Talk:Magic: The Gathering deck types

Aggro/Combo/Control vs. Damage/Mill/Alt-Win
I find it a little odd that no mention at all of the second triple is made in the article. Granted, Alt-Win is always Combo, and Aggro is always Damage, but there are damage-dealing combos, and Mill is a valid win-condition for Control decks (just have some Howling Mines and Fonts of Mythos on the field: the opponent gets the increased draw first, so they run out of cards to draw first). Basically, win condition is as important to deck design and play decisions as deck style is, possibly more so. Proginoskes (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a legitimate article (written by a pro, WotC official, recognized name) that suggests that magic is typically broken down into these three categories? I also have to wonder how effective it is to break down into these categories, given that few decks win by milling and few decks use alt-win conditions.  Crimson30 (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Attributing opinion
This isn't a hard issue. I don't know what the IP editor's problem is, but opinion (and that something is "primitive" is certainly opinion) needs to be attributed in the text. Stating opinion as fact violates WP:NPOV and a host of other policies and guidelines. Croctotheface (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the editors who have edited out the in-line citations. Aggro is strategically simple. That is fact. There is no more simple strategy possible than focusing on reducing the opponent's life from 20 to 0. Attributing this in the citations is sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.204.57 (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Asserting that you agree with an opinion does not make it factual. In fact, in my opinion, control is a simpler strategy because it focuses on negating threats.  As a Magic player, I also find control much simpler to play.  You could also argue that certain combo decks like Enduring Ideal or Tooth and Nail are even simpler, since their entire strategy involves around playing a single card.  But again, none of this really matters; we're dealing with Cunningham's analysis and Ben Rubin's analysis.  We can't state their analysis as fact just because you and your friend at the other IP agree with it.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything in this article is based upon the analysis of professional writers. There are no scientific journals published on magic. Even the classification of various deck types comes down to the consensus of professional writers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.10.163 (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have evidence that the two statements that I added direct attribution to represent such a broad consensus that essentially nobody would disagree with them? Even if they did, what is the harm in adding attribution to the most opinionated parts of the section?  Croctotheface (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

They probably aren't the most opinionated parts. The individual decks would likely be. It should be more or less self-evident that trying to achieve a goal is more simple than negating an opponent's attempts to achieve a goal.

It's not that I don't understand where you're coming from. On almost any other wikipedia page, your desire to have in-line citations for ideas not scientifically verified would be absolutely correct. It's just not appropriate on a page like this, where that would result in an unreadable page.

It's important to keep in mind that the two authors and articles in question are not exactly subject to debate. Both were commissioned by Wizards of the Coast for Magic's official website, and both are directed towards beginners. That's as close to undisputed fact as you can get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.10.163 (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your argument is that two in-line attributions--literally, two instances of "according to X"--make the page unreadable? The fact that the site was commissioned by Wizards holds very little weight with respect to WP:NPOV and the other policies at work here.  Croctotheface (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And actually, let me give you a slightly more detailed reply. It's true that our sources for this article are going to be ones like the ones we cite.  However, there is a big difference between different kinds of statements that we're going to source to them.  Some will be observable fact--for instance, it's simply true that nearly all aggro decks use creatures.  Maybe you could call the "lightning bolt deck" aggro, yet it doesn't really have creatures as such.  Other statements will be stuff like definitions, which might have a hint of "opinion" in there somewhere, but a wide range of sources either assert or take for granted.  For instance, it's obviously true that aggro decks are designed to be aggressive.  However, the statements I'm talking about are statements that are more much controversial.  That aggro is "primitive" or that the main strength of control is X.  This is well into analysis and opinion territory, and it's quite different from something like what "aggro" means.  We need to be clear about not simply recopying this analysis in the voice of the encyclopedia.
 * Now, truthfully, all of those deck examples could probably be deleted as original research. There are plenty of quality issues with this article, but the one that troubles me is that you seem hell bent on reverting me, despite acknowledging the merit/reasonability of my views.  Why is that?  Croctotheface (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My argument is that if you considered in-line attributions to be necessary for something as basica as this, then a consistent applications of your principles would result in a poor quality page. The fact that the citations come from *beginner* articles on Magic's official suggests that the information provided therein are non-controversial and accepted as fact, the same way that information presented in grade school textbooks would not venture into material that is not the consensus of the vast majority of their respective fields.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.10.163 (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's use proper indentation here. What I'm saying is that something like "such-and-such is simple" or "the primary strength of control is X" are clearly opinion and analysis.  All opinion and analysis should be attributed here, and that's the principle we follow in applying policies like WP:NPOV.  The other statements we're dealing with, as I've said, are not; sentences that define terms or relate concrete facts do not need attribution.  You haven't provided evidence that Cunningham's or Rubin's analysis is not controversial, but even if it were, there would need to be some kind of inline attribution for even noncontroversial opinions.  Stating any opinions with the voice of the encyclopedia violates NPOV.  Croctotheface (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem we seem to be having here is over the definition of "concrete facts". The whole point I am making is that the analysis provided by Cunningham and Rubin constitutes "concrete fact" (at least as far as can be determined for a non-scientific field like a tcg) because of the nature of their source. Articles written for the Magic Academy (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/academy/home) do not venture into the realm of controversial opinions, for the same reason that beginner instruction on any subject do not venture into the realm of controversial opinion.

