Talk:Magic: The Gathering deck types/Archive 1

Intro

I created this page in response to discussion at Votes_for_deletion/Elf_deck. I have laid out what I think to be an appropriate organization for the article. Everyone is invited to discuss any better layouts or organizations (by format, etc.). I will be back to add more information on actual decks at the end of the week after some finals. - FabioB 6 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this be at Magic: The Gathering deck types? humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 8 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)

I added a bit of discussion (and a bit more fair discussion) at the MUC section. I also added external links to Meloku the Clouded Mirror and Morphling. I wanted to add a sidebar image of Morphling (being that it is *the* classic finisher) but I'm not sure if that's fair use or not. Can I do that?

Elf deck should 100% be merged into this page. I don't see why it was created in the first place...

Reorganization

I think this page needs reorganization. It'd be better to separate the decks into the three major supertypes of Control, Combo and Aggro, and maybe subdivide per tournament type (and include sections for RIP decks that have been invalidated by the years, like IA-Necro and Academy). Thoughts? --Agamemnon2 15:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• I see nobody commented on my suggestion above? I might still do it, just for kicks. --193.166.11.251 09:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• The best organization for Magic archetypes I know of is called a "Metagame Clock".[1][2] It's a beautiful and advanced illustration of the complex game of Magic (not as simple as Rock/Paper/Scissors a.k.a. Aggro/Control/Combo). It could be the intro graphic and include all the discussed archetypes.NorrYtt 17:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Psychatog-madness more of a combo deck than a control deck? Not to mention Dredgatog. Is this subject to interpretation? I think some people think of combo as decks that suddenly win in one turn (e.g. via infinite mana of some sort). Almkglor 18:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to reorganize this page based on the Creature/Combo/Control system, with short summaries of each type and links to the proper pages, rather than the large, unweildy deck summaries we have now. I'm also going to import said deck summaries to appropriate pages. If this ends up sucking, we'll revert and work on it. But I REALLY think we could do better than this.
  • (PS NorrYtt, your Metagame Clock DOES look good, but the last time I played was Urza's Block, so I have no idea what some of those terms mean. I'll do what I can, and you edit it however you think appropriate.) Marblespire 07:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• I added a massive Metagame Clock section. I added the image, too, though it's kinda crappy but it should do for now. It could simply replace the Rock-Paper-Scissors section (though an illustration of this would be sexy, too). The structure is something like: archetype; descripion, strong colors, metagame clock analysis (matchups), example cards, example deck. I included Combo-Control, Aggro-Combo, and Aggro-Control-Combo which I feel are real terms just not colloquially (we have to give them a meaning!). I'm also updating the main articles under these (Aggro, Control, Midgame, etc) to make everything clean. I want to come up with a decklist template because I see absolutely no reason to not have decklists that are public knowledge and illustrate these constructed deck strategies. NorrYtt 19:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wha [is Midgame]?

I'm not a pro, but I'm thinking that whole metagame clock of yours is a bit dated. I mean, midgame deck? What the hell is a midgame deck? I've never heard of that terminology and I doubt many serious magic players remember that article from Nov 27, 2002. But hey, what do I know?

