This was meant as a comment at how the MH1 seems to have immense impact on the format while the dust from WAR hasn't really settled yet.
@ajfirecracker Might be, doesnt really matter here. "Fetchland" is just even more of a vague term than "Xerox" and will have new or even experienced players asking: What makes this a "Fetchland" Deck and not all these other Decks that all clearly use fetchlands as one of the most important parts of their manabase?
This is basically the kind of question we want to get away from since people are confused why some decks are considered "Xerox" and others are not, while both use a ton of cantrips (and cantrips often beeing cited as a feature of Xerox Decks)
@ajfirecracker This is a fine categorisation, but replacing "Xerox (Control, Aggro, Tempo...)" with "Fetchland (Control, Aggro, Tempo...)" just replaces one non disciptive term with another.
What's your favorite name for the broad category of decks that includes Delver and Jeskai Mentor and Rug Pyromancer and Snapcaster Control?
While i think its fine to put Delver, Jeskai Mentor and Rug Pyromancer together in one category, the outlyer seems to be Snapcaster Control, or any Deck that is a control deck, but is currently classified as Xerox just because it uses Restricted draw spells and a number or preordains. I would make a distinction between Tempo Decks and Control decks. This is a strategy that works quite well in other formats, and currently iam not aware of a reason why it shouldnt work in Vintage.
In legacy there exist a bunch of Tempo decks (using delver, shadow, pyro or mander as threats) and seperate from that there exist decks like Grixis Control, UWr Control and Miracles. They all have in common that they use a similiar cantrip suite in 4x Brainstorm, 4x Ponder and then some preordains or even other cantrips. This doesnt make them all Xerox decks in the eyes of the legacy players. It just makes them blue decks, using cantrips but following very different strategies.
Do you think the way the lines are drawn between archetypes now makes sense? Do Delver and Jeskai Mentor belong in different categories? Outcome and Storm? Should any categories be combined, like Landstill and Big Blue?
I would advocate for a naming convention that consists of a unmistakable combination of keywords
- Main categories of : Combo, Control, Tempo, Aggro, Midrange, Prison
- Specific cards or mechanics: Storm, PO, Dredge, Survival, Landstill, Delver, Stax...
- Color idedification: UW, monobrown, UWR, Grixis...
- Conventions, localisation, credit: Long.dec, trix, european style...
I think every deck can be described by just a few of these keywords.
For example if we take a list that is currenly might just be called "UR Xerox" you have no idea weather this is a Tempo Deck or a Control Deck, it might play delver, it might play Pyro, it might not play any of these and pack a bunch of snapcasters.
Here i would advocate for naming something: UR Delver, UR Control, UR SnapPyro ...
Just dont bunch of all these decks together with "Xerox", rather split them up and bunch them together with the other big categories like Tempo or Control.
What sort of user interface changes could be made to promote those stated four goals, regardless of what the categories are named. Feel free to think outside the box and suggest features the site does not currently support.
Change the "Decks to Beat" section on the Front Page with "Vintage Metagame" and have the big Categories presented there: Combo, Control, Tempo, Aggro, Midrange, Prison. Each of them offer a short discription of the archetpye and a primer to the most common Decks in this archetype as well as all threads about decks in this category. Keep in mind some of them might fit into multiples like Ravager Shops, which in my opinion is Aggro and Prison and should be displayed in both those categories.
There is a problem here ofcourse, how do we get all these primers up, and how can you make sure that each thread lands in its category? I still believe that a tag system is the key to categorisation. I know it didnt work in the past, because way to few people used the system, but i think making it mandatory to choose at least one of the huge archetypes as a tag before beeing able to submit a "Decks" thread would take care of that.
The other problem is ofcourse who writes these primers? We could just hope that the glory that comes with beeing the big primer everybody sees when looking for a deck is incentive enough. Maybe you could give poople the "TMD Supporter" or another batch to give them something in return for writing and maintaining a primer. For these primer threads i would like to see that the original post is updated to adjust for reasonable meta changes to always display a current decklist and strategy. A possibility to choose which primer is selected to be the face of a decktype you could maybe automatically display the post (tagged with primer) that has the most upvotes currently, making it kind of peer reviewed (hopefully not making it a popularity contest) A Problem with such a system could be that older primers could amass a ton of upvotes compared to newer primers, not representing the "best" primer neccesarily. To combat this there could be a "must have been updated in the last x month" clause to be considered as the primer of choice.
@msg67183 DPS sadly does also get hit by a lot of the stuff. Rod, Stoney and REB/Pyro aren't as brutal, but MM, Flusterstorm, Lavinia, FoW and Trap still hit us pretty hard. If you switch to DPS let me know, iam interested in your list then.
@ajfirecracker said in Anti-Dredge Strategy - from a Dredge Expert:
Even if you accept that you should Mulligan until you hit a Leyline, the most valuable Leyline is the 1st one you put in your deck - each subsequent Leyline (starting already with the 2nd) suffers from diminishing returns
Each Leyline above the first ups the probability of you having it in your opening hand, making your strategy of mulliganing to the first one incredibly bad if you only play 1 and way better if you play the maximum amount of leylines.
I really dont get why this is even an argument at all... You play 4 bazaars, not because you always want a second bazaar but because you really want to have a bazaar in your opening hand, you should be very familiar with this concept.
@ajfirecracker it seems like you clearly do not understand the basic concept of probability