Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: At the time, I think I was a little bitter that Grixis Delver received so much exposure while Monkey Grow withered on the sidelines. I felt strongly that MG was the better deck (and still feel that it was, although I’ve all but given up on the fool’s errand of making the deck work without Probe).

To its credit, GD had higher reversibility than MG. In fact, it was built to adopt a midrange plan in half or more of its matchups! I hadn’t coined the reversibility term yet, and so pegged the deck as midrange, since it was indeed far more of a midrange deck than MG and I needed to efficiently clarify how the decks were different in my articles.

Grixis Delver is a thresh deck with moderate reversibility, as its Plan A is still a tempo plan. Reversibility aside, though, I think it’s a bad thresh deck. GD is too reliant on its midrange Plan B to fully reap the benefits of being thresh in the first place (for example, favorable Tron and Burn matchups should come with the territory, but both of those decks pose issues for GD). It’s also a bad midrange deck compared with stuff like Grixis Shadow (or, to stay in the past, Grixis Control).

I said back then that the deck was too strategically diluted to enjoy widespread Modern success, and I stand by that claim today, although my terminology and understanding of the deck’s archetypical subtleties have changed.

Thanks for the comment, and for allowing me this opportunity for introspection!

“Just because you kil tron by attacking with goyf (what else would you do with it?) doesnt turn you into the same strata as zoo.”

I’m assuming you mean that Goyf alone doesn’t present as much damage as Zoo’s creatures would against Tron. Correct! Zoo is a pure aggro deck, so of course it will be more aggressive than a diluted aggro deck. But take a look at DSJ, a deck very capable of closing out games in four turns.

Unlike traditional Jund, which employs the same overall gameplan of disrupt, commit and plays many of the same cards as Jund Midrange (no coincidence), DSJ does get very aggressive, very fast. That doesn’t make it more of an aggro deck than Jund, or as much of an aggro deck as Zoo. It just means it has high reversibility, whereas traditional Jund has low reversibility. So DSJ can easily adopt a tempo role against Tron, while traditional Jund has difficulty doing so, and Zoo doesn’t want or need to because its aggressive disposition already crushes big mana decks. DSJ’s reversibility gives it more flexibility in different contexts (and helps make it the better deck).

“The game is just frankly too complex and nuanced to simplify it into a few archetypes like this. Combo means something, so does aggro and so does control – but if everything has to be one of those three or a mix of two you’re going to warp the meaning of the terms way beyond convention. Perhaps more importantly, theres no reason to do so.”

If that’s how you feel, then this article isn’t for you. Which, of course, is fine 🙂 Personally though, I felt it was absolutely necessary that I clearly communicate my theories because doing so will help me write future articles and provide me with linkable reference points. That’s plenty reason for me! Besides, part of the fun of Magic (again, for me) lies with trying to break its complex elements down into understandable terms. I can see how that wouldn’t appeal to some players, though.

See if you just said aggro control is a protect the queen deck generally full of reactive spells and cheap threats I think I could get behind it. You play delver and then protect it – you do have “goblin guide” backed up by permission so yes you do have real elements of both plans.

But jordan says midrange decks are “aggro control”. Decks like jund and bant eldrazi? Just because you kil tron by attacking with goyf (what else would you do with it?) doesnt turn you into the same strata as zoo. The vast majority of decks can move along a spectrum of aggression and control based on the situation – even burn might sit on a fist full of bolts and blazes and just bide its time for some reason (infect?) does that make it “aggrocontrol”? Or esper control cast turn 2 snap turn 3 secure the wastes for 2 and apply 4 dmg per turn. Calling esper draw go “aggro control” because it can cast early threats and attack males the word aggro meaningless. Aggro in modern refers more to fast non-combo decks. Killing tron in four hits of a goyf does not make you a fast modern deck.

The game is just frankly too complex and nuanced to simplify it into a few archetypes like this. Combo means something, so does aggro and so does control – but if everything has to be one of those three or a mix of two you’re going to warp the meaning of the terms way beyond convention. Perhaps more importantly, theres no reason to do so. Were getting to the point that too many decks defy convention and can really just be described as themselves.