Maybe, instead of trying to cram all of magic's history into one visual, you could use some historical examples of various metagames. This could serve to showcase both healthy and imbalanced metagames in various formats throughout magic's history. Since Type 2 changes so much, extended might fit the bill. Perhaps a snapshot of the original (Trix/Gro/Reanimator/Sligh/etc), 1st rotation (RDW/Goblins/Rock/Tog/Aluren/Cephalife/etc) and current (DredgeAtog/CAL/Ichorid/RWDW/Ravager/Desire/etc) metas? I'm sure you could come up with all sorts of pretty geometric shapes, if so inclined. -Crimson30 07:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That clock just has example decks listed under the archetype headings; it's not a snapshot of any particular metagame. That section is just illustrating an expanded version of Rock-Paper-Scissors. You can say Aggro > Control > Combo > Aggro - everyone seems to agree that is core Magic theory. You can also say Aggro > Aggro-Control > Control > Combo > Midgame > Aggro - that's what a Metagame Clock pictorially represents. It's just a pentagon instead of a triangle. I feel the clock is more correct and advanced, it's just that Aggro-Control and Midgame decks are hybrid archetypes that require certain criteria. I read somewhere that Pros simply do not explore these archetypes unless they are overpowered; they focus on the controlest of control, the fastest of the aggro, and the stablest of combo, and it takes a leap of faith to try stuff in the middle. PT: Honolulu had a lone RUG Aggro-Control, Aggro-Discard Orzhov is Aggro-Control, and Worlds-era Ghazi-Glare which only the Japanese came up with is pure Midgame. I'd classify Ghost Dad as Midgame. Owling Mine is weird because it's a pure Tempo deck, it doesn't work at all unless it can keep you backpedaling on making plays all game. Anyway, I don't want to have to keep arguing that Aggro-Control and Midgame exist because I feel they truly do. People just need to be enlightened. The link is provided as consent for including the concept. NorrYtt 06:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because there's some 4 year old Star City article referring to it, and your apparent desire to publicize the term, that doesn't mean that it should be included in this article. If somebody gets an article published on londes with a deckname that nobody accepts because it's a couple cards off from an established archetype, and I like the deckname, it doesn't mean I should squeeze it into various wikipedia articles. In short, you've got all these well-established concepts with this deck archetype squeezed in that doesn't really have any acceptance. It's like talking to casual players who throw around decknames accepted by all of 12 people in the world as if everyone knows what they're talking about.

I'm not questioning that there may be decks that fall into such a category as "midgame", but you have to realize that you might as well be making up your own term and I don't believe that's acceptable for this article. Imagine, for example, that I had my own version of string theory outside of the well known five and I published some articles, but nobody has ever heard of it, nor has it been accepted by anyone. I don't believe it would be appropriate to go changing related articles to reflect my theory, as if it were well established.

If you want to "enlighten" folks on your theories, I think you should do it elsewhere, and when they become mainstream, I would be more than glad to see them in this article. I think this statement of yours says it all: "I don't want to have to keep arguing that Aggro-Control and Midgame exist because I feel they truly do." By the way, whether you "feel" it exists or not, aggro-control does exist and this is more than well documented already. -Crimson30 04:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Now there's a current magicthegathering.com article referring to it... 69.255.63.48 10:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that article with all the conviction I was trying to post here, feel free to cite it or whatever, last time the section was deleted. NorrYtt 10:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... I had a feeling that was coming eventually after seeing you picked for that job after the Designer Search. I guess that's one way to get the idea out there :| Crimson30 00:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this instead? Somebody else please feel free to chime in with your thoughts. -Crimson30 12:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In that image, I'd put Prison between Combo and Control. Control reacts, trading threats for answers and deploys a finisher. Prison (Combo-Control) actively deploys lock parts to prevent the opponent from doing anything useful and doesn't really operate on a threat + answer + card advantage paradigm. Also, The Rock is a Midgame deck, not Aggro-Control or Control. The 'Aggro-Rock' versions with Duress, Therapy, Wild Mongrel, and Phyrexian Negator plus Rancor are Aggro-Control, but most people think of Rock as Duress, Therapy, Birds of Paradise, Sakura-Tribe Elder, Eternal Witness, Troll Ascetic, Ravenous Baloth, Pernicious Deed with or without Living Wish. The older Sol Malka version based on Deed, Deranged Hermit, Phyrexian Plaguelord is even more Midgame. I just think people here don't read enough literature to see that 'midgame' and 'midrange' are used often. I believe I've read everything on Starcitygames, MTG, and Brainburst for the past four years.NorrYtt 20:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny that. I originally made the diagram as you suggest, with prison between control and combo, but moved things around, because I felt combo needed to be in opposition to aggro, but, then again, it should be every bit in opposition to control, too. Eh... I was pretty tired when I moved it all around. Chalk that one up to a total brainfart. Anyway, I replaced that image with the original. Also, I stand by my assertion that Rock falls under Aggro-Control. Troll Ascetic, Ravenous Baloth and friends are aggro cards (albeit, fat, stompy-ish aggro), while Duress and Deed are control cards. Seems cut and dry to me. A quick google turns up plenty of articles labeling the Rock as Aggro-Control (aside from one by Will Rieffer).

