I'm not really sure that this kind of splitting is a very helpful way of thinking about the game. I mean, Origins GB was aggro Elves, while Ravnica GB was grindy every-card-is-worth-1.5-cards graveyard abuse. Sometimes Black is an aggro color and sometimes it's a control color. Sometimes white is about Pillowforting the opponent and sometimes it's about loading up on +1/+1 counters. Even if you say something like "RW is weenie aggro", that doesn't mean a whole lot unless you have a sense of if weenie aggro is actually any good as a strategy. The mass pump spells they get are much, much better in some formats than in others. Compare Rush of Battle to Trumpet Blast. Blast looks like a much worse card but it was supported in its format way better than Rush of Battle ever was. In DDF, RW was barely even a deck at all, and if it was, it was about haste creatures and mana sinks.
Right, but you just came up with an example, GB, that has been a lot of different things in different sets. And that's the point and the utility in thinking about the game this way. Some color-pairs are more consistent in what their archetype is than others. I think being able to identify which is consistent and which isn't can be helpful just to better understand how Wizards puts together sets.
I'm thinking of this as fundamental building blocks of information.
You're absolutely correct that "RW is weenie aggro doesn't do you any good unless it's actually any good as a strategy." That's why it's only one piece of information. I think that a player needs to have a good handle of how to play a RW weenie aggro deck, and then depending on the format can pick that up depending on how the set comes together or not.
Also, I don't think most people really *want* color combos to be about some particular consistent playstyle. When WotC makes certain colors play the same in every format, they get boring and there stops even being a point to having different formats come out. The color combos that you call problem children are the ones I like best because they're the ones that change most frequently and do most of the interesting things. I don't see that as a problem, but rather as the way all the color combos should be.
I totally agree! But I think that's partially a reflection of how Wizards is trying to keep the color pie balanced, and then also keep sets interesting both to players that want more of a challenge, and then newer players learning the ropes, or just people who really, really, really love their RW weenie aggro deck.
So, again, trying to describe what's going on, but not saying that it is a good thing, I think there are some color combos that are more consistent. That can be good for a beginning really trying to understand the basics of how to play an RW aggro deck correctly, or some other consistent combo. And then some combos are more problem children, and that offers a lot of fun for someone who wants something new.
What I'm interested in is trying to sort of the color combos and describe how Wizards has usually put them together. Thanks for the responses so far!
I was listening to Maro's DTW on Khans of Tarkir (Part 4) and he got into a discussion about the White-Black Warriors archetype theme. Basically, Wizards knew they wanted a Warriors tribal theme somewhere in the set, and at the same time White-Black is a consistent color-pair that is challenging to design for. Rosewater compared it to White-Red, which is always going to be a weenie agro archetype (or almost always).
I started playing Magic with Return to Ravnica, so I don't have a full depth of remembering what archetypes have been consistent and what have changed more often, so I'm asking for some help putting together this list. I'm curious which color-pairs tend to be more consistent than others, and what their archetypes tend to be.
For the list of archetypes below, I'd love feedback identifying which ones have consistent archetypes, but also which even a consistent archetype has deviated from a trend. Also help in identifying the full range of different archetypes across the past Limited environments (go back as far as you want).
WU: This seems to usually be a "skies" strategy of getting enough fliers to finish things off, with a handful of bounce and removal/exile cards to keep the game under control.
UB: Curious about this one because control is hard to put together in limited with fewer removal spells. Sometimes it feels like the combination is just slightly different from the "skies" of White-Blue, the current Magic Origins environment has a small Blue-Black fliers archetype that's possible. Other times like in Theros the deck was more a Mono-Black draft around Devotion and Grey Merchant, with Blue just helping delay the game.
BR: Aggro, aggro, aggro. Probably one of the most consistent archetypes, right?
RG: Ramp aggro. Green is getting less ramp at the one drop slot, but the approach is still generally the same.
GW: Always seems to feel like a creature + combo approach. Heroic or Outlast with +1/+1 counters, little larger than the weenies of a White-Red.
