needed an archetypal identity. It needed to find its spot on the metagame clock and start to win the games it should win. Eventually I settled on building a control-style deck. Without just giving the whole deck list, in addition to the anchor cards I already mentioned, I added lots of counters with Remand and Mana Leak, some spot removal with Banisher Priest (I probably could have used Path to Exile, but I liked the idea of sticking with an ETB guy, also the blinking would allow me to switch this guy’s target if a juicier creature came into play), and even added some mass removal with Sunblast Angel. The cout de gras was Mystic Snake, which, once I managed to get it on the battlefield, turned every Couldshift, Restoration Angel, and Momentary Blink (I could even flashback this one) into a hard counter. The deck was very much a control archetype with a blink theme. The point of this example is that I could have easily gone the other way and decided to build a mid-range deck while sticking with the blink theme. Sticking with the aforementioned anchor cards, I could add it Blade Splicer, Attended Knightand Flickerwisp while removing the counters and Mystic Snake.

The point of this example was just to show that lots of themes can be built in a way to fit in one archetype or another, highlighting the importance of not only building themes and synergies, but taking overall archetype balance into account.

 

[wahoopride]

The point you make that I really like is about 'themes' needing to fit in more than one 'archetype'. I don't know that we need to get incredibly precise defining these things but I really like to look at my cube's archetypes holistically and through the window of assembled decks over the kind of picayune CMC-to-archetype pigeonholing (and midrange decks love having a wrath somewhere). I get that without a solid idea of Cube design it'll be hard to get the ratios right but I've always tweaked iteratively so I'm not super sure either. Since the parts of your cube exist in relation to each other, it's not the worst way to do it.

I agree somewhat with this point, there is no need to pigeonhole. Many cards fulfill multiple archetypes. I've often though one of the best ways to define a deck archetype is to just think of it as "what turn does this deck want to win on/by" or possibly "what turn is this deck attempting to achieve its most powerful board state" (which is obviously a different question). This can simply the discussion of "is ramp different than midrange?" kind of stuff. You have early game decks, mid-game decks, and late-game decks. Or maybe you have more granularity, or less. And what is even the definition of early/mid/late game. The beauty of cube is that since you create the entire environment it can really be whatever you want. In constructed, the various formats develop their definitions based on the cards available. As a cube designer to control that power. For example, I often define the early game by the available mass removal. In constructed, this card defines the end of the early game:



Because of this existence of this card and its counterparts Day of Judgment, Damnation, etc, the clock for the early game is turn four. This basically means an early game deck (we usually call these aggro, but lets stick with my earlier definitions which is "what turn does a deck what to win by) is what you might call a turn 4 deck (possibly turn 3, depends on if he is on the play or draw). Likely once a Wrath comes down, the turn 4 deck is not winning. So that means it must be populated with 1, 2, 3, and possibly 4 drops that will help it reduce the life total of its opponent to less than 20. A 5+ drop is going to be mostly useless in this deck, and even 4 drops are probably just taking up space. The cool thing though, is that in cube, you don't have to have 4 CMC mass removal. Maybe you tune it to turn 5 with:




Or turn 6 with:



And so on. Or maybe you have none? Perhaps I am defining the early game the wrong way, but in general, it seems to me, any aggro deck needs to win before mass removal comes out or they are at a huge disadvantage. So lets just say for the sake of argument turn 4 is where midgame starts. That means that to support aggro/early game/turn 4/whatever you want to call it, you need creatures and spells of CMC 1-3 that facilitate the goal of winning by turn 4. This could be accomplished with fast creatures that are efficient for their power, or strong burn spells.

Anyways this is just kind of the start of how I look at building archetypes in cube. This is one simple approach (where the mass removal in your cube is tuned). There are lots of other metrics to see what "turn" a deck wants to win on. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this.

 

[wahoopride]

There's a lot I could say here but I'll just make a comment about aggro for now.

In higher-powered environments, what happens during the combat step is generally less important than in regular limited. People don't have time for combat tricks. There are fewer blockers about, and there are more powerful spells being thrown around that tend to nullify the small tactical advantages gained during the attack step.

Unfortunately, in a setting such as this, aggro becomes boring. When you take out the intricacies of combat, there are fewer important in-game decisions left for an aggro player.

This is interesting. So just to make sure I understand you, are you saying that cube drafting is one of those "higher powered environments" where the combat step is less important?

