General Supporting aggro without 1-drops [Peasant]

whydirt

whydirt

While pushing through grad school, I've had almost no time to actually play Magic in the last year or so. Instead, I get to sneak in an hour here or there theory-crafting about my peasant cube as well as lurking here at Riptide.

One of my few chances to actually play Magic this year came this past weekend at the DTK pre-release and it got me to thinking about how modern (small-M) sets generally support at least one aggro/beatdown deck, but do so without really requiring you to play many, if any 1-drops.

Keeping this in mind, I've been wondering what would happen if I cut out most 1-drop creatures from my cube. Here are a few pieces of evidence that I think support the viability of this idea, at least in theory. 1) Wizards has gotten a lot better at printing common and uncommon 3, 4, and 5-drops that still favor a beatdown plan. 2) Not feeling pressured to stick a 1-drop on turn 1 makes the lack of untapped dual lands closer to equally useful in beatdown and slower decks. 3) Slowing down my format by a turn or so should mean there are fewer "non-games" across the board.

I'm already planning on moving away from pure power-max in my design philosophy in order to make supporting pet cards and strategies easier. For example, I plan on cutting some of the most egregious ETB value creatures (Skinrender, Cloudgoat, etc) that tend to make midrange a dominant strategy - in general my banning philosophy is based around asking "would I still cube this card if it cost {1} more than the original?" Shifting how aggro is built and played would be another tool in my belt for meeting my overall format vision.

Here's the most recent (yet quite out of date as you will be able to tell) public version of my cube to give some sense of where I'd be starting from with my cuts and additions: http://www.cubetutor.com/viewcube/251 (Once I actually update my cube for real, I'll make a thread in the cube lists subforum to get specific feedback on my cube.)

Comments, thoughts, and questions about this idea would be appreciated! Obviously my question is focused on my peasant cube, but I'd be open to discussion about this concept more generally.
 
yan

yan

i cut most of them except what i consider the top ones (goblin guide, student of warfare, delver) to fit my groups playstyle (no one likes aggro)
1 drops probably arent as important in a slower cube for aggro to compete
 
Grillo_Parlante

Grillo_Parlante

Contributor
I'm really confused by this, because it sounds like your games are really condensed by the midrange threats. I could see this happening in higher power lists, where the power of the midrange threats are so great that they condense the game down to the point where aggro needs one drops and smooth mana. That only makes sense, because you have constructed quality threats running on a limited curve.

Here you have limited creatures being run on a limited curve, which means that your aggro decks shouldn't be feeling pressured to have turn 1 creatures. For that to be the case, midrange has to be condensing the format, or your aggro cards have to be matching up really poorly against the midrange strategies (or both). Slowing down the format by cutting 1 drops would only make the problem worse.

I think you would probably be better off by first restructuring your aggro decks. Looking over the list, it seems like you have a bunch of really bad generic beaters that are matching up poorly against midrange threats that can easily out value the aggressive strategies.

You could explore horizontal and vertical growth aggro strategies, disruptive aggro, and spike damage. Generally, increasingly the number of value aggro plays would help it matchup better with the value midrange cards.
 
CML

CML

Contributor
i think you can pull it off. my instinct is to make it like the best draft format, RGD, so lots of bouncelands, value creatures, and value removal. there appears to be some value cards but i would consider adding a lot more fixing (namely bouncelands) and consider constraining the power curve so that people don't get oedipally f'ed by mom every game
 
Rasmus Källqvist

Rasmus Källqvist

I agree with others in this thread, I would look at in what way you want the aggressive decks to present threats andhow they plan to attack, and then look for ways for the other slower decks to interact with that. I understand that the CIPT lands put a constraint on where the aggressive curve can start, so if you just move everything up a little bit in terms of where people get going, so that midrange doesn't stabilise the same turn aggro wants to start swinging, I don't think 1 drops are crucial.
 
Jason Waddell

Jason Waddell

Administrator
Staff member
I will say, even in retail limited, the most threatening aggro starts I've faced have dropped, say, a Turn 1 beater (that G/W hybrid 2/1 from RTR comes to mind).

Part of the challenge in a lower-power environment is that your beatdown decks need ways to force through 20 points of damage before the opponent stabilizes. If you go 2-drop, 3-drop and then the opponent drops a 4/4 on the table, you may be stalled with the opponent sitting on a high life-total. In high-power cubes we just give these decks removal / evasion / disruption to clear past road blocks, but I think retail sets rightfully tend towards some aggro-favored reach. Bloodrush, unblockability, pump, etc.

I think cutting board-cloggers like Cloadgoat is a good start. Lower power decks are going to goldfish on a much later turn, so I'd focus on giving your aggro decks clever ways to sequence and break a board stall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top