Oh and, in response to your response of midgame being used a lot, yes, it IS used a lot. I use the term quite a bit as well, much like I use the term endgame. But endgame, like midgame, is not a deck archetype. In fact, 'this link' you cited uses the term midgame in such a manner. The only mentions I see of 'midgame' as an archetype are by yourself, Will Rieffer & Mike Mason. -Crimson30 11:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

More emphasis on "mill" decks needed.

It says that decks that force your opponents to overdraw are rarely used anymore, but I know that many people still play with them and some of the first tournament decks relied explicitly on combos using millstones.

Milling decks + Token archetype

What are milling decks considered -- what strategy and archetype do they fall under?

Also, is Token really an archetype? I would probably consider it an Aggro (strategy) deck, and a Aggro-combo (archetype) deck; don't think it should be it's own archetype; though I could be wrong. It's fast, it deals damage... how do they differ from Aggro? 24.23.51.27 12:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Milling decks are either combo, control, or combo-control, and its colors are mainly blue and black, and rarely red

Tokens are more weenie than aggro; it's a "many small creatures" deck. Tordek 14:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Most mill decks are just Control decks that happens to win via decking instead of damage. It could be as rudimentary as killing with Duskmantle, House of Shadow instead of Vitu-Ghazi, the City-Tree. In weird cases like Tolarian Academy + Stroke of Genius, the mill deck is a pure Combo deck. Being mill isn't as confining as you think. I feel pure token decks are usually Midgame decks. There's only a few token generators efficient enough to be called 'Aggro' IMO if you are truly playing threats for pure damage when you could be playing threats like Kird Ape and Wild Mongrel instead. These include Roar of the Wurm, Call of the Herd, Beacon of Creation, Promise of Bunrei, Sarcomancy, and a few others. Most token generators are somehow built with a kind of resiliancy or repeatability, putting them square into Midgame in my mind. NorrYtt 21:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Token Decks

I removed a section called "Token Decks". It was poorly-written and it was not needed, as token decks are just a variation on the Aggro strategy. Here is the section I removed:

"Token Decks concentrate on using a masive amount of 1/1's. They are predominantly green decks but there are other colored token decks. Green is most commonly used. They are simply known as token decks and deal lots of damage fast with in 5-6 turns. The most commonly used tocken decks are Conclave types which use Green/White Decks with stuff t make those 1/1's 4/4's or more etc. No deck Examples" [Sic]

There is a blue/green Snake deck like this one currently in Standard with a slew of dinky 1/1 Snakes and Sosuke's Summons that turn Coat of Arms and Seshiro, the Anointed into game-winners. I'd classify this as a Midgame deck. It's slower than Aggro (Kird Ape) but faster than Control (Vitu-Ghazi). NorrYtt 21:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Midgame revisited

NorrYtt,

This seems to be quite the pet page of yours and I noticed you are still going on about the "midgame" archetype. Again, I'd like to see any examples of professional use of the term. You, Will Rieffer & Mike Mason seem to be the only people using the term in such a manner (aside from hapless new players which may read this very article or buy into any postings you've made in various forums). If you can cite usage of this term (as an archetype, not a period in the game) by professional players or writers, then I'll back off. Otherwise, I will take further action by either tagging this page or bringing it up to an editor, given that this looks like a violation of Wikipedia policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day).

I also object to the section "Advanced Theory: The Metagame Clock", mainly because of the "Advanced Theory" part, being that it forwards the idea that it is an established advanced theory, lending credit to something underaccepted. While it is based in widely accepted theory, I contest that this specific representation is not.

I applaud your efforts in maintaining this article, more specifically your support of a more logical breakdown in decktypes by archetype, while fending off every random sort of deck (mill deck/token deck), since there are probably hundreds of decktypes by that nature. But, I still contest your use of this very specific archetype interpretation which is not widely held. Again, wikipedia is not an appropriate platform for forwarding ideas that are not generally accepted. Crimson30 20:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I must agree, most professional Magic players do not consider "Midgame Deck" to be a standard term, and in 10 years of casual and tournament play, I have never heard of such a thing until I read this article. To me, it seems like a midgame deck is actually a variation on Aggro-control, where you use Wildfire and similar cards to prevent the opponent from establishing his monsters on the board while you put down more powerful monsters of your own.