WB: One of the problem children. Orzhov felt very, very different from Warriors in Khans, for example. I liked White-Black in Theros when it was another grinding color combination. I think usually it's an attrition approach, but not always.
UR: Another problem child? Usually the two colors have a "spells (instants and sorceries) matter" niche, but it's harder in Limited to showcase that. Magic Origins and other sets have also shown an "Artifacts matter" niche. At least in the last few sets this is the combination that has usually cared the most about Artifacts I think.
BG: Sometimes "Graveyard matters", sometimes more a niche of "sacrifice things for a benefit, plus creating tokens." Parts of Khans had a "toughness matters" theme to it. Seems more inconsistent because not every set has a strong Graveyard focus.
RW: Weenie aggro. Consistent color combination. I know there have been some more obscure "Defenders matter" archetypes in some sets, but that's not usually the case.
GU: Another problem child? Tempo + big creatures, but is that really an archetype? I can't think of anything that has really stood out about this archetype while I've been playing.
Would love some help from folks who have been playing longer. Thanks!
I think the Eldrazi will show up more often in Grixis. Black-Red is developing a colorless matters theme, and I think Blue-Black will be where Ingest shows up the most. Green and White will have Eldrazi, but just for balancce.
Well we also see Awaken in Black in the spoiled cards so far, so there could be a Black-White "awaken" matters theme. I wonder if you could have some Black cards that require you to sacrifice a permanent, with X impact if it's a creature, and Y impact if it's a land, so the awakened lands would have the biggest payout.
I'm so stoked for the colorless matters in Black-Red, but wish it would show up elsewhere too.
Blue-Black could have an Ingest matters theme, cards that utilize your opponents cards that have been exiled.
I wonder if they'd make a card with an Awaken cost cheaper than the Mana cost, that would have a negative effect towards you. Like, for example:
Roaring Tremors 4WW
Destroy all creatures. They can't be regenerated
Awaken 3 - 2WW
So in essence you'd get a cheaper version of the spell with the added cost of sacrificing a land.
Okay, so the "awakening" of your land happens before the spell resolves? Interesting.
I'm not sure that it does. You follow spells in written order. Awaken text says "also..." as if to say that it comes after the spell itself. So my assumption would be that all creatures would be destroyed, then the land gets counters and becomes a creature. This would actually be an upside, not a downside.
You could change the sweep to be read as something like "At the end of the next step" or "At the end of the turn" "destroy all creatures." But that's wordy and complicated in a way that I can't see WOTC printing.
It will operate a little bit like Kicker. Spells (it is not clear if it will be all spells or just non-permanents, the only example so far is a Sorcery) will have a standard casting cost and an Awaken casting cost.
If you pay the Awaken casting cost you will turn target land you control into a 0/0 Elemental with a number of +1/+1 counters dependent on the Awaken ability on the card. So you could have Awaken 3 or Awaken 5 or Awaken 1. The land has haste and is still a land.
Speculation:
Awaken will be in all colors, but may be more common in the standard land-awakening color of Green.
There may be space for spells or abilities, perhaps equipment, that are cheaper and/or more effective if they target Elementals/lands.
I think any Blue Awaken counterspell or bounce will be very popular, as would a Black removal. In a late game, a control deck can afford the higher mana and would like the flexibility in being able to turn a land into a finisher. These are the two card types I'm really looking for.
Artifacts have granted every color access to direct damage since the beginning. A damage-dealing spell that can be cast in any color isn't anything new, nor has it been a long time since we've seen colorlessdamagecards. Twobrid basically says "any color can play this, but play one specific color and you get this cheaper". And in the case of a colorless damage spell, it makes perfect sense that red gets it for cheap.
Not what I was getting at. I was talking about cards like Ghostfire that cost colored mana but deal colorless damage. Or Ancient Kavu, or Blazing Blade Askari, or Ghostflame Sliver, Ghostly Flame. It seems this space is Red, maybe a touch Black, but I wonder if you could have situations where Green gets the ability to turn its creatures colorless, for example.
