This is a meta-post, but I'm trying to sort through categorization of Modern decks through multiple different measurements.
For example, the forum transition from listing Modern decks from Tiers to Archetype was one way of categorizing decks.
Some decks are very up front about the fact that they revolve around one key card, like Hollow One. WOTC doesn't print that, and the deck doesn't exist. In contrast, there are some decks that are more about the interactions between a color's fundamental portion of the color pie. Green's Stompy is on this end of the spectrum, it's about its curving out and not one key card, but it's open to new cards as they are printed (Rhonas the Indomitable and Steel Leaf Champion as recent additions). Across the parrallel universes, something like Stompy exists and isn't dependent on one single card.
Stompy is also a good example of a deck that isn't dependent around one concept or card that WOTC has decided not to make again. WOTC isn't going to make anything like the Urzatron again, and until they had Karn Liberated or Emrakul, the Aeons Torn the threat of a bunch of colorless mana a few turns in wasn't that big of a threat. It's clear today WOTC wants to avoid colorless bombs in new sets, although isn't always successful, a number of the Eldrazi decks are making use of BFZ and Oath cards, as well as Emrakul, the Promised End.
Does thinking about decks like this make any sense to anyone else?
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
deck naming conventions are often pretty telling. if a specific card or mechanic is featured in a deck name its safe to assume that the cards or mechanics are essential for the deck existing in the first place. there are also tribal decks.
there are still some deck names that are relics of the past such as zoo, ponza, death and taxes, and affinity; which dont describe much.
some decks rely heavily on synergies, while others dont. when ban mania was at its highest point it got to where a common recommendation was to choose/play a deck that didnt lean exclusively on one card or interaction; because if the deck ever brought attention to itself the namesake card would be banned and the deck would vanish from existence whereas a deck that was more generic could weather such a blow.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
It also seems to blur the line between linear decks and your standard list of “good cards that combine fairly well.”
Take Affinity for example. That deck is named after a mechanic which currently NONE of its played cards have. If anything, it should be called Metalcraft, I guess. The deck jams tons of artifacts that are largely interchangeable each game, but they all require artifacts to be good. That’s a far cry from something like Jund, which jams powerful interactive spells, with some but not massive Synergy. Or Living End, which is built around one specific two card interaction that is absurdly broken when it goes off. Where both Living End and Affinity are linear, a ban on Living End would kill Living End, while losing Mox Opal would hurt Affinity, but no destroy it.
some decks rely heavily on synergies, while others dont. when ban mania was at its highest point it got to where a common recommendation was to choose/play a deck that didnt lean exclusively on one card or interaction; because if the deck ever brought attention to itself the namesake card would be banned and the deck would vanish from existence whereas a deck that was more generic could weather such a blow.
Yeah, and there's some sort of range to how that relates between the deck and new sets. Because the decks that lean heavily on one namesake card or interaction are less likely to be impacted by new sets, while the Jund decks are always looking at what the best powerful interactive spell would be out of new sets.
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
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For example, the forum transition from listing Modern decks from Tiers to Archetype was one way of categorizing decks.
Some decks are very up front about the fact that they revolve around one key card, like Hollow One. WOTC doesn't print that, and the deck doesn't exist. In contrast, there are some decks that are more about the interactions between a color's fundamental portion of the color pie. Green's Stompy is on this end of the spectrum, it's about its curving out and not one key card, but it's open to new cards as they are printed (Rhonas the Indomitable and Steel Leaf Champion as recent additions). Across the parrallel universes, something like Stompy exists and isn't dependent on one single card.
Stompy is also a good example of a deck that isn't dependent around one concept or card that WOTC has decided not to make again. WOTC isn't going to make anything like the Urzatron again, and until they had Karn Liberated or Emrakul, the Aeons Torn the threat of a bunch of colorless mana a few turns in wasn't that big of a threat. It's clear today WOTC wants to avoid colorless bombs in new sets, although isn't always successful, a number of the Eldrazi decks are making use of BFZ and Oath cards, as well as Emrakul, the Promised End.
Does thinking about decks like this make any sense to anyone else?
"I cannot tune a harp or play a lyre, but I know how to make a small city great." - Themistocles
there are still some deck names that are relics of the past such as zoo, ponza, death and taxes, and affinity; which dont describe much.
some decks rely heavily on synergies, while others dont. when ban mania was at its highest point it got to where a common recommendation was to choose/play a deck that didnt lean exclusively on one card or interaction; because if the deck ever brought attention to itself the namesake card would be banned and the deck would vanish from existence whereas a deck that was more generic could weather such a blow.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)It also seems to blur the line between linear decks and your standard list of “good cards that combine fairly well.”
Take Affinity for example. That deck is named after a mechanic which currently NONE of its played cards have. If anything, it should be called Metalcraft, I guess. The deck jams tons of artifacts that are largely interchangeable each game, but they all require artifacts to be good. That’s a far cry from something like Jund, which jams powerful interactive spells, with some but not massive Synergy. Or Living End, which is built around one specific two card interaction that is absurdly broken when it goes off. Where both Living End and Affinity are linear, a ban on Living End would kill Living End, while losing Mox Opal would hurt Affinity, but no destroy it.
Very interesting indeed.
RBGLiving EndRBG
EDH
UFblthpU
BRXantchaRB
BGVarolzGB
URWZedruuWRU
Yeah, and there's some sort of range to how that relates between the deck and new sets. Because the decks that lean heavily on one namesake card or interaction are less likely to be impacted by new sets, while the Jund decks are always looking at what the best powerful interactive spell would be out of new sets.
"I cannot tune a harp or play a lyre, but I know how to make a small city great." - Themistocles