I cannot do this other than the original source or my own after much researching. Colloquially, I can only find 'midgamish', 'midrange', and the popular "Rockish" or "reminiscent of The Rock" sparsely scattered when sources correctly reference the archetype. Even though Rumbling Slum+Wildfire.dec, Spiritmonger+Pernicious Deed.dec, Ghazi-Glare, Secret Force, and Rebels are as midgame as you'll find, the archetype is simply mislabeled by players because it's rarely tournament viable so its theories aren't widely studied, explored, or embraced. Midgame cards must be powered up beyond belief like Loxodon Hierarch and Flametongue Kavu for players to take notice, and then they are played simply for power level alone (for example, Selesnya is a midgame guild, but tons of decks just use its Hierarch). I suppose one could confuse midgame with aggro-control, except that aggro-control is a low curve 'deploy and protect' ultimatum while midgame is a high curve 'build/stall then smash' strat; I suppose they are somewhat backwards in execution. Control has a 'react, defense, disrupt' mantra. Aggro has a 'die, die, die right now' mentality. Delete the article if you please. These Magic theories make perfect sense to me but being correct is not the goal of Wikipedia, it's to be encyclopedic. I'm more than sick of contributing towards thoroughness and getting AfD'd. I was more than happy to read everything Wikipedia offered on Origin of Life and End of the Universe, such fascinating topics, and I would have gladly read more theories if they were presented. Infinite space and easy searching don't seem conducive to trimming content when good organization and linking allows that content to still exist. I am simply at odds with the underlying philosophy of Wikipedia, so my contributions have nearly halted. I now use it for reference only. NorrYtt 20:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

While you are correct in that the Rock, for instance, is an entirely different type of aggro-control (which is typified more by the likes of UG madness), I'm afraid that there is little or no distinction in popular terminology and I believe that the article should more accurately reflect the current magic lexicon than what is more of a pet theory (correct or not). I will make what I hope to be appropriate edits, but will go ahead and make mention of some of your points under aggro-control. I would be very interested in your thoughts on my revisions. And please don't take any of this personally. As I said before, I do appreciate your edits. I believe the transition of this article to its present form (archetype based) is your work and I believe wikipedia and the magic community owe you a debt in that regard. Crimson30 23:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Whateva. Zvi didn't play River Boa, the best 2-drop in the format, in his famous My Fires deck [3], and the reason he gives, in so many words, is that it doesn't fit into the mold of the midgame archetype, which My Fires clearly is. 2005 Worlds era Ghazi-Glare [4] doesn't play Watchwolf for the same reasons. Decks like the U/R Wildfire+Keiga midgame deck have further bastardized what players perceive a 'control' deck to be, where Remand and Mana Leak are really tempo cards to fight toward the midgame bombs, not true control cards. It's not personal. I tried. I'm sick of debates. Go nuts. NorrYtt 16:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Decktypes

I did a minor overhaul with the archetype examples. I believe that anyone who goes to this article looking for decktypes should be able to find, well... a nice breakdown of plenty of decktypes (which the article was previously weak on, IMO). I tried to stick with 5 to 6 good examples per archetype. The underrepresented archetype examples are a little more obscure than others, but I think with time, we can strive more towards the likes of the aggro section which hits home with accurate, over-arching examples that are virtually present throughout magic history. At the same time, I wouldn't want to see this article turned towards a flat list of obscure decktypes. I think the sub-articles on each archetype can cover that sort of thing.

Oh and... what does everyone think about the beginning of the article? The "Winning and Losing" section seems a bit out of place to me. Crimson30 17:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

They are DELETING ALL THE SUBARTICLES of this one. I'm sorry for all the time I wasted trying to help the community learn.

I understand your frustration. You put forth a noble effort and now the fruits of your labor are about to disappear. But, at the same time, I can see where these other folks are coming from, so I find it difficult to judge as to what really should be done.

