What is a casual aggro deck?

[TheCasualOblivion]

I've noticed reading these boards that the most popular types of decks around here tend to be unusual/unique combo style decks. I've also heard people discussing multiplayer, and a few control sort of decks. I haven't really heard to much about that other deck type: aggro.

I consider myself a casual player, and I've always prefered building aggro decks. As far as casual goes, I find you have to go aggro-control. Pure aggro is either a tournament deck or crap. I find you can build a turn 2.5-turn 3 aggro control deck that works just fine, being aggressive early on against slower casual decks, and unlike tournament aggro decks, having some late game firepower for multiplayer or the games you play so many of in casual that go past the 15th turn.

I found playing against the local casual players that they were only slightly less familiar with fast agressive deck than their total unfamiliarity with any sort of blue control. I also see very few people other than myself talking about or posting these sort of decks.

Opinions?

 

[Gizmo]

I think they generally arent perceived as very fun. 'Casual' seems to most people to mean decks that have interactions between the cards that are worth trying to set up. The decks are designed with an aim of exploiting that interactions, not just 'attacking with some monsters'.

Whenever I build a 'casual aggro' deck I find them horribly dull to use - I don't much see the point in them.

 

[Limited]

It's probably because a pure aggro deck cannot hope to win a multiplayer game. The speed and good damage to card ratio vs slowmp deck will probably allow you to kill one opponent, but then your deck will sputter and die whilst your opponents' decks reach their momentum..
We have discussed (and somehow discarded) keeping score at our MP meetings, also awarding points for each kill. This might make Aggro more viable, but I'll have to concur with Gizmo that it isn't fun. Especially if people are playing with sorcery speed creature removal they'll target you ("better safe than sorry") before you are out of control.

 

[Spiderman]

I think we have to go back and define "aggro". My impression is that it's a deck focused on creatures and tries to win in x turns (I'll throw out a number, 5 or less turns). It just wants to overwhelm the opponent and trusts in combat to remove the opposing creatures as opposed to instants/sorceries.

Which in the nature of my MP group, can work with respect to the creature part but not so much with the overrunning part (at least with everyone still in the game). The player always has to hold back some of his force for defense, despite the "aggro" name. And depending on who puts out a greater threat, attention could be focused on the aggro player or a control player or the combo player.

 

[Killer Joe]

Well, imo, an Aggro-Control deck means it has aggressive creatures and a way to clear the path whether it's via Counter Magic or Creature Removal such as destruction, remove from the game or bounce.

A casual "ACD" for dueling purposes could look like a cheap UG Madness deck.
For MP, well I'm not sure you'd want to play one. It's so boring.

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

I guess aggro decks are kind of like playing blue. I thought I sensed some negative feelings towards them posting my mostly aggro decks here.

I happen to like them. They are basically my playing style. I don't see them not being fun to play at all. To be perfectly honest, I've never really enjoyed playing combo-style decks. The only combo-style tricks I ever really bother with are making a combo out of two cards that can stand alone, or nearly stand alone in a deck that can play just fine if the combo never happens. Thats more along the lines of synergy though. I'm probably just thinking of cards that have really killer synergy.

Why exactly does this attitude exist? I'd like to hear it.

On a final note, here is one of my "aggro" decks I recently threw together. Aside from some testing, I've played a grand total with 2 games with it against an absolutely terrible deck. It is aggro-control, as I said before, I don't think straight aggro translates well into casual. The deck is fast, and wins by dealing damage with creatures, though I must say the deck does not have a target win by turn X, and packs late game firepower. The deck is kind of based around a trick, as many of my decks are, and while a lot of my decks give no thought to multiplayer, this one I think has the possibility of being annoying in a multiplayer game.

Creatures(26):

4 Kird Ape
4 Wall of Roots
4 Wall of Blossoms
4 Elvish Warrior
4 Blastoderm
4 Weatherseed Treefolk
1 Kodama of the North Tree
1 Child of Gaea

Spells (16)

3 Wild Growth
2 Harrow
4 Pyroclasm******---the trick
2 Incinerate
3 Lightning Bolt
2 Hurricane

Land (21)
4 Shivan Oasis
2 Darigaaz's Caldera
6 Mountain
9 Forest

Total (63)--again a bad habit of mine


The trick in the deck is playing pyroclasm in a deck with 26 creatures that it doesn't kill. Simple, but it gives the deck a reason. Always liked hurricane as a finisher. Hurricane= deals X damage to your opponent(s) if he(they) has(have) less life than you.

