Could Somebody Give Me a Detailed Explanation of the Deck-Building Meta?
Deck Help forum
Posted on Sept. 28, 2014, 4:10 p.m. by spiegel421
I'm having a hard time understanding the differences between midrange and aggro-control decks, for example. Where exactly does everything fall on the spectrum?
Thanks.
For an example of an aggro deck, see RDW (red deck wins) in modern. Link
For a midrange deck see Tron in modern. Link
For a control deck see UW/x in modern. Link. Note that this version of control doesn't play threats that are THAT expensive in terms of mana cost, but that's the modern meta - it's faster.
September 28, 2014 4:30 p.m.
See this as an example of a slow control deck.
This is a standard deck, not a modern deck so it can afford to be slower.
September 28, 2014 4:32 p.m.
Servo_Token says... #5
To expand on Chief's explanations:
Aggro was spot on.
Midrange is a style of play that doesn't really fall into either Aggro or control definitions. It likes to play larger creatures and things to back them up, usually kill spells and disruption. Midrange isn't control because it still looks to go over the top of decks and be aggressive.
Control is basically a deck that uses 45% lands, 45% stall tactics (kill spells, board wipes, counters, prison cards Sphere of Safety ]), and 5% win conditions, usually in the form of big, beefy creatures (Blood Baron of Vizkopa , Keranos, God of Storms ) or Planeswalkers (Elspeth, Sun's Champion ). Control doesn't really care how long the games go because they can pull out a win at any time once they've stabilized.
So for this basic structure, Aggro < Midrange < Control < Aggro.
Then there's tempo, which is a sort of faster midrange deck. This is usually a burn deck, or something to the sort, that uses a lot of modal cards, or things that can be used in a multitude of scenarios, along with cheap and efficient creatures. There's a lot of literature on Tempo, and you should definitely check some out.
Lastly is Creature control. This can be seen in the current form of Constellation decks (Doomwake Giant , Eidolon of Blossoms , and friends). These decks use synergistic creatures to band together and stop the opponent from doing anything, all the while chipping at them with the usually highly inefficient powered creatures. These decks seldom come around, but they can be pretty devistating if you don't know what you're up against.
September 28, 2014 4:35 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #6
I'll point out that Tron isn't really a midrange deck. If you want the most midrangey of midrangey decks in all of Magic, take a look at Modern BG-base decks.
Aggressive decks are looking to deploy cheap threats that are capable of dealing a lot of damage quickly. Such threats include Wild Nacatl , Goblin Guide , Goblin Rabblemaster , Cranial Plating Affinity, etc. These decks tend to peter out in the lategame, as their cards are suited to the early game and quickly lose their power as the game continues and more powerful cards are being played. The advantage is sometimes being able to overwhelm opposing removal spells and threats so that you can get in the full 20 before they can stabilize.
Control decks tend to employ removal, counterspells and other forms of delay to get the game to a point where they have several advantages in lands and cards in hand. The goal of such strategies is to remove opposing creatures, counter opposing spells that could cause serious damage until they stabilize. Once they have stabilized, they can focus on establishing their own lategame threat to start winning the game. The advantage here is that if you have the right early-game tools, you can stabilize soon and take over the game. It doesn't matter when you win so long as the opponent can't.
Midrange decks fall in between, and look to utilize cheap removal alongside big threats that dominate the board themselves. While these are weak to control decks in that they can't be aggressive enough nor have the same strength of lategame cards, midrange decks get to play some of the most straight-up powerful cards in the game.
Combo decks are an entirely different beast. They can be very aggressive in trying to win the game as quickly as possible, or be a more controlling as they set up the proper defenses for their combo-kill, or be a midrange deck that has a secondary plan aside from the combo. Birthing Pod decks in Modern, Storm decks in Modern, Legacy and Vintage as well as Modern Scapeshift decks are fairly representative of the different styles of combo decks.
In terms of matchup advantage, the general paradigm is aggro beats control beats midrange beats aggro, with various styles of combo fitting in where they may. Combo decks tend to be weaker to discard spells and counterspells, but can also fall to aggro decks that win before they can combo off. This doesn't mean combo should be thrown aside, however, because they attack from a very different angle than the other decks and thus require people to have different ways to deal with them.
September 28, 2014 4:55 p.m.
I wanted to say that jund and junk and rock were midrange decks but then I figured that they mainly win on Goyf and abrupt decay which make the line blur a bit because they're not actually that slow. Does that make sense? Like, they're not OBVIOUSLY midrange. I thought that tron was because it does almost literally nothing until T3.
September 28, 2014 5:13 p.m.
spiegel421 says... #8
Thanks everybody. Would my deck below, then, be classified as creature control, or midrange, or what?
September 28, 2014 5:16 p.m.
Doesn't fit into any exactly but most likely midrange. It's not aggro, combo, or control.
September 28, 2014 5:20 p.m.
spiegel421 says... #10
Also, what exactly differentiates midrange and control? I can see easily where midrange differs from aggro, but the line between midrange and control seems rather blurred to me.
September 28, 2014 5:20 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #11
Midrange tends to be a little more proactive than control. It generally plays more creatures, and its card advantage comes more in the form of creatures rather than physical card draw. Control will play minimal numbers of creatures, and almost all of their nonland cards will be focused on creature removal/counterspells.
September 28, 2014 5:22 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #12
An example of this is Modern Jund, which plays around 13 creatures (4 Tarmogoyf , 4 Dark Confidant , 3 Scavenging Ooze , 2 Courser of Kruphix usually). This is a midrange deck through and through. It wants to stick a threat and try to ride it to victory earilier on in the game. On the other hand, Modern UWR Control only plays 4-5 creatures (4 Snapcaster Mage always, and sometimes a Vendilion Clique ). The control deck wouldn't play creatures at all if it could, but Snapcaster is basically another removal spell/counterspell anyway.
September 28, 2014 5:24 p.m.
spiegel421 says... #13
I'm picturing a two dimensional graph. On either side of the x-axis are the two emphases: threats and threat removal. On the y-axis are: a few big threats and a plenitude of little threats.
Control decks, then, would have an emphasis on threat removal, with also an emphasis on a few big threats (after stabilization). Midrange would be similar to control but would lie somewhere near the middle of the x-axis, with an emphasis both on threats and threat removal. Aggro-control and tempo decks would be just opposite midrange decks on the y-axis.
Is this a good way to picture it? Does it adequately represent the various play-styles?
ChiefBell says... #2
An aggro deck is one that attempts to win the game as quickly as possible. Usually turns 3 or 4.
A midrange deck is one that wants to play more powerful creatures, later in the game. It'll be weak at the start but start to really come into its own from about turn 3 onwards (based on most metas and formats).
A control deck aims to slow everything down and stop the opponent from winning but not necessarily win itself until very late. They play counterspells and killspells until they can play a single game ending threat. Usually around turn 6-8.
September 28, 2014 4:25 p.m.