While we're on the subject of deletion, I think it might be wise to restructure the beginning of this article (everything before 3. Archetypes) so that it reads more like an overview of types (like this) than the howto sound that it currently has ("To construct an effective deck, the player must first choose a strategy, then design the deck around it." = BAD). I'd hate to see this article nominated for deletion just because the first few parts give it any sort of "strategy-guide" feel. That and the entire "winning and losing" section doesn't fit with the article title (the article should be about archetypes, and archetypes aren't defined by these kinds of specific win conditions). In the next couple weeks, I will give it a shot, if nobody objects. In the meantime, I'm going to get some sleep, since it's about 2am where I'm at. Crimson30 08:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Away from the realm of strategy guide

I may have oversimplified things, but to help ensure survival of the article, I trimmed out a large portion of the intro and did my best to make it into more of a broadly descriptive article. Hopefully we can keep the article down to more description and observation, and away from howto. Crimson30 19:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is an AFD up now, so it might be time to put your thoughts in. Personally, I say this article is worth keeping, even if the others aren't, but I do think it needs improvement. At the least, removing most of the red-links would be very worthwhile. FrozenPurpleCube 14:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed bizarro references

The Out of Control article narrowly focused on a minor aspect of control and does little to support the opening statement. Basically, it's almost completely irrelevant.

The Counter Intelligence article did not support anything in the control section, as the article was about designing counterspells. Magic design is a completely different subject.

Again, I do not believe that the Combo Platter article is all that relevant. Again, Mr. Rosewater is talking about design and doesn't really go much into combo as a whole. -Crimson30 19:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you asked, I'm going to explain why I included those three Ref's. The first, Out of Control, I included because it described all three of the basic deck types, all in one place, which I think is a useful, if not perfect source, for this article. (see the Rock Paper Scissors section) If you can find a better one, feel free to replace it, I'll be quite glad to see it replaced, but until then, I ask that you leave this references. I added the other two for the same reason, since they were describing the function within the game, from a very reputable source. Anyway, I'll just add the first back in, since it's the only one I'd say is really essential at the moment. FrozenPurpleCube 04:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I see. I looked around and sadly enough, there aren't any focused articles on the subject. It's just mentioned minorly in many articles. But, true enough, that article does lend credit to the concept of this entire article, so I guess it's worth keeping until something better comes along. Crimson30 19:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Math

Just the mathemetician in me - The first line is inaccurate and a mispreprsentation of the math involved. 2000 cards (assuming this based on the "thousands") in decks of 60 results in 153 sextrigintillion possible permutations (1.53*10^114). I am altering the wording of this sentence. Matt 17:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically, there are around 8000 "unique" cards right now, but not all possible permutations are valid by the game rules, so you can't just plug in a simple analysis, but would have to find a way to account for invalid combinations, and even that wouldn't even cover sanity in deck construction. But I do see your point, I just don't think it's wise to throw out that number as if it had meaning. FrozenPurpleCube 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Relic Orb / deck types vs. list of decknames

I removed "Relic Orb" under combo-control. While use of the Relic Barrier/Winter Orb soft lock goes back about decade, the deckname "Relic Orb" seems to date back to use in legacy since about 2005. The deck (in name) is VERY obscure and I don't think it deserves much of a spot with the rest, which are much more well-known examples which span various metas over the years. The point of the deck examples is to provide just enough clear and popular examples to elegantly illustrate the archetypes. Listing hordes of decklists is not the goal here, since it's a slippery slope leading to nothing more than a large list of decknames. If you want to create a comprehensive list of decks/decknames, please create another article, as this is primarily about decktypes, not a list of decknames. --Crimson30 00:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Tribal Aggro?

