I'm trying to work on categorizing some past limited archetypes in previous sets to help in understanding set-design with Wizards.
I want to start with Theros because it comes after the Guild-heavy RTR block and has the first consistent rounds of 10 gold uncommons to send "signals" on the archetypes.
I'm trying to be short and specific as much as possible, but still accurate in describing the depth of the archetype.
Any help would be appreciated.
THEROS-
WU: Heroic (How to distinguish from GW?)
UB: Control.
BR: Minotaur, Aggro.
RG: Monsters.
GW: Heroic (How to distinguish from WU?)
WB: Control? Grind?
UR: Spells Matter.
BG: Graveyard? Some Enchantment matters.
RW: Heroic? Aggro?
GU: Tempo? Ramp? Monstrous?
The addition of Born of the Gods and Journey into Nyx changed the relative standings of different colors, but I don't remember any radical shifts in archetype.
TARKIR-
The limited draft was to move into an enemy-color pair and then splash another color for each clan, but there were some sub-themes. Like BW Warriors.
BATTLE FOR ZENDIKAR-
WU: Awaken was in this color, but the archetype really was just WU Skies.
UB: Eldrazi (More control/grind. Ingest)
BR: Eldrazi (Aggro)
RG: Aggro, landfall.
GW: Allies.
WB: Midrange, Lifegain Allies.
UR: Eldrazi (Aggro).
BG: Eldrazi (Tokens/Scrifice).
RW: Allies (Aggro).
GU: Was supposed to be converge, but weak theme.
I actually fell off from drafting with Oath came out, so I'm not able to comment on how that shifted the archetypes. UW got disorganized. UR picked up Surge, as its the common "spells matter" pair. WB was more explicitly allies.
Would appreciate any help in this project.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
----- "I cannot tune a harp or play a lyre, but I know how to make a small city great." - Themistocles
Those two were the most clearly defined. I think you can also make arguments for RW "Go wide" aggro, UR Spells matter and BG toughness matters. There were also supposed to be allied-color archetypes woven into the format for players to discover, like RG Bearpunch.
BFZ:
UW: I beg to differ a little bit. It was a skies deck to be sure, but Awaken was more deeply rooted in UW than any other color combination, and Halimar Tidecaller was at its best in UW. I think the best UW decks were running powerful Awaken spells and Tidecaller when you were fortunate enough to have one in the pod.
UR: I think this was more of an Eldrazi Midrange deck than Eldrazi aggro. It depends on exactly which cards you ended up with of course, but if we take the gold uncommons as guides, Herald of Kozilek is not an aggro creature. This was the "colorless matters" take on the Eldrazi theme, in contrast to UB which you point out was based around Ingest/Process.
Well, I can tell you what the archetypes for RTR were
Also, does anyone see stuff in SOI? I mean, probably of course the R/B Madness/Vampires deck, and the other allied tribe colors look to be there, but what archetypes do they all look to fit into?
Also, the differences in Theros' Heroic for WG, WR, WU were matters of scale -- WG built single, huge creatures (eg Setessan Oathsworn), WR was a more varied, wide approach (Akroan Crusader), and WU had more heroic creatures but they did less combat-focused things (Meletis Astronomer, Wavecrash Triton). WU Heroic as an all-in aggro deck was far more the Constructed beast, and Battlewise Hoplite was the main blue creature played -- blue mostly had killer unblockability spells. Also note that most of the crucial Heroic components were in mono-white (Favored Hoplite, Phalanx Leader, Wingsteed Rider, Akroan Skyguard), so the supporting color might've determined less how the deck would've played out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes... Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
- understanding set design;
Is nothing coherent above the most basic stuff from the color pie, everything more advanced than that has no coherence. Jace pops up every 2nd set, if not more(but what does that have to do with set design idk =)). To give you an idea I'd say that the word "design" isn't so much relevant as the word "card making" is...
As it is with mtg generally, people try to read more into stuff than what is possible...
Those two were the most clearly defined. I think you can also make arguments for RW "Go wide" aggro, UR Spells matter and BG toughness matters. There were also supposed to be allied-color archetypes woven into the format for players to discover, like RG Bearpunch.
Yeah I thought a little bit about going deeper into Tarkir, but it gets so messy. Plus when you get to Dragons it goes sideways and you're seeing the five allied-colored archetypes more.
BFZ:
UW: I beg to differ a little bit. It was a skies deck to be sure, but Awaken was more deeply rooted in UW than any other color combination, and Halimar Tidecaller was at its best in UW. I think the best UW decks were running powerful Awaken spells and Tidecaller when you were fortunate enough to have one in the pod.
I think that's true! When it came together it came together well. Otherwise you were left with a half-Awaken deck with insufficient power.
UR: I think this was more of an Eldrazi Midrange deck than Eldrazi aggro. It depends on exactly which cards you ended up with of course, but if we take the gold uncommons as guides, Herald of Kozilek is not an aggro creature. This was the "colorless matters" take on the Eldrazi theme, in contrast to UB which you point out was based around Ingest/Process.