Let me put it this way, is there any source of information that you could find anywhere that would form the basis of encyclopedic knowledge, if not in the beginner's section of the official Magic website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.10.163 (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "The beginner's section of the official Magic website" is actually pretty flimsy. Your argument would hold that ANYTHING Cunningham or Rubin said in their articles must be taken to be "objective fact."  All we really know is that some editor thought that Cunningham and Rubin would right interesting articles that would be helpful to beginners.  It doesn't give somehow prove their opinions or analysis are true beyond dispute.  I agree that they have some authority, but that's an argument for including them in the article, not whether to state them as fact.  The dispute here is not over inclusion; it's over whether we should attribute these analyses to their authors.  Your position is that we MUST state those opinions in the voice of the enyclopedia, despite our policies regarding NPOV and attribution.  Croctotheface (talk) 05:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. What source of information would you rely upon as the basis of factual knowledge, if not basic articles found on WotC's website? What authority are you using to determine which pieces of information in this page are controversial or not?

What makes the definition of aggro, control, and combo "objective fact"? All of these still come down to the analysis of skilled players and writers. There is nothing to differentiate the "objectiveness" of these definitions from the inclusions you are disputing, except your own opinion that they are more "controversial". If you believe those assertions are controversial, can you find reputable sources that dispute them?

My proposed line of reasoning for this page is this: information from articles from reputable websites is to be treated as fact unless there are articles with equally valid sources disputing them. They should be appropriately sourced with citations. If you have an alternative line of reasoning, please suggest it and we can debate the merits of each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.10.163 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I have trouble seeing the distinction here. I agree that "primitive" (which is actually the opinion expressed in the Cunningham article) is a more loaded word to use than "simple," but "simple" is hardly less opinionated.  Besides, my entire argument here has precisely been that the notion that aggro is simple is not "commonly accepted fact."  Croctotheface (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

More generally speaking
It's pretty clear that Bluemage55 is back, and he's either using multiple IPs himself (sockpuppetry) through a proxy or asking someone else to come in and back him up (meatpuppetry). For some reason, he has come down with a bad case of ownership of this article, to the point where he feels compelled to revert minor wording changes and insist that we not attribute opinion, either because of a personal issue with me or because he just plain doesn't want other people to edit the article. Admittedly, I haven't been saintly here; I should've made more talk page comments on this subject. However, when I tried that back when Bluemage first came to the article, he basically told me to go away and not edit his text.

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Although discussions can get heated, someone who is uninterested in collaborative editing and unwilling to allow others to edit the article will find little besides frustration here. Again, I recognize that my conduct has not been perfect, but Bluemage needs to make a choice--either be willing to discuss and compromise, or continue to ignore other editors and attempt to impose his will by force. Choosing the second path won't get him very far. Croctotheface (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It is very blatant hypocrisy for you to make accusations of ownership when you have repeatedly dropped by this article to revert to your own text despite none of the other editors having any issue with it. No one has told you to go away, in fact, citations and changes have been made to counter your points.

The fact of the matter is, Magic is a trading card game. All of the analysis of it, including the classification of deck types, is the consensus of professional players and writers. By your own logic, every single sentence of this page would need to have "According to...". That's obviously not an effective means of writing. In-line citations are not necessary and are in fact cumbersome; footnote references to reputable Magic sites, such as magicthegathering.com and starcitygames.com are sufficient to constitute fact.

Before you can get on a high horse and decry "brute force" and "refusal to compromise", why don't you try to find some people to agree with you here instead of continuously reasserting your own text?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.10.163 (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, my conduct hasn't been saintly here. However, based on the fact that you did blanket reverts, I didn't see any evidence that you regarded anyone else as qualified to edit this article but yourself.  That, coupled with your refusal to address the merits of my arguments either in edit summaries or on the talk page, plus the fact that you didn't engage in discussion the first time I tried...I figured it wasn't worth trying to reason with you.  Again, not my finest hour, but when my reward for saying "let's work together" is being called "malicious," then I kind of run out of good faith.
 * In response to one thing you said: if I find another editor who agrees with me, would you stop reverting? Or would you do something to spite me like take the sentence out entirely? Croctotheface (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Who the heck are you? This page was doing fine. Why do you keep trying to revert to some copy you wrote months ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.204.57 (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Because it's better, and because it attributes opinion. In fact, I wrote three different versions of that text, and you reverted every single one of them back to a version you wrote months ago.  Croctotheface (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What?!! I made my first edit here a week ago. All I did was undo your edits because the citations are enouugh... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.204.57 (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, you didn't sign your posts. But honestly, considering that all you've done here is argue about this obscure article and revert back to BlueMage's version, I strongly suspect that you're either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet for him.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Because anyone who disatrees with you has to be a meatpuppet. *rolls eyes* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.204.57 (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Beatdown"
Can we get a reputable citation for this being an alternative name for the aggro deck? As far as I can determine this is just a colloquial term for the subset of creature-based aggro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.10.163 (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about its usage in MtG, but as I recall Beatdown was the archetype name used for Yu-Gi-Oh decks which relied on monsters as their win condition. --BBM (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"Comment"
All the exemple decks are about vintage cards. I guess vintage players don't really need to learn about the different types of deck. It could be interesting to remake the article with today's gameplay. If someone new to magic comes here to seek inspiration for his deck I think he will loose his time because most of the cards quoted here cannot be find easily (and seriously, some cards are more than 15 years old...). And the topic of this article shouldn't be what was played 15 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.105.77 (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Any deck added eventually winds up becoming Vintage as cards rotate out, so it's no surprise that over the years the decks that have been added wind up being Vintage. Secondarily, many of the more recently edited Vintage decks reflect their state today, not 15 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.10.163 (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Mill Deck
I am relatively new to Magic, and I notice that Mill deck is missing. I believe that is a correct theme. I would add but I am not real knowledgeable yet. It seems like there are only 2 real styles listed with combos to varying degrees.