 

[Mikeymike]

Hmm, I think Spidey is correct, the definition of 'casual-aggro' is important here.

Are we referring to a typical aggro deck altered for MP, like Gizmo suggests?

Or how about a deck that focuses on getting fatties out lightning-fast? It isn't weenie aggro, but when you start dropping 7/7 evasives on turn 4 you are being pretty aggressive. I have a tendency to play a lot of these kinds of decks in MP. Are they aggro? Aggro-combo? Timmy-decks?

In terms of pure aggro for MP, there are two that I can remember building that worked and were fun to play. The first is a WW-equip deck that was made for 1 v 1, but definitely holds its own in MP. It strictly comes down too the efficiency of the equipment, and how much better they make relatively simple 2-CC creatures. The cool thing is that it is aggro, but it is really the only one I can remember building that is truly fun to play in MP. Its usually due to all the crazy combat tricks it can do with Shikari and first-strikers. It doesn't have many of its' own answers, but it can often outrace my opponent's answers.

The other was a Gating deck, that played Horned Kavu, Shivan Wurm, a few Fleetfoots, and the best quality R-G-W 187 creatures I could find. It moved, had enough utility to hold its own in MP, and had enough tricks to keep it fun. It lasted a pretty long time, but I eventually took it apart b/c it didn't really feel like it was doing anything so special.

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

Hmm, I think Spidey is correct, the definition of 'casual-aggro' is important here.

Deck that tries to win by dealing 20 damage with creatures, without any combo assitance?

 

[Spiderman]

What's "without any combo assistance"? Hard-casting them just using mana (and does mana elves fall under this)? Not getting them out via Sneak or reanimate or whatever?

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

It isn't really that specific a concept is it?

 

[Spiderman]

It helps when discussing these types of things. Otherwise you veer off into control parts or combo parts (the latter which I think Sneak falls more under, since you're getting around the casting cost of the creature), etc.

And if you don't define the terms, why bother labeling them anyway?

 

[Mikeymike]

It isn't really that specific a concept is it?

From the way you describe it (deal 20 damage with no combo backup), I'd would have to say that Pure Aggro decks typically are difficult to make good (or even that fun) in MP. But this is a very personal preference.

But I do think the definition is important. Many Magic terms have a tendency to devolve into blanket statements (like Sligh), and alternatively many blanket terms have a tendency to be turned into specifics (like aggro). Like the fatty example I referenced. It isn't typical aggro, but it is aggressive, and I personally would consider them beatdown decks.

And by the way, you did define your meaning earlier in the thread, I just did not read it well enough.

 

[Gizmo]

I regard Casual Aggro as meaning things like I made a random deck of G/W Beats, using cards like Armadillo Clock, Acridian, Fleetfoot Panther. All it really did was play monsters and combo tricks, bit of trample, bit of boost - Symbiosis and Fleetfoot Panther were the main 'tech'.

It was...

Boring. As. Hell.

My approach to 'casual' magic is more like "I want to make a deck using Intruder Alarm" or "Enduring Renewal without it being Pebbles" or "FadeAway.dec" or "ZuberaDeath.dec" or "TombstoneStairwell.dec" or "Smokestack.dec"... not "SomeMonsters.dec"

 

[jorael]

I play a lot of decks that try to win by using creatures that attack an opponent to reduce their life total to 0. Some use nice interactions or combo's. I rarely play 'just' beatdown. I consider such decks aggro, but they are far from just 'dumb'. A multiplayer environment allows this.

An example of what kind of tricks, combo's and synergy is possible when playing an aggro deck:

Soldier's Sanctum
20 plains
4 daru encampment

4 honorable scout
4 longbow archers
4 leonin squire
4 whipcorder
4 enlistment officer
4 catapult master

4 synod sanctum
4 serrated arrows
4 ray of distortionp

I currently made a soldier deck. It is designed to win by attacking. The deck has some tricks, though. I use the synod sanctums to reuse all the soldiers with comes into play effects and the serrated arrows. Leonin Squire can return the sanctum so I can repeat the trick

This is an aggro deck designed for multiplayer. A soldier deck could be a lot more aggressive, but this version has more staying powers. The sanctum trick is cool, but slow and would not work not as good 1 vs. 1 (still cool to let all your opponents removal fizzle, but having no mana open and an opponent with artifact removal stops the fun).