 

[wahoopride]

Those of us on Riptide who have more powerful cubes have found other ways to make aggro more interesting by introducing lateral development game plans. First off: either get rid of or nerf the "mono red" style aggro decks that only employ fast, blunt damage as their overall strategy. It's just dull. Instead, force the aggro drafters to get more creative with maximizing early damage or require them to have a Plan B to finish the job.

It seems to be that if you are doing this, you are making early game decks much more difficult to play. For example,

require that you hit basically 3 exact land drops (mountain in turn 1 or 2, and swamp forest the other 2 turns) for it to be useful. Otherwise it is just a bear. That could be very high variance. In the same way, champion of the parish, requires very specific set of cards. Though maybe that card could be made great for early game with a solid draft.

I am not saying you are wrong, merely voicing my concerns and hoping you can convince me otherwise. I am with you, I want interesting games, decks, drafts, etc. Having someone just draft a bunch of goblin guides and burn is pretty lame and makes for lame games. But I worry that without that deck being prevalent in cube, the metagame will shift in such a way that mid and late game are the only way to win. As soon as this happens, all aggressive cards immediately become dead cards in the draft. And maybe that is even more damaging for a cube than one that has a relatively one-dimensional early game strategy?

 

[Rasmus Källqvist]

As always, I think the best way to work this out is to simply start with some aggressive decks, let's say the champion of the parish human decks and a viashino slaughtermaster doublestrike deck (That card really should be regarded as a red fencing ace), and then you let midrange and control decks get "their" cards based on what the interesting aggressive strategies are doing.

 

[Tyrole]

I think Wahoo's points about "when does aggro end" are a great representation of why ramp (especially colorless, mana-rock ramp) is often GRBS. If you define the end of your "aggro period" as turn 5, then a signet is going to end your aggro period ahead of schedule.

This is interesting. So just to make sure I understand you, are you saying that cube drafting is one of those "higher powered environments" where the combat step is less important?

I think his point in this statement is that, as you increase in power level, combat steps are less dynamic. This is largely because combat tricks (and other combat modifiers like auras) become much worse compared to very strong creatures and very strong removal spells. If everyone has a hand of 4 StPs, a combat trick is a dead card. Obviously an extreme example, but it makes the point -- at certain power levels, much of the game becomes simpler. You attack and either they block, remove your creature, or take the damage. A combat trick is too situational and lacks the flexibility of creatures, removal, or other high powered spells.

But, I am in the camp that combat is the most engaging, interactive, and fun part of magic. Part of the reason I work to limit the power level of my cube is to ensure combat remains fun and dynamic. I actually just did an update to help address this: more combat tricks and even some more auras to make that step as engaging as possible. Will it work? I actually have no idea...but we have a draft day setup for about 12 hours tomorrow - so I will report back.

 

[wahoopride]

I think Wahoo's points about "when does aggro end" are a great representation of why ramp (especially colorless, mana-rock ramp) is often GRBS. If you define the end of your "aggro period" as turn 5, then a signet is going to end your aggro period ahead of schedule.

Yes. Elaborating on my previous post about when does the early game end, you can begin a section on the mid-game. I am not sure if midrange means any deck that is good in the midgame, but the way i see mid-game is several different flavors of deck:

1) The one discussed early centered around mass removal. The plan here is to sift through your deck to find your mass removal then try to hold on until you can cast it. If your environment has 4 CMC mass removal this would mean casting mass removal on turn 4, then playing 4/5/6 CMC creatures on turns 5-7 while the aggro player is stuck with either no cards in hand, or 1-3 CMC creatures that are basically worthless.
2) Ramp. This deck also wants to win the middle of the game. However, it gives up the advantage creature by mass removal in favor of better drops on the 4th-7th turn. It seeks to drop, say, a 6 CMC or turn 4 or maybe an 8 CMC on turn 5. The aggro player will still have creatures on the board, but instead of dropping a normal 4 or 5 CMC guy on an empty board, you are dropping a 6-8 CMC guy on a populated board. Just another approach, but still looking to win in the mid game.
3) Reanimator. Really just the same concept as Ramp, except instead of ramping up mana to bring in a 6-8 drop a few turns early, you just reanimate a 6-8 drop a few turns early. Plays out the same way, still trying to win in the mid game.