I was wondering why no mention of tribal decks is made. I understand that the different tribal decks could be considered midgame since they usually do best later on, but I feel that the distinction should be made. Since some of the Magic blocks, such as Onslaught, seem to focus on specific creature types such as clerics or goblins, shouldn't that fact at least be mentioned? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kage-Lupus (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Hmm, I could get behind the "Tribal" type of deck, as a seperate idea from the Tribal-format, though in some cases such decks are aggro, in others combo or control, so I wouldn't put them into any of the categories directly. But I can sorta see it as a possible section. Want to write a sample of how you'd put it out? FrozenPurpleCube 17:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like this- Tribal decks are decks that focus on (usually) one creature type. The most common creature types are goblins for red, wizards for blue, elves for green, zombies for black and clerics for white. The Onslaught block introduced a number of tribal-themed creatures, including the 5 avatars, each one being as strong as the number of a certain creature type in play and a large number of creatures of the aforementioned types. There are also a number of spells like Defensive Manuevers and Goblin Warstrike that are tribal-themed... I could add some more examples but that is a basic idea of it. so whatd do you think? Kage-Lupus 11:52, 19 December

That would seem more appropriate for an article on the Tribal-format, or the Onslaught block, rather than this article on deck-types. Maybe it would be better to describe it there, and link to it in this article? FrozenPurpleCube 17:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Tribal decks are just creature decks, which can be anything. For example, I have a Cephalid deck that wins (eventually) with Mortal Combat, making it Control-Combo I guess. The fact that it's got 24 some odd Cephalids in it doesn't change its archetype (Aggro, Combo, Control). There's some interesting tribal properties, for example, in the fact that most modern Goblin and Elf decks bell-curve ridiculously based on their tribal count. I have a Forest deck with Blanchwood Armors, Uktabi Wildcats, and Beacons of Creation that mechanically functions like a 'tribal' deck for Forests, in that the more Forests in play, the better everything else is. Ravager Affinity is basically tribal for Artifacts at its core. While Tribal decks are popular, I equate tribal to a 'theme' and not an archetype like those described in the article.NorrYtt 23:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite?

I notice that the article use the abrreviation for the colors, such as B for black, W for white, U for blue, R for red, and G for green. Does anybody think that we should change that to the actual words? I know what it means but I dont think that everybody would. It just seems kinda of an "in" thing and people who don't play alot of magic or know alot about it will end up scratching their heads. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kage-Lupus (talk • contribs)

You are corect, that should be changed, and the dead links removed. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. FrozenPurpleCube 19:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably not a bad call on the color named decks, but just a note: people don't/didn't say Pro Tour Junk. The deck is/was referred to as "Pee-Tee" Junk. Crimson30 20:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's important for anybody who doesn't know the meaning to have it explained for them. It's not a common abbreviation, y'know? FrozenPurpleCube 20:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup?

Is the cleanup tag still necessary? I think it was originally added because of all the dead links, so perhaps it should be removed now that they've been de-linked? The tag isn't specific on what to cleanup up (IAW WP:CU). -Crimson30 15:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I removed the cleanup. This article could still use some work, but it's not THAT bad. SnowFire 20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I like most of your changes, but I changed back most of the aggro-control text, as the sentence "Attempts have been made to class the more control-aggro forms into a completely different archetype..." isn't really clear without the text you replaced. I think the specific elaborations of UG madness and the Rock provide a much more clear explanation of the two sides of aggro-control.

Also I like the direction you took with the intro, but tweaked it just a bit. The word "strategy" seems to touch off AfDers, for one. --Crimson30 21:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Colour decks

I've only just become interested in Magic, but the impression I received from the people I know who play is that decks are primarily designed around colour, rather than tactics, to enable cards to be played more easily. Is that non-standard, am I getting confused, or what? me_and 09:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, this isn't really a forum for discussing how to play magic or construct decks. Perhaps you might try wizards.com's message boards if you want advice? The best explanation I feel comfortable giving is that due to the resource limitation of lands, it's usually easier to play within a single color. FrozenPurpleCube 14:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Deck designers have to work within the confines of color, but that doesn't mean that color is the starting point. It's the cards (and overall deck ideas) that are the starting point. A good psychatog deck doesn't really come about from someone wanting to make a black-blue deck. It's a deck pretty much inspired by one card: Psychatog (that's not to say Psychatog can't be squeezed into black-blue decks like Ichorid). Food Chain Goblins certainly didn't start as some guy wanting to make a red-green deck, it was just a matter of adding green for Food Chain to a deck inspired by good goblin cards. Due to the inherent card design concepts, colors do lend themselves to strategies (particularly in the case of blue). But when you put together a traditional "blue deck", whether you realize it or not, you're generally putting a control deck together (unless you're just making a total pile, that is). You might think: "Oh, but I made this red-green deck with Kird Apes and stuff purely based on color, simply by adding good red-green cards.", but if you made a competitive deck at all, you have to realize that you didn't just put good red-green cards in it, you put good red-green aggro cards in. You're not going to stick cards from Dragonstorm in there because they don't fit the deck (strategy).

