The old one seems to be abandoned in the article, and I'm thinking of writing a new one. But I'm also wondering what makes the cut as a viable archetype?
For example, SoI introduced Clues in bant colours. There is a lot of support for them, with generic spells having clues tacked on, and cards that specifically refrence clues with a pay off (such as milling on clue crack, making a token, making clues when you deal combat damage, etc). Would that be enough for a full archetype? Or would splitting artifacts up into an artifact aggro deck ala Modern Masters and the big stuff artifact deck be useful or relevant?
Are specific tribes worth mentioning or am I better off just saying "lords and utility" with one tribe providing an example of what to look for in each?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For example, SoI introduced Clues in bant colours. There is a lot of support for them, with generic spells having clues tacked on, and cards that specifically refrence clues with a pay off (such as milling on clue crack, making a token, making clues when you deal combat damage, etc). Would that be enough for a full archetype? Or would splitting artifacts up into an artifact aggro deck ala Modern Masters and the big stuff artifact deck be useful or relevant?
Are specific tribes worth mentioning or am I better off just saying "lords and utility" with one tribe providing an example of what to look for in each?