There may be more I am not mentioning, but in my opinion, these are all middle game archetype decks. If aggro is trying to win before mass removal comes out (say turn 4 or 5), mid game is trying to win after turn 4 and is peaking out around turn 6 or 7. Notice that midgame decks should do well against aggro, but against a control deck most of these game plans are going to falter. Against the mass removal deck, control gains virtual card advantage by making the mass removal cards worthless. Against ramp and reanimator, control is happy to save its counters for your 2-3 big cards that you are attempting to pop out in the mid game. Against all 3, control is getting 3 or so free turns to set up that it never gets against aggro where it can make land drops unfettered.

It gets weird because in an early vs mid game deck. Early wants to win as early as possible, but once mid game gets turns on, there is no clock. The longer the game goes the bigger the advantage mid game has on aggro. So while midgame may be spooled up by turn 4, there isn't necessarily and end of midgame for a deck like that. We would suppose it would be around turn 7 or 8 when it has been able to drop its powerful creatures a few turns in a row, but against an aggro deck there would certainly be no rush once it has stabilized. I think this is sort of the idea of that famous "Who's the beatdown" article where you have the fast decks in the format always want to play fast, and the slow decks always play slow, then everything in between just plays relative to those two. I.e. a mid deck plays fast against the slow deck and slow against the fast deck.

 

[blacksmithy]

I personally like my control and midrange decks to be doing just as much on turns 1-3 as the aggro deck.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

As far as cube design is concerned it should probably be remembered that these terms are heuristics, and the exact meaning is going to change depending on format context. A lot of the examples and meanings behind them have also changed substantially over the years. In addition, many decks can change their strategic posture either based on the matchup, or they just naturally have that fluidity (and can be designed to have that fluidity). The two articles I've written thus far address exactly that from the perspective of aggro design.

A problem I've ran into with a lot of magic theory and content is that its drafted to understand how to win tournaments (or sell cards to people looking to win tournaments) and the theory does not advance a designcentric perspective of magic. Go look at articles about old limited formats: about a million of them will address how to min/max the draft, approx 0 of them will reflect on the mechanics of why so and so beloved format was so beloved.

And thats something to keep in mind when idea shopping.

 

[wahoopride]

I personally like my control and midrange decks to be doing just as much on turns 1-3 as the aggro deck.

Without knowing the specifics on your environment, I honestly can not see how a control deck cares as much about playing a 1 drop as an aggro deck does. Just doing some math on 40 card decks, here is the probability of having a 1 drop in your hand with X 1 drops in your 4o card deck:

1 = 18%
2 = 32%
3 = 45%
4 = 55%
5 = 64%
6 = 71%
7 = 77%
8 = 82%

Again I don't know the specifics of your environment, but I would imagine any consistent early game deck would want to be running 6-8 proactive 1 drops to give themselves >70% chance of being able to play one on turn 1. Based on what you said your control decks would also need to run 6-8 proactive (i.e. spell snare is reactive and only works if you are on the draw, etc) 1 drops. This is going to severely weaken a controls late game which is where it is supposed to be winning the game. Bottom line an early game (aggro deck) can't have the same CMC distribution as a control deck, which means a control deck can never be doing as much in turns 1-3 as an aggressive deck.

This is just how I see it though. I'd love to hear what you think.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Why does a control deck need high cc spells to control the game?

 

[wahoopride]

Why does a control deck need high cc spells to control the game?

What is a control decks win condition without high cc spells?

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

I think the easiest example would be manlands, and thats if we stay within a fairly traditional rubric.

Most archetype elements given for control decks revolve around answers and inevitability, and neither of those two things require high cc spells. With the low cost of many answers, and myriad ways to generate card advantage at low to mid cc, the only thing keeping certain aggro or midrange decks from the control moniker is a fairly arbitrary insistence that control decks not present threats until the late game.

With the rise of powerful ETB effects attached to bodies, and value generating planeswalkers, distinctions don't always have to be respected, and there is a danger everything can make a precipitous slide towards good stuff regardless of the designer's original intent.

 

[safra]

What is a control decks win condition without high cc spells?

Monastery Mentor, a three-drop, is such a powerful finisher it created a new Vintage archetype. Check out some of the control decks in my cube; they rarely go beyond 4- or 5-mana spells.
http://www.cubetutor.com/cubedeck/410576 4 with one 5-drop
http://www.cubetutor.com/cubedeck/407810 4 with one 7-drop
http://www.cubetutor.com/cubedeck/406512 5 with one 6-drop
http://www.cubetutor.com/cubedeck/388231 5 with one 6-drop

All of those decks have cast at least one, maybe two spells by turn two. The days of Shivan Dragon are over and it's okay if our cubes reflect that, I think.