One question I had was about labeling Grixis Delver as a Thresh strategy. I remember reading a previous article of yours, “Some Bob With Your Bugs: Confidant in Delver”, where you labeled it “Firmly Midrange”. Have you had a change of heart?

Agreed. The Modern BG/x staple sequence of Discard into Goyf into LotV is an aggro control line of play. It disrupts opponents, commits a threat, and proceeds to continue to control the opponent’s game plan. Aggro Control (for us old fogies who like familiar terms) is, as the article above pointed out, a deck that can and does perform both roles. The decks you cited, Darcy, are decks that do their respective things just fine, but the examples you gave fail to illustrate the concept. If my UR/x control deck plays a turn 2 bolt into a turn 3 snap bolt, sure I’m taking an aggressive line, but that doesn’t make me an aggro deck, as you’ve identified. But thats ONLY in a deck built to be a control deck. The concept doesn’t apply to a different deck with a different game plan, where this line is an entirely reasonable aggro plan (don’t dis snapcaster beatdowns man. It’s a path to victory as clear as any other). It’s pretty clear that bolt belongs in both aggro and control decks (or did before the reign of Shadow and Push) but it’s the context of those cards that defines the game plan, not the cards themselves. Aggro Control decks place flexible cards like bolt into a deck made up entirely of efficient cheap cards just like it in order to be able to perform whatever role necessary in the early turns before relying on that efficiency to dictate the pace (the tempo, if you will) of the remainder of the match. This efficiency concept perhaps speaks more clearly to legacy aggro control decks (Thresh and its brethren of Uxxx delver decks), but can and does apply to Modern.

I mean, midrange is an aggro deck that dilutes its aggression with control cards. If you don’t know how Jund can “aggro anyone out,” take a look at the games it manages to win against Tron or other linear combo decks. Better still, take a look at the games the much higher-reversibility Jund Shadow plays against these decks.

The “aggro-control” term is one of the most misunderstood in all of Magic. This is partly because the history is a little opaque. Basically, it was initially used to refer to Fish decks—blue-heavy decks that used countermagic to protect an early threat that they rode to victory. Since then it’s been used to refer to UG Madness, Grow Atog, Canadian Threshold, Delver strategies, and so on. So “aggro-control” doesn’t mean in between aggro and control (which, you are correct, is much better called “midrange”), but to deploy aggression first, and then control an opponent’s interaction. Note that all these decks being blue is not a coincidence, but actually a core component of the moniker.

Certainly, it’s a term that might best be retired. “Tempo” evokes the same concept much more effectively. As an old dinosaur who remembers all those ancient decks, I’m certainly guilty of defaulting to the less intuitive term myself.

When you say midrange thats fine – but I never saw jund kill someone on turn four so how the fuck does it ever “aggro” anyone out? An “aggro control” deck should be capable of either role. Casting snapcaster mage t2 and swinging does not make you an aggro deck – it makes you someone trying to beatdown with cards that are not very good at it because the situation dictates it.

Combo control and combo aggro are fine because combo is something you can just add to those archetypes if you want. Generally giving up some consistency or explosiveness for the chance to execute a combo kill.

Aggro doesnt just slide into control, nor does it work the other way. The closest you get is bolt snap bolt being an ok sequence for an aggro deck while also flexibility and answers for a control deck – but again casting resto angels and swinging wont turn your jeskai control into an aggro deck like burn affinity zoo etc. The cards simply do not overlap enough to be able to both kill on turn four and sit on a fistful of answers in the late game to “soft lock” your opponent out.

Imo the triangle doesnt work. Midrange is midrange. Its not a hybrid of aggro and control at all unless you totally warp what it means to be either type of deck.

Thank you! Glad it was helpful 🙂

I am challenged to rethink my current classifications of modern decks; this explanation offers more clarity on the whole subject.

This quote by you I thought was extremely insightful:
“Midrange: Disrupts opponents, then establishes a clock.
Tempo: Establishes a clock, then disrupts opponents. ”
and I love how this ties in the new word you coined: “Reversibility.” There are scenarios where a tempo deck needs to disrupt, then commit (e.g. in Canadian Thresh, holding up a turn one stifle instead of playing delver or mongoose). So despite playing disruption then a clock, Canadian Thresh is still tempo because it was just practicing a little “Reversibility” in the matchup.
Overall very nice. Thank you for this!