If we get another Ghostfire type of card, I would prefer that they use monocolor hybrid mana ((2/W)(2/U)(2/B)(2/R)(2/G)) to preserve the feel of the card being colorless. Look at Flame Javelin; Ghostfire could work like that. Drop 1 point of damage and the card can scale pretty well at (2/R)(2/R).
Ghostflame (2/R)(2/R)
Instant (This card is colorless.)
~ deals 3 damage to target creature or player.
That brings up a separate question of if dealing colorless damage is open to all colors, or a reflection of specific color types (Red and Black being the likely ones). Something that is all monocolor hybrid could open up the door to direct damage in other colors that aren't supposed to have access, and I'm not sure if the higher cost would necessarily balance out.
Having a cycle of allied-color manlands leaves open finishing the cycle with enemy-color manlands.
WotC has admitted that in the past they favored allied-color support with lands and the like, but we're at a situation now where enemy-colors are supposed to be on a level footing. Right?
Why not have manlands in Battle for Zendikar? I think there are high expectations for a lot of fun land mechanics in the block, including other hopes like full art lands. Got to throw a bone somewhere.
I am generally interested in manlands as a supplement for control decks, so curious if any of the enemy-color pairs would really benefit from them ... but in any case it's fun to speculate and hope for!
I was thinking about Thopter Spy Network in a UB control where the slowness can fit, but I'm curious about a UG mix where you're ramping into it a lot earlier.
If there's anything above and beyond the usual emphasis on drafting two-color pairs in Limited, I would expect it to show up as enemy-colored manlands based on the idea of rounding out an empty cycle, and contrasting with Dragons where the emphasis was more allied-color pairs.
I've been testing a UG mill deck with Grindclock, Darksteel Citadel, and Orbs of Warding as activators, and it is quite strong. It serves as the win condition, along with Dictate of Kruphix and Sphinx's Tutelage. I'm pretty sure a more standard control deck would be even better.
I'm interested in this, what does your deck look like?
Right, but you just came up with an example, GB, that has been a lot of different things in different sets. And that's the point and the utility in thinking about the game this way. Some color-pairs are more consistent in what their archetype is than others. I think being able to identify which is consistent and which isn't can be helpful just to better understand how Wizards puts together sets.
I'm thinking of this as fundamental building blocks of information.
You're absolutely correct that "RW is weenie aggro doesn't do you any good unless it's actually any good as a strategy." That's why it's only one piece of information. I think that a player needs to have a good handle of how to play a RW weenie aggro deck, and then depending on the format can pick that up depending on how the set comes together or not.
I totally agree! But I think that's partially a reflection of how Wizards is trying to keep the color pie balanced, and then also keep sets interesting both to players that want more of a challenge, and then newer players learning the ropes, or just people who really, really, really love their RW weenie aggro deck.
So, again, trying to describe what's going on, but not saying that it is a good thing, I think there are some color combos that are more consistent. That can be good for a beginning really trying to understand the basics of how to play an RW aggro deck correctly, or some other consistent combo. And then some combos are more problem children, and that offers a lot of fun for someone who wants something new.
What I'm interested in is trying to sort of the color combos and describe how Wizards has usually put them together. Thanks for the responses so far!
I started playing Magic with Return to Ravnica, so I don't have a full depth of remembering what archetypes have been consistent and what have changed more often, so I'm asking for some help putting together this list. I'm curious which color-pairs tend to be more consistent than others, and what their archetypes tend to be.
For the list of archetypes below, I'd love feedback identifying which ones have consistent archetypes, but also which even a consistent archetype has deviated from a trend. Also help in identifying the full range of different archetypes across the past Limited environments (go back as far as you want).
WU: This seems to usually be a "skies" strategy of getting enough fliers to finish things off, with a handful of bounce and removal/exile cards to keep the game under control.
UB: Curious about this one because control is hard to put together in limited with fewer removal spells. Sometimes it feels like the combination is just slightly different from the "skies" of White-Blue, the current Magic Origins environment has a small Blue-Black fliers archetype that's possible. Other times like in Theros the deck was more a Mono-Black draft around Devotion and Grey Merchant, with Blue just helping delay the game.