(please put shivan dragon in every core set cube)

 

[Chris Taylor]

What is a control decks win condition without high cc spells?

Nephalia Drownyard

 

[wahoopride]

Monastery Mentor, a three-drop, is such a powerful finisher it created a new Vintage archetype. Check out some of the control decks in my cube; they rarely go beyond 4- or 5-mana spells.
http://www.cubetutor.com/cubedeck/410576 4 with one 5-drop
http://www.cubetutor.com/cubedeck/407810 4 with one 7-drop
http://www.cubetutor.com/cubedeck/406512 5 with one 6-drop
http://www.cubetutor.com/cubedeck/388231 5 with one 6-drop

All of those decks have cast at least one, maybe two spells by turn two. The days of Shivan Dragon are over and it's okay if our cubes reflect that, I think.

(please put shivan dragon in every core set cube)

Perhaps it comes down to definitions. Those decks have control elements, but I would not call them pure control. Moreover, compared to a pure aggro deck most of those decks aren't actually doing as much turns 1-3 as the aggro deck. Most of those have less than 5, some less than 4 1 CMC spells they are using turn 1. Again this really all depends on how your cube is tuned, but I would think for a deck to truly be called aggro, it need a creature drop on turn 1. If not, I don't see how you are going to reliably get in under Wrath of God.

It is definitely possible to mix in aggro and control, but then it just changes the characteristic of the deck so its matchups are different.

 

[wahoopride]

Nephalia Drownyard

Good point, I did not factor Mill into my comment. My environment is completely free of Mill, but obviously many others might not have that.

 

[wahoopride]

I think the easiest example would be manlands, and thats if we stay within a fairly traditional rubric.

Most archetype elements given for control decks revolve around answers and inevitability, and neither of those two things require high cc spells. With the low cost of many answers, and myriad ways to generate card advantage at low to mid cc, the only thing keeping certain aggro or midrange decks from the control moniker is a fairly arbitrary insistence that control decks not present threats until the late game.

With the rise of powerful ETB effects attached to bodies, and value generating planeswalkers, distinctions don't always have to be respected, and there is a danger everything can make a precipitous slide towards good stuff regardless of the designer's original intent.

I agree with the sentiment of this post, which is why I was preferring to characterize decks by when the try to win, rather than some particular mechanic, like counterspells. I realize I started using control and late-game interchangeably, which I should not have. However, while not all control decks have to be late-game decks, I think it is difficult to have a late game deck without some controlling elements.

 

[safra]

also, like, slower but more resilient aggro actually can beat a Wrath, it's one of my favourite things to do in cube actually, ver. indiana jones

 

[blacksmithy]

Without knowing the specifics on your environment, I honestly can not see how a control deck cares as much about playing a 1 drop as an aggro deck does. Just doing some math on 40 card decks, here is the probability of having a 1 drop in your hand with X 1 drops in your 4o card deck:

1 = 18%
2 = 32%
3 = 45%
4 = 55%
5 = 64%
6 = 71%
7 = 77%
8 = 82%

Again I don't know the specifics of your environment, but I would imagine any consistent early game deck would want to be running 6-8 proactive 1 drops to give themselves >70% chance of being able to play one on turn 1. Based on what you said your control decks would also need to run 6-8 proactive (i.e. spell snare is reactive and only works if you are on the draw, etc) 1 drops. This is going to severely weaken a controls late game which is where it is supposed to be winning the game. Bottom line an early game (aggro deck) can't have the same CMC distribution as a control deck, which means a control deck can never be doing as much in turns 1-3 as an aggressive deck.

This is just how I see it though. I'd love to hear what you think.

Well, my environment (CT isnt totally updated at all) has an exceedingly low curve. I try (not necessarily succeed) to give all decktypes playables at the lower points on the curve.
For example, i often draft Ux control in my cube. Generally my first three turns are something like:
T1 cast a cantrip or utility dork like cryptologist
T2 lay down a sweet blocker (omenspeaker is a fav of mine)
T3 play a tapped land and leave up counter mana. Counter something.
Obviously the control deck's early gameplan is much less proactive than the aggro deck's, but they are likely doing about the same number of things each turn.