I see what you're saying about being real careful.. I've made some modifications but hopefully I haven't lowered their power too much that they wouldn't see play.
What is the consensus on running Lodestone Golem in the sideboard for the control matchup? Affinity is a fast enough deck that it can generate 4 mana consistently on turn 3. Also, it doesn't affect any of our spells, not even Thoughtcast. The only spell I see it being an issue with is Galvanic Blast, but that doesn't feel like it even hurts the deck that much.
Just hypothetically, if lands could tap for any colour of mana (with no restrictions or additional cards needed), what would a modern decklist look like? Would people simply play the same decks and just have it run more smoothly? Or could there be some new brew that plays all the best modern cards in a single deck?
In other words, what cards would you run together in a deck if mana fixing was not an issue?
A foil Noble Hierarch that I pulled. At the time I was fairly new to magic and just thought "Oh, neato" and then I had someone explain to me that what I should have been thinking was "HOLY CRAP THIS CARD IS AMAZING AND CRAZY EXPENSIVE". I love it and have subsequently built a home brew modern Bant list just so I can fully appreciate it
I am really onboard with you descriptions of deck win strategies. Having read most of the other comments, it seems a lot of people are caught up trying to classify everything about a deck by its archetype. I feel that where this discussion is headed is towards better describing a deck. That is to say, within the aggro archetype, there are decks that burn and decks that swarm (and perhaps others of course and perhaps they win with a combination of strategies). So the question is, of what use is this new classification system?
Well, it can certainly help describe how a deck works in greater detail for others to better understand the ins and outs of a play style. However, new lingo only simplifies what we have already been describing. What I would suggest is to, first of all, explain what you feel this new system of classification is going to accomplish (not only to prove your proposal useful but also because I am just personally curious to hear your thoughts). Secondly, I would suggest that this system can provide a quick, easy, and extremely useful too in forming sideboard lists against the meta. Allow me to explain further.
Knowing the archetypes being played in a meta can help in forming a sideboard. If you know that it is aggro heavy, then you can sideboard the appropriate cards that fit your colours. But knowing that aggro is being played doesn't necessarily mean that your sideboard cards are going to help against each aggro deck because they differ in strategy. Being able to know the archetypes and the strategies being played can help better fine-tune the sideboard options you play. Also, if your colours do not provide you with cards that are good against aggro decks then perhaps by knowing which strategies are being played you can focus to find cards that help against a strategy. For instance, you don't have cards in your colours that can prevent against the combo archetype (like preventing combo piece assembly, or preventing multiple cards being played in a turn) but if that combo deck is a Storm deck that wins with a burn strategy, then you can form a sideboard to prevent a burn win.
Other big things can be dealt with Selesnya Charm, Reprisal or just simple bounce effects like unsummon. Green has Beast Within, blue has things like Rapid Hybridization and if you are playing with a lot of artifacts, Dispatch can act as an even better Path to Exile. Other multicolour options could be Bant Charm.Wraths also work well in getting rid of pretty much everything.
In other words, what cards would you run together in a deck if mana fixing was not an issue?
Well, it can certainly help describe how a deck works in greater detail for others to better understand the ins and outs of a play style. However, new lingo only simplifies what we have already been describing. What I would suggest is to, first of all, explain what you feel this new system of classification is going to accomplish (not only to prove your proposal useful but also because I am just personally curious to hear your thoughts). Secondly, I would suggest that this system can provide a quick, easy, and extremely useful too in forming sideboard lists against the meta. Allow me to explain further.
Knowing the archetypes being played in a meta can help in forming a sideboard. If you know that it is aggro heavy, then you can sideboard the appropriate cards that fit your colours. But knowing that aggro is being played doesn't necessarily mean that your sideboard cards are going to help against each aggro deck because they differ in strategy. Being able to know the archetypes and the strategies being played can help better fine-tune the sideboard options you play. Also, if your colours do not provide you with cards that are good against aggro decks then perhaps by knowing which strategies are being played you can focus to find cards that help against a strategy. For instance, you don't have cards in your colours that can prevent against the combo archetype (like preventing combo piece assembly, or preventing multiple cards being played in a turn) but if that combo deck is a Storm deck that wins with a burn strategy, then you can form a sideboard to prevent a burn win.
Interestingly, Oblivion Ring can actually target Emrakul, The Aeons Torn, but in general it is very difficult to deal with it on the spot. It can also be "countered" with Mindbreak Trap or stalled with Venser, Shaper Savant.
Other big things can be dealt with Selesnya Charm, Reprisal or just simple bounce effects like unsummon. Green has Beast Within, blue has things like Rapid Hybridization and if you are playing with a lot of artifacts, Dispatch can act as an even better Path to Exile. Other multicolour options could be Bant Charm.Wraths also work well in getting rid of pretty much everything.