I like to play both aggro decks (even some with less combo’s than the mentioned deck) and combo decks. I would get bored if I’d only play aggro, but I also would get bored playing only combo. Then again, I like to rotate decks and every week I deconstruct almost all my decks to build new ones.

I probably like aggro more than combo. Maybe because combat creates more interactivity with opponents. It’s fun to play a combo which wins you the game once or twice, but after that, I’ve had it with the trick and my opponents usually too.

 

[Mikeymike]

I probably like aggro more than combo. Maybe because combat creates more interactivity with opponents. It’s fun to play a combo which wins you the game once or twice, but after that, I’ve had it with the trick and my opponents usually too.

I'm in the same boat. I'm a total sucker for combat tricks.

 

[Oversoul]

I see lots of casual aggro decks. I see Burn, Suicide Black, White Weenie in various forms, Sligh, Madness, Zoo, Slivers, Blue beatdown, Elves, Goblins, Zombies, Beasts, BR beatdown, Saproling beatdown, Stompy...

Aggro decks are probably the most common decks I see in casual play. And they are unfortunately also the least tuned decks most of the time. Control, being more stable, is often taken up by more experience players. And the allure of combo decks keeps those alive as well. Also, there will always be a some sadistic players trying to play prison decks. But the simplicity of aggro has allowed it to thrive in the casual environment.

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

I don't think these sort of decks need to be more boring than other sorts of decks. You win with an aggro deck by tuning it to be more aggressive, efficient, faster moving and harder hitting, which does take some skill, especially if you build weird decks like my G/U/B Elf Crush deck. This is how they work in tournaments. Tournament decks have no legs though, and I hate it when a deck sputters out when it fails to kill within its time goal. Thats why when I build them I sacrifice a turn or so of speed for the ability to handle a long game. It also makes the deck quite a bit less antisocial when you do that.

As far as the actual play, I enjoy the violence of that sort of deck. The goal is to design a deck that hits harder than your opponents, and when it works its fun to watch. I almost always add some sort of trick to give the deck some flavor, or some control to steer the game my way.

 

[Oversoul]

I remember playing against a friend when we both had burn decks. Those games were intense. I don't think aggro (or any other type of deck) is boring. People often say that about any deck they lose to, but that's just an excuse for playing an inferior deck.

 

[Gizmo]

Good aggro decks are brilliant, it's like cut and thrust fencing - quick, deadly, highly oised and can go either way.

The problem comes when you dumb them down a bit, you almost inevitably wind up making a deck that using sub-optimal offensive cards in order to be 'casual' - if you use the best cards you make something people are going to get crushed by. I'm sure they CAN be fun, but in general I find them less interesting to play than decks built around themes or card interactions... and it appears many other people would agree.

Play creatures, turn creatures sideways, play more creatures.... I can think of better things to do with my time. I'd rather throw in some interactions and make use of cards that arent just monsters, like making it into a Lure deck, or a Jokulhaups deck.

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

You don't need to dumb them down. You just slow them down a turn, add one(something like that) to the mana curve, and build them with the same delicacy that you would build them otherwise. You're building for a different environment, and even a turn slower, you're still faster than other casual decks. The only thing you really sacrifice if you do it right is having the game over before it begins, which isn't what casual playing is about anyway.

Its good for the environment. When I first joined up with the group I'm playing with now, nobody had any idea how to play blue, and nobody ever really discovered how to build decks as fast and violent as I build them. They've learned from me how to build for speed(even if they still can't handle blue), and they have updated their combo and style decks to be tighter so they don't get steamrolled by me and those I've taught to attack and can now handle us better.

I talk a good game, but we have a tournament jerk who lurks around, and he's thrown around a tournament grade U/G madness and a pretty good extended Goblin/Burn at us. My best decks are a turn slower, him killing me the turn before I kill him. The difference is people don't refuse to play me.