For instance, back in Odyssey block, there were basically 3 big decks: Mono-black, UG Madness and WG Madness (discounting variations like Threshold or Quiet Roar, etc... and less played decks like UW Birds). By name, you might think that color was the main idea behind all the deck construction in OBC, but really, it wasn't so much. If you take the madness decks, you see that it was just a matter of fitting in a supplement of the most efficient cards workable in a stable mana base (to add to the green madness critters). And each had a slightly different playtsyle. In the case of Mono-black, it was just a matter of building decks around a set of good cards that happened to be in the same color and happened to all work best in a mono color deck (Shade, Mutilate, Mind Sludge, etc).

So, given a limited number of cards, you might very well build decks based on color, but those aren't usually going to be great decks. You can't just put the best cards together and get a good deck. There needs to be some other focus. Some cohesion. There might be some exceptions, but for the most part, decks are built on top of some strategy or set of cards (that might very well be in the same color). As a beginner, surrounded by other beginners, you might not actually get to see a good deck in action that is built from top to bottom, but you'll run into some good magic players eventually and learn more clearly what I'm talking about. It's only a matter of time before you see that decks are best built around ideas than colors. --Crimson30 21:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This article's subject matter transcends color. Any color or combination of colors can house these deck types. Think of Chess, where I use my Knight to simultaneously attack your Rook and check your King. You have to move your King out of check, so I capture your Rook. This move is called a 'fork'. Sure your piece is a Knight, but the move and setups for it form a strategy called forking, and any piece can fork. We could call this a 'Knight Fork' strategy, wherein Magic it might be called a 'Red Combo' deck. The strategy is a combo, say Dragonstorm, and the pieces are red cards. NorrYtt 19:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm depressed...

...that Jeff Cunningham actually quoted this article in his own on MtG.com. If he is the guru, why is he citing a bunch of rank amateurs like us?? (I'm also amused that, because we forgot to work the land-destruction / discard / Millstone archetypes in [which I just added], the official MtG site is incomplete!) ~Marblespire (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's awesome because he was quoting me! :D NorrYtt (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Aggro-control-combo" and "alternate win"

I removed these sections because I don't think that any of those decks are best characterized as "aggro-control-combo." Full English Breakfast, for instance, is clearly a combo deck. Alternative win decks are just combo decks like Tooth and Nail. Croctotheface (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

I have some issues with the recent changes, as I've described in edit summaries. For one, there are a few cases (and I've addressed some of these with my edits, but I suspect that I may just get reverted) with using terms like "inevitability" which are way too jargony for the general audience that Wikipedia articles are designed for. Second, the recent edits place way too much emphasis on the opinions of the handful of writers we're citing here. For instance, the notion that aggro is "strategically primitive" is not the only valid opinion on the subject; I suspect that there are many out there who would argue that control is as its heart more primitive, especially when successful control decks existed before the Sligh deck came along. That's also better now, as I've attributed that opinion (which also avoids what was arguably plagiarism in that Cunningham's words had been used verbatim without quotes and with only an end-of-paragraph cite). Beyond that, I'm troubled by the fact that Bluemage hasn't actually answered any of my concerns with his version, he just accused me of bad faith right off the bat. Blue, let's talk about the article here. I suspect that we should be able to hash out what kind of stuff should go in and go out. I am assuming good faith here, and I expect that you'll be willing to work together, in the collaborative fashion that Wikipedia is founded on, to figure out what points to bring up and which to leave aside. Croctotheface (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to work in good faith, then the first thing you need to do is stop reverting without talking about what needs to be changed first. If you don't like the edit, you should try to fix what you see as problems, rather than just undoing.