Yeah, I wasn't entirely sure when to push something over into the Midrange vs. Aggro category.
It would be nice to be able to categorize everything into Aggro/Midrange/Control, with maybe an "Other" for unusual spins on the situation, plus a modifier of what mechanic you're revolving around (ex. Heroic, Eldrazi, Minotaur, etc.).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
----- "I cannot tune a harp or play a lyre, but I know how to make a small city great." - Themistocles
Well, I can tell you what the archetypes for RTR were
Also, does anyone see stuff in SOI? I mean, probably of course the R/B Madness/Vampires deck, and the other allied tribe colors look to be there, but what archetypes do they all look to fit into?
I'm seeing an argument for Black-Green delirium, but also that White has better delirium payoff cards. I don't know if I see the enablers in White though. Getting up to four will be tough in Limited I think, but we'll see.
Quick thoughts:
WU- ETB Skies/Spirits.
UB- Zombies/Graveyard.
BR- Vampires/Madness/Aggro.
RG- Werewolves Aggro.
GW- Humans, and I think this may be GWx.
WB- Tokens go wide, Slulk. (Spirits, Zombies, Clerics).
UR- Spells matter.
BG- Delirium
RW- Some people say equipment. I guess maybe it's a Voltron Aggro.
GU- Investigate isn't a winning strategy it's a route to finding the cards you need to win. I want to say this may have the best interactions with DFC, but again how is that a win?
Also, the differences in Theros' Heroic for WG, WR, WU were matters of scale -- WG built single, huge creatures (eg Setessan Oathsworn), WR was a more varied, wide approach (Akroan Crusader), and WU had more heroic creatures but they did less combat-focused things (Meletis Astronomer, Wavecrash Triton). WU Heroic as an all-in aggro deck was far more the Constructed beast, and Battlewise Hoplite was the main blue creature played -- blue mostly had killer unblockability spells. Also note that most of the crucial Heroic components were in mono-white (Favored Hoplite, Phalanx Leader, Wingsteed Rider, Akroan Skyguard), so the supporting color might've determined less how the deck would've played out.
I think it's interesting when you get differences in strategies. For example. WG in Theros was building a single, huge creature. WR was going wide. Now in Shadows of Innistrad I think we've flipped it. WR looks more like building huge creatures, and WG is going wide. WG was also going wide in RTR.
Starting in Theros, all monocolor sets (except Shadows Over Innistrad) have all had a single uncommon for each 2-color combination that pretty explicitly states what a deck of those 2 colors is supposed to be doing in limited. A quick search for these cards should tell you all you want to know.
A better question would be "which sets are well-designed?". As a rule of thumb, the well-designed sets are the ones where a good deck's direction is not decided by its colors.
A better question would be "which sets are well-designed?". As a rule of thumb, the well-designed sets are the ones where a good deck's direction is not decided by its colors.
But the colors of the deck decide those last cards (the decks direction) that should be put into the deck, you should not put 6xSwamps into a RG deck to play the best black cards, because the mana base become too bad then, right ?
Or do you mean that the best sets should have lands that produce R/G/B/U/W/1 (almost) all of them ?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I want to start with Theros because it comes after the Guild-heavy RTR block and has the first consistent rounds of 10 gold uncommons to send "signals" on the archetypes.
I'm trying to be short and specific as much as possible, but still accurate in describing the depth of the archetype.
Any help would be appreciated.
THEROS-
WU: Heroic (How to distinguish from GW?)
UB: Control.
BR: Minotaur, Aggro.
RG: Monsters.
GW: Heroic (How to distinguish from WU?)
WB: Control? Grind?
UR: Spells Matter.
BG: Graveyard? Some Enchantment matters.
RW: Heroic? Aggro?
GU: Tempo? Ramp? Monstrous?
The addition of Born of the Gods and Journey into Nyx changed the relative standings of different colors, but I don't remember any radical shifts in archetype.
TARKIR-
The limited draft was to move into an enemy-color pair and then splash another color for each clan, but there were some sub-themes. Like BW Warriors.
BATTLE FOR ZENDIKAR-
WU: Awaken was in this color, but the archetype really was just WU Skies.
UB: Eldrazi (More control/grind. Ingest)
BR: Eldrazi (Aggro)
RG: Aggro, landfall.
GW: Allies.
WB: Midrange, Lifegain Allies.
UR: Eldrazi (Aggro).
BG: Eldrazi (Tokens/Scrifice).
RW: Allies (Aggro).
GU: Was supposed to be converge, but weak theme.
I actually fell off from drafting with Oath came out, so I'm not able to comment on how that shifted the archetypes. UW got disorganized. UR picked up Surge, as its the common "spells matter" pair. WB was more explicitly allies.
Would appreciate any help in this project.