 * Hi, a Mill deck is a form of Control deck as it disrupts the opponents strategy (unless they're using a Zombie swarm startegy) as well as bringing you closer to victory. I am going to be updating this page to get rid of the ugly out-of-date tag and will consider adding Mill in under Contol. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 10:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Casual Decks
This page is created solely based on competitive MtG play. There are more Magic players that play casually than competitive players and they have several other deck types. Shouldn't these be mentioned here also.

Linkato1 (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sticking to competitive decks helps keep things concise while informing readers of competitive decks. You could add "Bear deck" to aggro, describing it as a deck full of bears, and surely somebody out there plays one, but it isn't very useful information, doesn't reflect what generally sees play, isn't part of magic history, and isn't easy to source. The same goes for creating an article on a random unknown person that lives on your street that 99.999% of the world has never heard of. It's a matter of both common sense and wikipedia policy (notability). 198.220.135.225 (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"Ramp" explanation missing
The page has no explanation for the "ramp" strategy. Page says only: "Ramp is another main strategy, however isn't as prominent as the other three." That may be, and maybe it's an inferior strategy, I don't know - but it is referenced several times, and that demands at least a short explanation. Exampe: "Midrange" is described as ramp-aggro-hybrid - that's not helpful if you don't know what ramp is. 213.209.99.170 (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ramp needs to be updated now that Eldrazi Ramp is one of the strongest deck types in both Standard and Modern.
Statements like "it is not as prominent as the other three" etc. need to be updated, and it would probably be helpful to provide a brief explanation of how the nature of the mana effects in Eldrazi decks are different from those of traditional ramp decks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.138.135.21 (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magic: The Gathering deck types. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081026073957/http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=36351.0 to http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=36351.0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Aggro-Control Definition
This is a sticky one. There's folks that say that "Tempo" doesn't mean anything and there's folks that say Aggro-Control and Tempo are the same (as this page currently does). But actually if you look at authoritative figures there seems to be if not consensus then at least strong pointers that Aggro-Control and Tempo are not the same.

Citations:

Patrick Chapin in Next Level Deckbuilding page 194

"Aggro-Control and Fish are in fact often mistaken for one another — and in the context of a particular format, the decks will often share many individual cards. In addition, especially when comparing Fish or Aggro-Control to traditional control decks, they both tend to play the beatdown, run out a threat (whether it is a Bitterblossom or a Master of the Pearl Trident), and then use their permission to hold a lead they already have. The distinction between them is that Fish / Suicide Black plays out its threats and then plays out its Time Walks, whereas Aggro-Control generally plays out its Time Walks before getting in with its threats."

Paulo Vitor Damo da Rosa in https://strategy.channelfireball.com/all-strategy/home/pvs-playhouse-aggro-control/:

"I believe the components are way less important than what they are used for. You see, any literate person can look at this decklist and see that it has counterspells and burn—that is not hard. What you probably do not know just by looking is that those elements—even the disruptive ones—are all used towards aggression, every time."

I suggest instead of:

"Aggro-control is a hybrid archetype that contains both aggressive creatures and control elements. These decks attempt to deploy quick threats while protecting them with light permission and disruption long enough to win. These are frequently referred to as "tempo" strategies, as they are built with a sense of timing. Tempo players look to control the game early and take advantage of a strong board state. Where purely control decks look to out class players with more quality in the later stages of the game, tempo looks to keep opponents off balance from the very start."

we go with:

"Aggro-Control is a deck that is situated between Aggro and Control. It contains elements of both, and uses them to change between aggression and control, depending on the matchup and the game state." (This is PV's definition from the previously linked article.

This would also mean removing (at least) Fish from the example decks.

What do you think? Bakert (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Merging Control deck (Magic: The Gathering)
Barely-sourced article which could fit into a paragraph or two here. 162 etc. (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Note that this merge was carried out per the RM at Talk:Control deck (Magic: The Gathering). 162 etc. (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)