If you feel that we place too much emphasis on these writers, then by all means find other writers that have different viewpoints. If you do not, however, then leave the information there as it does actually have references. Information from a few references is better than information with no references.

As for your specific points, I'll work on removing jargony terms. Feel free to point out others besides "inevitability". The notion that aggro is strategically primitive does not refer to primitive in the chronological sense, but in the evolutinary sense; aggro strategies are following the most basic path to victory that Magic offers (beating your opponent with creatures). Secondly, Sligh is most assuredly not the first aggro deck in existence, even if it was the most effective ever developed when it was conceived.

Bluemage55 (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just generally, upon looking at your recent spate of edits, I do not see any attempt to actually work with me on anything. You reverted away from the version that, correctly, attributed opinion to Jeff Cunningham. Your version stated his opinion with the voice of the encyclopedia and without quotes around the material lifted from his article. It's puzzling to me that you would criticize me for "just undoing" when your solution seems to be to "just undo" my modifications to the "Aggro" section, which was a good faith rewrite and not a revert. If you are not willing to work together, then we can just bandy our versions back and forth in a revert war, but that's not going to improve the article.

I understand that you're new here, and you may be unaccustomed to working within this kind of collaborative structure. However, if you're going to operate with the assumption that nothing you do can be modified by someone else, if you revert to your version and then change it yourself, even when you acknowledge it has problems, rather than make a good faith effort to work from someone else's, then I question whether this is really the place for you. Croctotheface (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I merely undid your malicious reverts. Don't pretend like you made a modifiication and I undid it. You blatantly copied most of the material you had on before and replaced the steamlined and referenced content I provided. On a secondary point, the attribution to Jeff Cunningham already exists within the attached citation, and it is unnecessary to include "Jeff Cunningham belives" unless you are asserting that it is a mere opinion.

Bluemage55 (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't think you're going to want to stay here very long if you're going to be saying things like "your malicious reverts." Obviously, we have a difference of opinion about which version is better. We could just revert back and forth and not improve the article, or we could discuss the matter until we find a version we both agree is better. If you're not interested in discussion, then I don't think you're going to like Wikipedia very much. Regarding Jeff Cunningham, his opinion _is_ opinion, and that's why it should be attributed to him within the text. Croctotheface (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've invited you to actually point out the things that you think require fixing, rather than repeatedly repasting your old version. I've also integrated those parts of your revision which were actual additions, rather than blatant deletion. It's very obvious from even a quick perusal of your history what kind of "discussions" you like to have. If you insist on condecension and false pretenses of taking the moral high ground, I don't think you're going to like working on this article very much.

On the matter of Jeff Cunningham, you're simply failing to understand how the citation process works. In the wikipedia entry on dogs, we don't attribute every single fact as the "opinion" of the author whichever source we derived it from. The only time you put "in the opinion of ____", is if the information is in fact disupted by multiple authorities. If you can find alternative sources of equal or greater legitmacy than the articles already provided, then by all means I would be happy to rephrase it as such. Otherwise, you have no basis to assert it is "opinion" except that you personally disagree.

Bluemage55 (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to believe that it's up to you to decide what of my content should or should not be included. In reality, you just revert me, then you go back and realize that some of my stuff was good, so you put some of it in. That's not really collaborative editing. Again, my expectation is that you won't like it here very much if you start with the presumption that you're in charge of the article and anyone's changes need to be routed through you first.

Regarding Cunningham, you seem to be confused about the difference between fact and opinion. The notion that aggro is "more primitive" is certainly opinion, so it should be attributed. We need not attribute facts, but the material there is not entirely factual; there's plenty of opinion mixed in, so it needs to be attributed. Croctotheface (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple links to a card in a section

I'd removed duplicate links to a single card in each section, under the same logic that similar wikilinks are avoided: if the reader wishes to know the relevant information, they have an easy opportunity to at the first instance. If necessary, I can drag up which guideline exactly states it, but I believe it's somewhere in the manual of style. Is there any reason to duplicate card-links in a section? Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)