"I cannot tune a harp or play a lyre, but I know how to make a small city great." - Themistocles
Tarkir:
BW: Warrior tribal of course
UG: Morph
Those two were the most clearly defined. I think you can also make arguments for RW "Go wide" aggro, UR Spells matter and BG toughness matters. There were also supposed to be allied-color archetypes woven into the format for players to discover, like RG Bearpunch.
BFZ:
UW: I beg to differ a little bit. It was a skies deck to be sure, but Awaken was more deeply rooted in UW than any other color combination, and Halimar Tidecaller was at its best in UW. I think the best UW decks were running powerful Awaken spells and Tidecaller when you were fortunate enough to have one in the pod.
UR: I think this was more of an Eldrazi Midrange deck than Eldrazi aggro. It depends on exactly which cards you ended up with of course, but if we take the gold uncommons as guides, Herald of Kozilek is not an aggro creature. This was the "colorless matters" take on the Eldrazi theme, in contrast to UB which you point out was based around Ingest/Process.
Also, does anyone see stuff in SOI? I mean, probably of course the R/B Madness/Vampires deck, and the other allied tribe colors look to be there, but what archetypes do they all look to fit into?
Also, the differences in Theros' Heroic for WG, WR, WU were matters of scale -- WG built single, huge creatures (eg Setessan Oathsworn), WR was a more varied, wide approach (Akroan Crusader), and WU had more heroic creatures but they did less combat-focused things (Meletis Astronomer, Wavecrash Triton). WU Heroic as an all-in aggro deck was far more the Constructed beast, and Battlewise Hoplite was the main blue creature played -- blue mostly had killer unblockability spells. Also note that most of the crucial Heroic components were in mono-white (Favored Hoplite, Phalanx Leader, Wingsteed Rider, Akroan Skyguard), so the supporting color might've determined less how the deck would've played out.
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
Is nothing coherent above the most basic stuff from the color pie, everything more advanced than that has no coherence. Jace pops up every 2nd set, if not more(but what does that have to do with set design idk =)). To give you an idea I'd say that the word "design" isn't so much relevant as the word "card making" is...
As it is with mtg generally, people try to read more into stuff than what is possible...
Yeah I thought a little bit about going deeper into Tarkir, but it gets so messy. Plus when you get to Dragons it goes sideways and you're seeing the five allied-colored archetypes more.
I think that's true! When it came together it came together well. Otherwise you were left with a half-Awaken deck with insufficient power.
Yeah, I wasn't entirely sure when to push something over into the Midrange vs. Aggro category.
It would be nice to be able to categorize everything into Aggro/Midrange/Control, with maybe an "Other" for unusual spins on the situation, plus a modifier of what mechanic you're revolving around (ex. Heroic, Eldrazi, Minotaur, etc.).
"I cannot tune a harp or play a lyre, but I know how to make a small city great." - Themistocles
I'm seeing an argument for Black-Green delirium, but also that White has better delirium payoff cards. I don't know if I see the enablers in White though. Getting up to four will be tough in Limited I think, but we'll see.
Quick thoughts:
WU- ETB Skies/Spirits.
UB- Zombies/Graveyard.
BR- Vampires/Madness/Aggro.
RG- Werewolves Aggro.
GW- Humans, and I think this may be GWx.
WB- Tokens go wide, Slulk. (Spirits, Zombies, Clerics).
UR- Spells matter.
BG- Delirium
RW- Some people say equipment. I guess maybe it's a Voltron Aggro.
GU- Investigate isn't a winning strategy it's a route to finding the cards you need to win. I want to say this may have the best interactions with DFC, but again how is that a win?
I think it's interesting when you get differences in strategies. For example. WG in Theros was building a single, huge creature. WR was going wide. Now in Shadows of Innistrad I think we've flipped it. WR looks more like building huge creatures, and WG is going wide. WG was also going wide in RTR.
For Theros, could this work?
WG: Heroic Aggro Voltron.
WR: Heroic Aggro Wide.
WU: Heroic Midrange.
"I cannot tune a harp or play a lyre, but I know how to make a small city great." - Themistocles
But in either case, looking at prior to SOI.
"I cannot tune a harp or play a lyre, but I know how to make a small city great." - Themistocles
I am not saying that the archetypes are effective or very clear (GU in Origins, anyone?), but that is the specific intent behind the cycle.
Arguing that the archetypes are poorly done is one thing. Arguing that the archetypes are not represented by the Uncommon cycle is another entirely.
A better question would be "which sets are well-designed?". As a rule of thumb, the well-designed sets are the ones where a good deck's direction is not decided by its colors.
But the colors of the deck decide those last cards (the decks direction) that should be put into the deck, you should not put 6xSwamps into a RG deck to play the best black cards, because the mana base become too bad then, right ?
Or do you mean that the best sets should have lands that produce R/G/B/U/W/1 (almost) all of them ?