BR: Aggro, aggro, aggro. Probably one of the most consistent archetypes, right?
RG: Ramp aggro. Green is getting less ramp at the one drop slot, but the approach is still generally the same.
GW: Always seems to feel like a creature + combo approach. Heroic or Outlast with +1/+1 counters, little larger than the weenies of a White-Red.
WB: One of the problem children. Orzhov felt very, very different from Warriors in Khans, for example. I liked White-Black in Theros when it was another grinding color combination. I think usually it's an attrition approach, but not always.
UR: Another problem child? Usually the two colors have a "spells (instants and sorceries) matter" niche, but it's harder in Limited to showcase that. Magic Origins and other sets have also shown an "Artifacts matter" niche. At least in the last few sets this is the combination that has usually cared the most about Artifacts I think.
BG: Sometimes "Graveyard matters", sometimes more a niche of "sacrifice things for a benefit, plus creating tokens." Parts of Khans had a "toughness matters" theme to it. Seems more inconsistent because not every set has a strong Graveyard focus.
RW: Weenie aggro. Consistent color combination. I know there have been some more obscure "Defenders matter" archetypes in some sets, but that's not usually the case.
GU: Another problem child? Tempo + big creatures, but is that really an archetype? I can't think of anything that has really stood out about this archetype while I've been playing.
Would love some help from folks who have been playing longer. Thanks!
I'm so stoked for the colorless matters in Black-Red, but wish it would show up elsewhere too.
Blue-Black could have an Ingest matters theme, cards that utilize your opponents cards that have been exiled.
You could change the sweep to be read as something like "At the end of the next step" or "At the end of the turn" "destroy all creatures." But that's wordy and complicated in a way that I can't see WOTC printing.
Awaken will be an ability in BFZ.
It will operate a little bit like Kicker. Spells (it is not clear if it will be all spells or just non-permanents, the only example so far is a Sorcery) will have a standard casting cost and an Awaken casting cost.
If you pay the Awaken casting cost you will turn target land you control into a 0/0 Elemental with a number of +1/+1 counters dependent on the Awaken ability on the card. So you could have Awaken 3 or Awaken 5 or Awaken 1. The land has haste and is still a land.
Speculation:
Awaken will be in all colors, but may be more common in the standard land-awakening color of Green.
There may be space for spells or abilities, perhaps equipment, that are cheaper and/or more effective if they target Elementals/lands.
I think any Blue Awaken counterspell or bounce will be very popular, as would a Black removal. In a late game, a control deck can afford the higher mana and would like the flexibility in being able to turn a land into a finisher. These are the two card types I'm really looking for.
Any other ideas?
Not what I was getting at. I was talking about cards like Ghostfire that cost colored mana but deal colorless damage. Or Ancient Kavu, or Blazing Blade Askari, or Ghostflame Sliver, Ghostly Flame. It seems this space is Red, maybe a touch Black, but I wonder if you could have situations where Green gets the ability to turn its creatures colorless, for example.
That brings up a separate question of if dealing colorless damage is open to all colors, or a reflection of specific color types (Red and Black being the likely ones). Something that is all monocolor hybrid could open up the door to direct damage in other colors that aren't supposed to have access, and I'm not sure if the higher cost would necessarily balance out.
Having a cycle of allied-color manlands leaves open finishing the cycle with enemy-color manlands.
WotC has admitted that in the past they favored allied-color support with lands and the like, but we're at a situation now where enemy-colors are supposed to be on a level footing. Right?
Why not have manlands in Battle for Zendikar? I think there are high expectations for a lot of fun land mechanics in the block, including other hopes like full art lands. Got to throw a bone somewhere.
I am generally interested in manlands as a supplement for control decks, so curious if any of the enemy-color pairs would really benefit from them ... but in any case it's fun to speculate and hope for!
I'm interested in this, what does your deck look like?